Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheRealAnonTheAnon
Files uploaded by TheRealAnonTheAnon (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:FANART of My Little Pony.
Lord Belbury (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The subject of the image is of a robot unicorn that isn't specifically from My Little Pony. According to the link, "There is no copyright in a commonplace pre-existing element" -- this is a re-creation of a robot mare inspired by the artstyle of MLP. TheRealAnonTheAnon (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't a generic commonplace horse, though, it's drawn in the style and colour scheme of an existing copyrighted character. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect, while they may look similar, the art style in this image is very distinct from the existing copyrighted character, both in terms of linework and shape design. Furthermore the copyrighted character in question is neither a robot nor has the number "15" etched on their body. On the subject of color schemes, from what I have managed to gather, these are not subject to copyright law. TheRealAnonTheAnon (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't a generic commonplace horse, though, it's drawn in the style and colour scheme of an existing copyrighted character. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's your own drawing of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Sparkle with a few extra lines to suggest "robot", and the number 15. It's fan art. The Commons guideline on fan art has some examples of just how obtuse and generic fan art has to get before Commons can accept it and rerelease it to the world for commercial reuse, and I'd say that this close a depiction wouldn't clear that bar. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per same rationale that File:15.ai logo.png was deleted. Note that various IPs and SPAs have been defensive in the use of this artwork which violates Commons rules; to the point where one of them called me a slur in the process. Wizzito (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do think that's a drawing of "a pony" - purple, robot bits and number tattoo aside. If TheRealAnonTheAnon is right in saying this is "a drawing of a robot horse inspired by the artstyle of that show", and implying this was done from scratch, why does the colour scheme seem to belong to one of the talking horses from the copyrighted show? However, I disagree with Lord Belbury - I do think this hand(?) drawn drawing is much too bad to be considered in the vectorised(?) computer animated style common to modern cartoons that I think that cartoon uses. Walt Disney or whomever, does not possess a monopoly on purple horses, and yet the colour scheme does seem similar to one of his characters. Is a colour scheme on a character of the same species enough for a copyright claim? But these arguments don't strike me as particularly strong, erring towards "Why bother at all?" than "Delete it just to be safe.". or "Keep it".
- So, I don't know, but I'd like to hear more from other people, because I disagree with half of both arguments- if this was 10 days ago, we could have made make it 50% opaque.
- Contributer232312 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could this potentially be moved to English Wikipedia under WP:FAIRUSE? The most similar case I know of is the dril profile picture (both being representative images of a subject that violate someone else's copyright), which was in fact deleted; however, that was at least partially influenced by the picture being used multiple times in the article, whereas here it could be used just once in the infobox. Sobsz (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, it's a logo for a website? It wasn't in use anywhere when I nominated it, and the descriptions don't mention it. Probably, then, although that's a question to ask at Wikipedia. The Horse_ebooks article seems okay with fair use image of someone else's copyrighted horse, at least. It just can't be on Commons with a licence allowing unlimited, unpaid, commercial reuse. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The image in question is indeed the logo and the favicon for https://15.ai/ which is why the picture was uploaded to be used in the wikipedia entry for the website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15.ai TheRealAnonTheAnon (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, it's a logo for a website? It wasn't in use anywhere when I nominated it, and the descriptions don't mention it. Probably, then, although that's a question to ask at Wikipedia. The Horse_ebooks article seems okay with fair use image of someone else's copyrighted horse, at least. It just can't be on Commons with a licence allowing unlimited, unpaid, commercial reuse. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep I agree with the "Why bother at all?" take. This drawing is not fan art of a character designed by someone with the initials LF. It's a custom-made drawing of a robot unicorn that was specifically made for 15.ai's Twitter profile. As a gift of sorts, if I understand it correctly. It's better than no image on the article, and makes it look nicer. I see no compelling reason to delete it. Dogman15 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete . I agree with Belbury, I think there would be sufficient grounds for complaint from the copyright holder if this fan image was laundered with a new license, it bearing elements from one of their characters. I think it would well be fair use on Wikipedia, but it falls foul of the precautionary principle for wikimedia commons by being a horse in the same colours. Why not upload it to Wikipedia, instead? Contributer232312 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete Per COM:FANART guideline and COM:PRP policy. Same color scheme and general shape and readily identifiable as en:File:PrincessTwilightSparkle.png (not just the character, but this specific version of the character, not the earlier toy or the later shows); this is not a generic robo-unicorn. Transformation/parody works for fair use, but Commons isn't the place for that. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep There is no reason to delete the logo. It isn't a copyrighted image, nor does it depict a copyrighted character, even if it is inspired by one. Nobody owns the right to Unicorns, or the colours of purple and blue, and there are significant differences between it and the copyrighted character it somewhat resembles. Disney's anthro fox Robin Hood is copyrighted, but Robin Hood of mythology is not. Likewise, "twilight sparkle" is copyrighted, but a purple robot unicorn is not.
Bluntly, this smacks of an attitude common to wikipedia editors where spurious reasoning is used to justify deleting images that do not break any rules, but are nonetheless considered to be inappropriate because they are "too fun". This achieves nothing but edit wars such as were seen over the Tandy 1000 cat etc. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:11FE:6C80:41FA:E569 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete per VernoWhitney. Anyone familiar with Twilight Sparkle will immediately recognize the logo as Twilight Sparkle. Hasbro is very vigilant about enforcing its copyright as detailed at the en:Them's Fightin' Herds article, which opted to have Lauren Faust contribute significantly different character designs rather than simply adding some lines and a number to their existing assets to comply with the cease and desist order. 93 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Derivative of copyrighted work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)