Difference between revisions of "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cultural sincretism in mexican toys.jpg"

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(File:Cultural_sincretism_in_mexican_toys.jpg)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
***Welcome to the asylum ;) seriously, deletions has no moral side. Don't bring ethics into this feud. Some "German and European Commons users" contribute thousands of photographs ''knowing'' that they breach "silly and grossly overdone rules"<sup>[Yours truly does it, too]</sup>. Yet other "German and European Commons users" nominate file after file after file for breaching these rules ("No FOP in Italy. Sorry. Duralex.")<sup>[Yours truly does it too, again. Bipolar disorder?]</sup>. Guess what? 9 out of 10 anonymous copyright-warriors trace to German Arcor/Vodafone networks. And they are "valuable contributors" too, and apparently have their own insight into what's silly and what's overdone. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 
***Welcome to the asylum ;) seriously, deletions has no moral side. Don't bring ethics into this feud. Some "German and European Commons users" contribute thousands of photographs ''knowing'' that they breach "silly and grossly overdone rules"<sup>[Yours truly does it, too]</sup>. Yet other "German and European Commons users" nominate file after file after file for breaching these rules ("No FOP in Italy. Sorry. Duralex.")<sup>[Yours truly does it too, again. Bipolar disorder?]</sup>. Guess what? 9 out of 10 anonymous copyright-warriors trace to German Arcor/Vodafone networks. And they are "valuable contributors" too, and apparently have their own insight into what's silly and what's overdone. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 
****{{comment}} To apprecite those toys you have for example [[:File:Mexican paper mache figures 01.jpg]] by the same author. Although I do not know if that one is also a {{tl|derivative}}: have their respective authors copyright or not? --[[User:Dodo|Dodo]] ([[User talk:Dodo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 
****{{comment}} To apprecite those toys you have for example [[:File:Mexican paper mache figures 01.jpg]] by the same author. Although I do not know if that one is also a {{tl|derivative}}: have their respective authors copyright or not? --[[User:Dodo|Dodo]] ([[User talk:Dodo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  +
*****{{comment}} With this type of mentality and inquisition-like behaviour, we may as well erase every single image of possibly objectionable material, logos, cars, signs, faces, etc., etc. and close down Commons. Every man-made object is then, under this mentality, subject for deletion. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
   
 
{{comment}} The language and rationale that user Ecemaml uses to promote the deletion of this image is contradictory and flawed. He states that the image is derivative work, and preemts in that manner the [[Commons:De minimis|De minimis]] principle, instead of the other way around. One can argue that De minimis in this case has better legal references to laws than the explanation on derivative works. On the other hand, considering the spirit of the law on [[Commons:De minimis|De minimis]], the offending part of this image is really incidental, and that is the key here. The illustration has to be viewed as a style, and could have been any type of western-style cartoon, copyrighted or not, and therefore, the appearance of these particular images are incidental, generic. The photograph is a photograph of sets of different toys, not a particular toy. The interesting part of this image is precisely the mixture of cultural elements and how they express themselves in a particular manner in a society. Furthermore, I do wish to point out that user Ecemaml and user Dodo have had run ins with me in the past regarding some images and have failed to bring forth sound arguments to the table, so I am inclined to think that is could be a personal vendetta, for lack of a better argument. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 
{{comment}} The language and rationale that user Ecemaml uses to promote the deletion of this image is contradictory and flawed. He states that the image is derivative work, and preemts in that manner the [[Commons:De minimis|De minimis]] principle, instead of the other way around. One can argue that De minimis in this case has better legal references to laws than the explanation on derivative works. On the other hand, considering the spirit of the law on [[Commons:De minimis|De minimis]], the offending part of this image is really incidental, and that is the key here. The illustration has to be viewed as a style, and could have been any type of western-style cartoon, copyrighted or not, and therefore, the appearance of these particular images are incidental, generic. The photograph is a photograph of sets of different toys, not a particular toy. The interesting part of this image is precisely the mixture of cultural elements and how they express themselves in a particular manner in a society. Furthermore, I do wish to point out that user Ecemaml and user Dodo have had run ins with me in the past regarding some images and have failed to bring forth sound arguments to the table, so I am inclined to think that is could be a personal vendetta, for lack of a better argument. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
   
 
{{vd}} The Disney artwork takes up nearly a quarter of the whole picture. The rest shows third parties' artworks whose copyright status is undetermined. OTH, {{u|Tomascastelazo}} is the one bringing here conspiracy theories and personal attacks instead of further arguments. Regards. --[[User:Dodo|Dodo]] ([[User talk:Dodo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 
{{vd}} The Disney artwork takes up nearly a quarter of the whole picture. The rest shows third parties' artworks whose copyright status is undetermined. OTH, {{u|Tomascastelazo}} is the one bringing here conspiracy theories and personal attacks instead of further arguments. Regards. --[[User:Dodo|Dodo]] ([[User talk:Dodo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
{{comment}} A visit to your talk page or ecemaml clearly points out to what could be interpreted as either nasty, or incompetent behaviour, or both. Complaints about you abound. you, ecemaml and I had a nasty run in in the past, and I personally question your imparciality in this issue. Instead of looking for images to delete on bogus grounds, for I doubt that Disney would ever trouble itself in complaining about this image, therefore De minimis would be acceptable, I think you should use your time in either looking for real violations or perhaps even uploading relevant encyclopaedic material. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:09, 29 June 2011

File:Cultural_sincretism_in_mexican_toys.jpg

The work is unfortunalelly a derivative work of Disney princesses picture. Althought it's not the central element of the composition, it's indeed very relevant and therefore De minimis cannot apply Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep De minimis applies in this particular case for several reasons:

  1. The picture itself is not meant to depict the Disney characters, but rather the style of popular Mexican toys.
  2. How much of the part of the characters identifies them as Disney characters? The faces? The dresses? If I were to block the faces, the dresses would hardly be identifiable as Disney characters.
  3. The use of the “offending” part of the image is rather useless for commercial reproduction, for the inclined plane and cropping make it unviable. Images of these subjects for commercial use abound in the internet and outside the internet.
  4. Even if I were to take the offending part of the image, the rest of the content speaks for itself as an illustration of folk toys in Mexico, that is to say that the illustrations are by no means the central part of the image.
  5. This image was taken in a public market, in a public street, where freedom of panorama exists.

On the other hand, this image illustrates a toy tradition in Mexico, and it is useful to illustrate cultural elements of Mexican life. In this image we can appreciate the syncretism of toys and their elements: style of cartoon characters of western origin, such as the Disney characters and the paper mache dolls and the masks of Indian origin and tradition. On top of that, we can appreciate type of toys and materials. I believe that this is a relevant, academic and encyclopaedic image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • "we can appreciate the syncretism of toys" - perhaps, but not on commons. Toys have no place on commons unless they can be certified PD-Old, or unless the deletion request is closed by a very liberal sysop. A homemade folk figurine, in the eyes of deletion "consensus", carries as much copyright weight as Disney's or Mattel's. NVO (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Please be reminded that this "consensus" for toys does not exist, and at least a great number of German and European Commons users think it is pretrty silly and grossly overdone (= copyright paranoia). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Welcome to the asylum ;) seriously, deletions has no moral side. Don't bring ethics into this feud. Some "German and European Commons users" contribute thousands of photographs knowing that they breach "silly and grossly overdone rules"[Yours truly does it, too]. Yet other "German and European Commons users" nominate file after file after file for breaching these rules ("No FOP in Italy. Sorry. Duralex.")[Yours truly does it too, again. Bipolar disorder?]. Guess what? 9 out of 10 anonymous copyright-warriors trace to German Arcor/Vodafone networks. And they are "valuable contributors" too, and apparently have their own insight into what's silly and what's overdone. NVO (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To apprecite those toys you have for example File:Mexican paper mache figures 01.jpg by the same author. Although I do not know if that one is also a {{derivative}}: have their respective authors copyright or not? --Dodo (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With this type of mentality and inquisition-like behaviour, we may as well erase every single image of possibly objectionable material, logos, cars, signs, faces, etc., etc. and close down Commons. Every man-made object is then, under this mentality, subject for deletion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The language and rationale that user Ecemaml uses to promote the deletion of this image is contradictory and flawed. He states that the image is derivative work, and preemts in that manner the De minimis principle, instead of the other way around. One can argue that De minimis in this case has better legal references to laws than the explanation on derivative works. On the other hand, considering the spirit of the law on De minimis, the offending part of this image is really incidental, and that is the key here. The illustration has to be viewed as a style, and could have been any type of western-style cartoon, copyrighted or not, and therefore, the appearance of these particular images are incidental, generic. The photograph is a photograph of sets of different toys, not a particular toy. The interesting part of this image is precisely the mixture of cultural elements and how they express themselves in a particular manner in a society. Furthermore, I do wish to point out that user Ecemaml and user Dodo have had run ins with me in the past regarding some images and have failed to bring forth sound arguments to the table, so I am inclined to think that is could be a personal vendetta, for lack of a better argument. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The Disney artwork takes up nearly a quarter of the whole picture. The rest shows third parties' artworks whose copyright status is undetermined. OTH, Tomascastelazo is the one bringing here conspiracy theories and personal attacks instead of further arguments. Regards. --Dodo (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A visit to your talk page or ecemaml clearly points out to what could be interpreted as either nasty, or incompetent behaviour, or both. Complaints about you abound. you, ecemaml and I had a nasty run in in the past, and I personally question your imparciality in this issue. Instead of looking for images to delete on bogus grounds, for I doubt that Disney would ever trouble itself in complaining about this image, therefore De minimis would be acceptable, I think you should use your time in either looking for real violations or perhaps even uploading relevant encyclopaedic material. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)