Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wikimedia Cuteness Association at Wikimania 2017

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.

Files in Category:Wikimedia Cuteness Association at Wikimania 2017

[edit]

The photograph fails to meet the official guidelines of COM:TOYS, specifically:

When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.

There has been no evidence presented that the toys are public domain.

For an in-depth background and explanation of Commons copyright policies, refer to the Stuffed Animals essay and the precedent of prior closely related deletion requests: Petit tigre, Erminig, Wendy the Weasel & Percy Plush, Wikimania 2014 Day 1, Jimmy Wales meeting Mr Penguin.

Fæ (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. The purpose of these photographs is to document Wikimania 2017, not to describe the toys in question. Therefore these fulfil the requirement of de minimis incidental inclusion. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a very special way to define de minimis, that presumably you only expect to apply to Wikimania. In the example of File:Guin at Wikimania 2017.jpg, the filename has a focus on "Guin" the toy penguin, the center of the photograph and its focus is "Guin", the description (that you wrote) explains that the photograph is about "Guin". Given these circumstances it is difficult to understand how the photograph should now not be about the copyrighted toy penguin, but somehow about something else.
However if you want to supplement our guideline COM:DM with a copyright law exemption for Wikimania or other WMF funded events, then please do make a proposal for the community to discuss. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a pro photographer I strive to respect copyright law, but as a human who could use more cuteness in their life this mass nomination depresses me. Funcrunch (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    People taking toys with them, in order to have them photographed at Wikimania, has been discussed many times. There were several people who crocheted their own 'mascots' and avoided any issues of copyright as a result, so Commons hosts many of those photographs. Creating and celebrating "open" copyright free mascots for events, seems an ideal approach rather than creating photographs which can not be legitimately shared on our "open" projects. --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep need to provide actual evidence of copyright infringement. or you might well be renowned as being "not cute". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep As per Slowking4. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Can we get a proposal together to permanently change COM:L and COM:PRP to make an exception to copyright for when the photographer is a friend of ours?
Or in baby speak that middle aged Wikipedians seem to need at open knowledge conferences:
Please help me. My mummy works hard making toys for other children. She has seen her toys being used by Wikimedia to promote their projects and we cry together because nobody cares about giving her credit for her work and we cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Please nice Wikipedians, read the label my mummy stitches on her toys, and give my mummy credit for her work so that future children can enjoy her cute toys.
--Fæ (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
on the contrary, i have been pretty consistent decrying the biting of everyone here. (i.e. [1]) and the fact thick skinned veterans know the ropes to contest is a bias. as a prolific contributor, why do you stoop to this battleground? do you hate cuteness, as treacle and facebook? it is not harming your images in use. surely you grow tired of the endless copyright purity; wouldn't you agree we need a standard of practice, that triages licenses from higher risk to lower risk? and aren't these low risk? -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Low risk? That's a strange statement, these toys are purchased with labels on them stating they are copyrighted. As a commonly purchased item for children, stuffed toys are a massive global commercial market and their copyright is vigorously defended. Any photograph focusing on a modern child's toy needs to meet COM:TOYS. There's no room for doubt and wiggle room, where the focus of a photograph is on the toy, we must be able to verify that there is no copyright issue.
"These toys are purchased with labels on them stating they are copyrighted" are you sure? I've just looked at a random selection of seven of our plush toys and only three of them had an explicit copyright statement on the label (Keel Toys, Card Factory and Nickelodeon), the others (ZSL/London Zoo, George Home/ASDA, Whimsy and Suma Collection/Ravensden PLC) make no statement of copyright at all (although the "Suma Collection" logo is noted as a trademark). They are probably copyrighted but that is not certain and anyway the presence or absence of an explicit copyright statement is irrelevant to whether the toy is deminimus in any given photograph. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is not strange at all: low risk as opposed to scans of paintings in German museums. this community decided to take on real risk of lawsuit with PD-art to push an ideology. how do you want to spend your time? curating images by seeking out those that pose a risk to uploaders and reuser, or endlessly bloviate about edge cases, where you do not have a consensus? hard to calculate tail risk, but show me the toy DMCA or lawsuit, and we will know what the risk is. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If "cuteness" == "ignoring copyright", then yes it is disruptive and undermines this project's policies. --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Slowking. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those that focus on one or a group of toys (even if there are cookies or glasses next to them) -- it is fairly clear when the photographers is taking a photo of cute toys and not of a speaker. I don't think it is reasonable to delete a speaker who happens to be holding a toy or has some toys in front of them, for the same reason we don't worry if a t-shirt has a copyright design or there is a painting behind someone. However, if we have two similar photos but in one they are holding their mascot, then I don't really see the argument for including the latter on Commons. Tbh, all this toy/mascot stuff belongs on Facebook, not Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This gallery may help. Here are two toys, do they fail to meet COM:PRP and are there good copyright reasons to keep one and not the other? --Fæ (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I've checked a random sample, and most meet de minimis. If the nominator wishes to re-nominate those that do not, that's up to them, but it's not incumbent on me nor any other volunteer to do so, in response to such a scattergun proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, a better approach will be to celebrate that we can legitimately ignore copyright of these toys. We could use them to illustrate future project merchandise, like t shirts, or editathon promotions. The tiger, penguin and the giraffe toys are especially useful to presume as public domain. --Fæ (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, you have successfully missed every single point raised by Andy's comment. If you're happy with that, then it's fine, but if you actually care about copyright you'd do far better to explain why each of these images is not deminimus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Burden of evidence is on keep, not delete. If anyone thinks the toy giraffe has no copyright, they should provide evidence. Policy does not require chocolate teapots. PRP. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming the giraffe (or any of the other toys) has no copyright - that's a straw man. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, "straw man", is not a way to dismiss basic copyright law in a DR. Copyright law is not my opinion. Copyright law is not a straw man. On the other hand what you are doing is logical fallacy 101, you are demanding chocolate teapots, by demanding proof of copyright protection for any photograph on Commons that gets put up for deletion, rather than accepting the precautionary principle exists and is supported by community consensus.
If we respect Carl's opinion, then every photograph with fewer than 6 toys in it should be deleted as failing de minimis.
However, unless Wikipedians have special privileges on Commons for hosting their personal collections of photographs, this also means that in future for anybody to get around copyright law, they only need to get six objects in a photograph and make the identical claim for how to understand "de minimis" in any country, for any variation of copyright act.
Damn handy, and it should be enshrined in Commons policies. If nobody else does it, I'll put it up as a proposal for a policy change.
Examples in the listed files in this DR that fail the "Carl test":
1 toy
3 toys
4 toys
--Fæ (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again that's a straw man - nobody is arguing that these toys do not have copyright protection. You assert these all photographs with copyrightable plush toys in are copyright violations because plush toys are copyrightable objects. Others have responded with "yes, plush toys are copyrightable, but these images are not copyright violations because the copyrightable objects are deminimus." and/or "these images are not copyright violations because the work is transformative.". The precautionary principle states: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." (italics in the original, bolding mine), it does not state that all files one person asserts are copyright violations should be deleted. Your job now, if you want to see these images deleted, is to rebut the assertions that the copyrightable objects in these individual files are not deminimus and the work is not transformative. You have not done this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not my "job" thanks.
If the community consensus is that we should ignore copyright, for copyrighted toys taken to Wikimania, then let's keep them. But let's also fix policy to make it clear that Wikimania photographs, or perhaps photographs taken at all WMF funded events, are a special exception to Commons policies and copyright law. We can then create a release template to make it clear. It makes sense for the same exception to apply to WMF employee photographs, making them immune to deletion requests.
By the way, the "transformative" argument, means that Wikimedia Commons now accepts photograph uploads under a Fair Use copyright release. We should add that explicitly to COM:L if that is going to become a new type of exception. --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the straw men! People are not arguing for special treatment or for copyright to be ignored, they are actually just arguing that these should be treated the same as any other image that contains copyrighted (or potentially copyrighted) objects - they are examined individually to see whether the copyrighted image is deminimus or not, and/or whether some other reason applies and kept or deleted depending on that determination. Whether the copyright object is a toy or something else is not relevant. Whether the image was taken at a WMF event or not is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, exclamation marks do not prove a case. You literally just stated "because the work is transformative" is a valid rationale to keep photographs of toys. That is not a strawman, those are your words. Please point to where in Commons policies we will keep photographs of copyright works under a fair use transformative rationale. Either stick to policy or make a proposal to change policy, but do not argue against copyright law and expect to win a prize when you exhaust everyone else and scare away our few unpaid volunteers that help out with identifying copyright violations. That's not how Commons should make decisions about copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transformative is not my argument (de minimus is) but you are missing the point yet again. Your assertion is that "all images with copyrightable toys in are copyright violations." This argument is fully refuted by the counter argument that "In some images copyrightable toys are de minimus and so not all images featuring them are copyright violations." The question is then, is the copyrightable toy in each individual image de minimus? Several people have asserted that in either some or all of these images the toy or toys are deminimus - the only way to refute this is by looking at each individual image and making a judgement - but you have not done this, you have just repeated your initially argument that is fully refuted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repasting other people's faulty arguments, apparently expecting me to respond to them, while repeatedly claiming "strawman!" is not helping this DR.
If you now are saying that the fair use transformative argument is rubbish, please state that clearly, rather that using it as a way to game the system and take this DR on fake copyright tangents.
Please link to a diff where I stated "all images with copyrightable toys in are copyright violations", if you just made it up, please strike it as it is a deliberately misleading fake quotation.
Honestly, you appear to be blatantly gaming. If you quote me again, please supply the diff or I will continue to call you out as creating fake evidence. --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the "transformative fair use argument" is or is not rubbish - I'm saying that other people have used images being transformative as a reason why (some of) the copyrighted toys in the images are de minimus. They may or may not be correct but you have not attempted to refute the argument. As for your claims re images of copyrighted toys, it is a reasonable paraphrase of several of your posts in this discussion, including your opening nomination statement, where you completely ignore de minimus. I am not gaming, I'm trying to get you to actually listen to other people in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Maor X (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep without prejudice to individual nominations of those images which are arguably not deminimus with a specific explanation of why the nominator believes that image is a copyright violation.. Most of these are clearly fine, so a mass nomination this large is not appropriate - it has long been established in actual court cases that simply containing a possibly copyrighted object does not necessarily mean the photograph is a derivative work - consideration needs to be given to the content and circumstances of each image. Commons does not benefit from the deletion of works that are in scope and not copyright violations. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Please quit using Wikimedia community insider status as a channel for seeking special privileges in intentionally and overtly circumventing the copyright law which the Wikimedia platform seeks to respect. Let's leave the past behind and please take the Cuteness Association forward in the only viable direction it can exist: either use public domain art or fundraise to buy an original stuffed animal artwork from Etsy from an artist, and acquire the copyright to that work. This association is behaving highly irrationally for no obvious reason and flouting the rules is not model behavior. The group behind this really could do well by respecting artists, copyright, and designers and teaching these respect to others by using stuffed animals and artwork with Wikimedia compatible licensing. Please do the right thing, cease erroneous ways, and start over with respect to cuteness and copyright! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "association". It's just @PierreSelim: @JeanFred: and I who brought our plushies at Wikimedia events fo a variety of reasons, and other Wikimedians liked this and started bringing their own stuffed animals and taking pictures. Léna (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep most, transformative or de minimus. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03 30 March 2019 (GMT). 21:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fae, all files in Commons must have equal treatment; toys, rabbis, imams, WMF people. Please show me any WMF person whose personal image has a dubious status and I will propose it for deletion. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those to be deleted as in similar cases and keep those which are PD (DM etc) as in similar cases. I would boldly call in a voluntary admin to begin deleting the files not acceptable per COM:TOYS, even before closing the DR, as absolutely we will not make any discrimination among contributors here. That way the issue will be solutioned more pragmatically, easier and quicker. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding is that these are "mascots" (see Wikimedia mascots) and that it is customary to bring them to events, and pose them as if they are Wikimedians taking part in Wikipedia. The earliest mascot I am aware of is Rory(WMF), dating back to 2012, whose job description was to "provide moral support". I routinely photograph Wikimedia events for the purpose of documenting outreach. Twenty-seven of the images proposed for deletion were contributed by me. They were all taken during Wikimania in Montreal, and the category was created by me as well, so the people I photographed would be able to find them after the event. I was asked to email photos but there is no way I would have been able to find the time for all of that, and the alternative was not to share the photos. I don't know why this category is being singled out for deletion out of all the other mascot and plushie categories and sub-categories, and I don't know how anyone who was not at the event was even able to find the photos. They are not marked or categorized by company or manufacturer, in a way that could be found by search engine, or labeled as toys, only by the Wikimedia event, in a fairly esoteric subcategory tree. The "meetup" was an impromptu gathering after the official Wikimania photo, when individuals with mascots hung around and started taking selfies of themselves with their mascots. I simply stayed around and took photos of whatever was going on at the time, to show what happens at Wikimania. Many Wikimedians do have fond memories of these events and want to remember them. The photo of the giraffe was taken at the request of a young Wikimedian from the Netherlands who I requested to photograph, but she wanted me to photograph the animal instead, which she told me was the official mascot of WMNL. I think she wanted to show her Wikipedia group at home. She posed it for me (on top of a piano I think), but later I saw she took some photos of her own with a cellphone, which have since been deleted, as were the other photos I took for her. The photo was definitely not taken to advertise a particular brand of giraffe.

I do not consider myself to have some kind of special "community insider status". I traveled to Wikimania at my own expense, and even though I was invited to present, I could not get a waiver of the conference fees. The camera equipment likewise was purchased at my own expense. We have asked the WMF for help with travel expense and camera lenses, but were refused a grant.

Likewise I do not consider taking photos at Wikimania to be an act of "intentionally circumventing copyright law". If there is anyone who is intentionally putting these animals on lecterns and so forth to destroy copyright law as we know it, I am not aware of it. We work very hard to understand the complex and ever-changing copyright and fair use rules, and have traveled to the Library of Congress National Book Festival, again at our own expense, to obtain photographs of authors suitable for Wikipedia. If these are invited by the LOC they are probably all "notable". Even so, my images are sometimes removed from articles. If someone just wants to remove one of my photos and replace it with one of say, Slowking's, for whatever reason, I don't have a problem with that, but for example my photo for Sylvia Acevedo, the CEO of the Girl Scouts was rejected for Wikipedia, also Brian Selznick and Jewell Parker Rhodes, whose articles do not have any photo at all. Trying to contribute to Wikipedia can be like death by a thousand cuts.

If someone wants to delete these mascot photos, please do a thorough search and delete them all at once, instead of a steady drip drip drip of negative messages on my talk page. I am adding a few more representative photos containing mascots, for comparison.

I have tried to look for some of these on google image search and tineye, but I cannot find any information about them, and they do not seem to be recognizable, like a Pokémon or Barbie or even a knockoff of a known brand. They do not look like characters, just generic animals. I am also trying to visualize some CEO deciding to sue Wikipedia for taking pictures of our volunteers enjoying their products, and how that would play out as a PR device, and I can't visualize that either. Instead of going after individual photographers piecemeal, it might be better to address the issue, whatever it is, on a more systemic level, either prohibit these at events altogether or provide some system for vetting the animals. It is not clear how anyone can show that "a toy is in the public domain" or what public domain has to do with copyright. I really don't see buying a copyright as a viable alternative, how would you choose a firm to provide mascots to represent Wikipedia, or would you just ask for a donation and list them as a sponsor? These are not just products either, that can be interchanged like light bulbs, any more than people can interchange their children with someone else's. If you watch people with them, the mascots are more like family members, people regard them more like pets or companions. Avery Jensen (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This DR is not one of "complex and ever-changing copyright and fair use rules", as the copyright law it is related to (commercially produced toys) has not changed for decades. The first image in your gallery is a copyright violation, the others are either considered reasonable because the toys are neither the focus of the photograph and are visually a minor component of the photograph, or there are no toys visible in them.
To avoid the 'drip drip drip', rather than leaving volunteers to discover and review copyright violations, when you press your button, make sure you understand what copyrighted materials you are photographing and the features of copyright law in the country you are taking the photograph in. Knowing whether freedom of panorama exists in the country you are photographing in, is something that it is reasonable to expect a good photographer to have an understanding of.
By the way, the toy tiger was probably purchased from "Wild Republic", try a Google image search on "Wild Republic Tiger Cuddlekins Toys". However as has always been the case, a Wikimedian who works with the chapter or group that brought it to the meeting, could be asked to look at the label, or just say where they bought it from. The burden of evidence for copyright remains on the uploader, not the few Commons volunteers with an interest in verifying copyright of our collections. --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it is the burden to continually justify an upload 2 years later. and uploader bears the risk of lawsuit. which of course is why you waited, since attentions move on.
Fæ - you went to wikimania london; i take it you are never going to a meetup again? because dumping on those who do, might get you unloved? i invite you to enter into a spirit of collaboration, helping uploaders meet your standards beforehand, not deleting years after the fact. you can continue down this road, but it will be a lonely one. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a rather personal and threatening sounding attack on the nominator, don't you think? A pattern of "scare away our few unpaid volunteers that help out with identifying copyright violations" should be avoided as unhealthy. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not an attack: a prediction. we have a surplus of battleground deletionists; we see the continual scaring aware of new uploaders. we know what a broken, unhealthy community looks like - perhaps you would care to behave in a healthy way. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are wrong Slowking4. When you wrote "Fæ - you went to wikimania london; i take it you are never going to a meetup again?", this appears threatening and personal, a comment you would expect to come from someone stalking you.
The wording appears deliberately chosen to make me feel unsafe to ever physically attend a Wikimedia funded event to meet other Wikimedians, and implicitly anyone else that might be interested in Wikimedia funded events and might think it reasonable to create a deletion request about copyrighted toys at Wikimedia events.
This is not an overreaction, this a factual reading of your text above, and the words you are choosing fit every conventional definition of harassment. --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
there are consequences for behavior: if you do not play nice with others, you should expect others not to play with you. you want to call that harassment, go for it. it is an environment of your own making. your lack of attendance is notable. the world wonders. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per nom, COM:TOYS, and PRP. Copyright law trumps "photos of Wikimedia events are inherently in scope".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Carl Lindberg, I'd focus this DR on the photos which are unquestionably dominated by a toy and which clearly reproduce most of it, namely lion 1, 2 and 3, giraffe, grey animal. Nemo 16:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all those which do not have the toys dominate the image, and Crop any where there is actual use of enough of the toy image to rationally be used as a copyright infringement claim. Including all those where nothing other than the toy is featured. I suspect virtually all of the images are fully salvageable, to be sure. Collect (talk)

Deleted: I kept some photographs because a reasonable de minimis related argument can be made for them. I deleted the obvious cases. We have long established that community toys/mascots aren’t excluded from com:TOYS or even com:licensing. I understand that some might find it hurtful to see photographs of their mascots deleted but that as well isn’t a reason to keep a file. If someone disagrees with a file being kept: please feel free to re-nominate the file(s) on an individual basis or in smaller batches. If someone has a reasonable/valid argument why one off the stuffed animals on one off the deleted photographs is de minimis. My talk page is always open. If I agree that your argument could have merit I’ll undeleted and re-nominate the file so we can have a separate discussion for that specific file. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Wikimedia_Cuteness_Association_at_Wikimania_2017&oldid=345156911"