Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbie dolls

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:Barbie dolls

[edit]

See COM:VPC#Dimension of derivative works: photos of copyrighted toys are derivative works of the toys. This leaves only a few photos in the category which I believe are either de minimis or ineligible for copyright. Some of the photos are actually not toys but packaging with complex art.

Stefan4 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • With reference to File:Early Barbie doll en suite 01.jpg and File:Early Barbie doll en suite 02.jpg (admittedly not among my better photos), and possibly some others here (I haven't looked through the batch) I would guess that the only elements here that were copyrighted and had their copyrights renewed are Barbie and Ken, who make up a pretty small portion of the pictures, albeit arguably constitute its main interest. But I'm not weighing in either way on the issue, you're welcome to delete these if people think it actually raises a copyright problem. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So dollhouses aren't copyrighted? In that case, those two pictures are probably fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But note COM:FOP#United States: "The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." I'm not sure if a dollhouse is permanent, stationary or designed for human occupancy. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - there can be no question that dolls are protected by copyright under US law and that Barbie is covered by that. de minimis aside (eg a picture of a child's room or a shelf full or mixed toys) we can not keep any images of Barbie. --h-stt !? 11:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - indeed, these images constitute derivative works of copyrighted material. According to Commons:Derivative works, "action figures do not have utilitarian aspects and are therefore generally copyrighted as works of fine art." These images (barring the ones pointed out above) seem no exception. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I dont understand why you would want to delete these.(File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG). It is not copyright violation if you use the image of an item that is copyrighted in a creative commons sense, especially if that image was taken by an individual (such as the one I quoted, which I took). Memory Alpha does that all the time with respect ot screen caps from various Star Trek shows/movies - which are all copyrighted materials. With that regard, you might as well then delete all pics on wikiepdia because what they photograph is copyrighted in one way or another. Image File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG was modified by me in terms of how the doll's hair is done and how she is dressed. The original dolls wasn't even dressed like this or looked like this. By that account, every person who uploads a picture of a fashion doll on flickr, let's say, would be prohibited from doing so. And everyone taking a picture of a barbie they want to sell on ebay is also also violating copyright? SOFA and PIPA havent become laws yet. This just doesnt make sense. --CarrieBee (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all. The main problem I see here, and with these kind of multiple nominations, is that none of the pictures were taken by the same person in the same place. Multiple countries permit a total freedom of panorama—including 3D and 2D art, somes with the condition that should be taken in a public place (File:Sunning (2179966897).jpg), but public place is not necessarily a park or street; or even if the toy still copyrighted in the country of origin. If you want to delete them you have to investigate where they were taken, if the toy still copyrighted and then nominate them onr-by-one. Tbhotch™ 22:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Other example of what cannot be considered a copyvio or fair use is File:Study of a murder on a Barbie figurine.jpg, where the toy is not visible at all. Tbhotch™ 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The sculpted details are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With rare exception, countries with FOP only include permanently installed works. File:Sunning (2179966897).jpg was taken in Hawaii, and FOP doesn't apply at all for sculpture in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless tagged with {{FoP-Israel}} or anything similar, I think that we have to assume that photos of dolls are unfree per COM:PRP. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Unfortunately, I don't believe any of these images qualify for Commons (for reasons stated by others above). However, several of them would most definitely qualify as "fair-use" for use on Wikipedia. That being said, most of these aren't exactly "first-class" images and I believe most could easily be removed without much detriment to their respective articles (no offense to any of the photographers, but many appear rather "amateurish"). The remaining images that appear to be well-done could be reuploaded to their repsective Wikipedias with "fair-use" rationales (although I admit that will create a lot of "busy work" for the editors left to do the "clean-up"). I'm not a "professional" photographer, but I have access to a large assortment of Barbies (from various eras) and could easily take some nice professional looking photos to fill in some of the "gaps" that may result after the majority of less-than-steller images are removed. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all, for the reasons that Tbhotch mentioned above. Acdx (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It would appear that the copyright on Barbie dolls was renewed, making the vast majority of these non-free derivative works, which are strictly prohibited on Commons. There does seem to be consensus to keep File:Polaroid Barbie Pink Instant 600 Film Camera.jpg, so I've done that. FASTILY (TALK) 23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Barbie dolls

[edit]

See COM:TOYS.

Stefan4 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Barbie dolls

[edit]

Derivative works per COM:TOYS.

— Racconish 💬 09:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Barbie dolls

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS

— Racconish 💬 09:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Barbie dolls

[edit]

Copyrighted 3 dimensional figure, violation of COM:TOYS.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Barbie dolls

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS, Barbies are copyrighted by default. Excluding an advertisement that would need its own copyright notice and a few de minimis cases.

A few have tags indicating there was not copyright notice, but every box I've found from the relevant time period includes a copyright notice (for example [1] [2] [3]). It's hard to dig up the box for exact models, but the burden for that is likely on those claiming there was no copyright notice rather than the other way around.

Nominating photos from an exhibit in Italy, which does not have COM:FOP. Excluding museum exhibits in places with FOP (like those in Category:Barbie Expo), but I suspect those should be nominated, too, as temporary exhibitions rather than "permanent displays". Leaving those for someone else, though.

See also: the many other nominations on this page for the same reasons.

— Rhododendrites talk |  20:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Per the nominator and past DRs where the same or similar images were deleted. Not to mention at least a few of these are questionably in scope to begin with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Catwoman Barbie.jpg We have been through this before with sculptures of artworks. The image is okay in Australia due to it being a free country (ie one with FoP). It is CC in the US because I took the image and licensed it as such. WMF legal has fought and won cases on this basis before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • FOP is typically just for things situated permanently in a particular location (The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display.). The idea is to exempt things like buildings and major public art. I'd be surprised if Australia were different in that regard, but I'd be happy to be wrong. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard about any WMF legal battles over FoP. If you cite the case, then we can be edified by the details, the arguments, and the resolution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete both for the obvious reasons and because it would indirectly kill the ridiculous debate currently going on at w:talk:Barbenheimer Dronebogus (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, exporting disputes from enwp to Commons is unhelpful, and might even push annoyed Commons admins to lend more credibility to the other side. If you opt to remove that part of your comment, you're welcome to remove this response, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the image being used on Barbenheimer for page relevance and out-of-copyright information on the image page. Please do not remove the comment above (you can strike words out) as an example of bias pertaining to the RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn, as you did in the last vote, you've used the argument that the image shouldn't be deleted because it's in use. But that's completely besides the point since we don't keep copyright violating works just because they are used. The argument is that the "out-of-copyright information" is incorrect, and you have not engaged with those arguments made in the nom. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per the well argued nom. It is possible that some of these are public domain but without evidence (and per COM:PRP) we can't keep them based on a possibility Cakelot1 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least think out of the box and leave the image that's on the Barbenheimer page alone. You don't think if Mattel wanted it taken down they would have contacted someone? The page has had 1.4 million plus views since a photo of Barbie has been up-front, and of those views I would think that the Mattel company, its attorneys, its law clerks, its board of directors, and its secretaries would have clicked on the page and know that one of their dolls is being featured. They all know it, yet nobody got on the horn or filed a complaint. Mattel is perfectly happy having it up there! That's obvious, and because the copyright is still being questioned, and literally nobody cares to legally contest its use, at least leave it until this unique film-combination period moves along a bit and the page goes back to normal viewing. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nobody has complained yet" isn't a reason for keeping anything. Images on Commons must be usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose. Our policies are in place to protect not just Wikipedia, but everyone who uses the content. If someone would be opening themselves up to litigation by taking our Barbie photos, putting them in a book or on a poster, and selling them, we cannot host it. People need to know when they go to Commons that the license is reliable. "But it's used in an article" is irrelevant. If you would like it to be used in an article and not hosted on Commons, that's what en:WP:NFCC is for (for local uploads to Wikipedia). There's probably a good case for NFCC when it comes to the main Barbie article. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Would you or someone please add the Vintage Barbie 2 cropped to the Wikipedia files (The one being used on Barhenheimer now)? I'm not computer savvy enough to add it and yes, the Barbie page could argue for it for sure and the Barbenheimer page could have a good case. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't there's much chance you'd get an WP:NFCC Rationale for the Barhenheimer page. As to the main Barbie page Wikipedia would probably want a clearer and up to date image than "Vintage Barbie". Best to leave it until/if this deletion happens. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^^ If you're going the en:WP:NFCC route, you can pick an ideal photo (like one from an official Mattel website, even), then just upload it locally to wikipedia and follow the prompts to explain why it qualifies for NFCC. Actually, it looks like the main Barbie article already has a couple non-free images: en:File:MattelBarbieno1br.jpg and en:File:Oreo Fun Barbie.jpg. If you wanted to upload another one, you could use the templates on those pages as a template. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't do uploads on my computer, which is why I asked. The image used on Barbenheimer fits that page well and serves as a counterpoint to an image of Oppenheimer within a double-image. The reasoning for its use at Barbenheimer would be as representative of the portrayed character per the use of the Oppenheimer image. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn, it "fitting" or looking good isn't enough to get for WP:NFCC unfortunately. Even in the main barbie article I can't think of any non-free justification (the section doesn't say anything about the barbie in question). representative of the portrayed character, simply isn't a strong enough reason. And non of this is a reason for keeping it on commons, which is what we are discussing here. (I have the original flikr upload bookmarked so if there is suddenly an extremely good WP:NFC based reason I can always upload it to wp, although this sort of discussion should really be happening at w:Talk:Barbenheimer) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment FYI, this and this. Nyxaros (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom noted there doesn't seem to be any evidence of Pd-no-notice, and non was provided in those DRs. The user asserting no-notice doesn't seem to be the photographer so it doesn't seem wise to take that without evidence. Mdaniels5757 (and the closer IronGargoyle), if there's some obvious evidence of there not being a copyright notice on this particular barbie (when others at the time had them), it would be much appreciated if you could point it out. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Per nom, we'd need evidence of no copyright notice on the original boxes to justify keeping the images. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Barbie_dolls&oldid=816410210"