Commons:Deletion requests/File:Playmobil Krippe mit diversem Zubehör.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:DW; uploader had removed copyvio tag. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All these are not derivative works of copyrighted works. These are simply photos of toys, which are not copyrightable in Germany as simple works of applied art. Brand rights or other commercial competition laws may well apply, but are not what we consider a deletion reason on the Commons. If you want to formulate and informed deletion request, you may do so, but I have removed the "speedy deletion" tags since I consider them totally wrong in these cases. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: The paragraph on "toys as art" on COM:DW does not apply here. These are not (copyrightable) comic book figures or similar artworks made into toys, but are just toys desinged by a toy designer (as is a spoon by a spoon designer). It's good and simple design, but it's not "art" at all. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are (small) three-dimensional statues, much more artistic than simple flat comic book drawings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is, legally, total crap. Have you any idea about the German copyright law? Please read w:de:Schöpfungshöhe. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that German courts would regard this kind of toys as de:Gebrauchskunst, but it is certainly copyrighted. The only remaining question is whether a photo would be an infringement. If you claim that your photo does not violate the author's rights, it is your job to demonstrate that with references to the legal literature. I tried to argue that here for Aalto vases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, per nom, and because apart from his intimate conviction, AndreasPraefcke has provided no proof that those toys are not eligible for copyright. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Playmobil. –Tryphon 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How difficult is it to understand that the bloody US and UK "copyright" does not apply to most of the rest of the world? We do not have any "copyright", and hence there is no possibility to show proof that they are "not eligible for copyright". So, please could you show proof that they are eligible for "Urheberrecht"? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep a) Keine Schöpfungshöhe. b) As these objects are industrially manufactured and sold in supermarkets as toys, and not in galleries as artistic work, they shouldn't be protected as "original work of the mind". -- smial (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Agreed with smial. --Guil2027 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Toys are certainly subject to copyright in the United States, and while these toys are manufactured in Germany (or, at least, by a company whose headquarters is in Germany), they are sold in the United States and Commons' servers are in the United States, so we cannot keep them.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is IMHO a stupid argument. Public sculptures are subject to copyright in the U.S., and still we keep them if the freedom of panorama in the country of the photograph allows it (liek in Germany or the Netherlands). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but irrelevant. These toys are copyrighted in the USA because they are sold in the USA. Sculptures in Germany do not have a USA copyright.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]