Commons:Deletion requests/Stanford Bunny images

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.

Stanford Bunny images

Files affected include all in category:Stanford bunny:

• file:Stanford Bunny.stl
  • in use at Wikidata and de, en, es, ja, lv, and tr Wikipedias
• file:computer generated render of the "Stanford Bunny".jpg
  • in use at de, en, ja, tr, and zh Wikipedias
• file:mesh bunny.png
  • in use at en, es, and uk Wikipedias
• file:Stanford bunny qem.png
  • in use at Wikidata and ar, en, fr, he, hy, mk, ru, uk, and zh Wikipedias
• file:convert to STL.svg
  • in use by template:convert to STL; likely eligible for COM:REVDEL once a different example is used in another version uploaded on top
  • Update: now using Suzanne instead

The ceramic model from which the Stanford Bunny was scanned is likely nonfree, see commons:village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03#category:Stanford bunny(linked to indicate precedent attempts at discussing this, not because that section is still open for discussion...it isn't, because it's archived; but a new discussion on the topic can be opened at COM:VPC if desired) Arlo James Barnes 22:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You can not delete this. The file is free to use as long as Stanford Scanning Lab is credited. I have done this. You should do some checking before marking things for deletion. "likely nonfree" is not good practice. You should seek proof of this before putting items for deletion. https://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep I will be following up on this. Zzubnik (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do help me follow up on this, I wanted to bring this issue to the community's attention first in the village pump and now here not to be destructive but so that we can have clarity on the status of the model. Per COM:PRP, the burden of proof (of the community, not any one member of it, I should be clear) lies with showing that a file is free, not with assuming that it might be; after all, most contemporary works are governed by the Berne Convention or similar copyright policies that make works nonfree regardless of the opinion of the creator, until they are explicitly released. In this case Stanford is not the creator, they scanned a pre-existing work (which I assume is analogous to taking a photo for the purposes of COM:TOY, just in 3D). And you are quite right that I personally cannot delete any of these files since I don't have the user rights, a closing admin will either delete or not delete (or selectively delete) based on the merits of arguments and evidence put forward here. Arlo James Barnes 22:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to go with whatever the rules dictate. However, I would add that the 3D model I used is not the original data. I recreated the topology as the original data are messy and difficult to work with. None of the original 3D points exist in my model, however, they are placed in a manner to represent the original. I will leave it up to smarter minds than me to decide on this, however, it is a shame that this information would be lost forever, it is a part of computer graphics history. Thank you for your explanation of the position. Zzubnik (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about loss of info, the original Stanford site is still up and archived by several web repositories, and I've saved all five of these images to my hard drive (and I doubt I'm the only one). Not to mention wherever files are stored such that the undeletion process can revive them (which could be a possibility in some decades, since we have a latest-date of creation of the figurine). The question is just whether the WMF ought be serving a copy in the present. Arlo James Barnes 23:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that while for most of these files the copyright situation is the only one that Commons cares about, for file:Stanford Bunny.stl there is also the question of whether there are patents (including design patents) that pertain to the ceramic model or Stanford's scan of it. Arlo James Barnes 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: the SVG is now using a different model. Arlo James Barnes 23:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Kept: most, deleted some. These 3D computer graphics people should have stuck to teapots, then we could say it's a utility object and basically be done with the problem. Unfortunately, the original terracotta rabbit used for this is not a utility object, it's also clearly above the threshold of originality IMO, and since it was bought in 1993 or 1994 it must be assumed to be in copyright. So any clearly derivative work of this original figurine is not ok for Commons. The question is what is still a derivative and what is just, let's say “inspired”, by the original. I don't know if there is clear precedent for this in US law as far as scans for 3D computer graphics are concerned. So I've gone ahead and deleted the one file that looked very similar to the original rabbit (File:Computer generated render of the "Stanford Bunny".jpg) and also deleted the first revision of File:Convert to STL.svg which was using that file, but kept the others. I'm not sure if that is the “correct” outcome or if it is too arbitrary. Feel free to re-nominate or request undeletion if you disagree and want further discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)