Commons:Deletion requests/File:ShimajiroDisplayChina.jpg
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.
Copyrighted character. [1] G I Chandor (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- @G I Chandor: I am aware Commons does display cosplays of copyrighted characters, but not up-close displays of product packaging with copyrighted characters, nor plush toys (as those are copyrighted too). What about a general view of merchandise with no focus on a particular one product? How do Japanese law (Shimajiro originates from Japan), Mainland Chinese law (this took place in China), and American law (as Commons is hosted in the US) apply to this case? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Copyrighted characters not indicated as free-use are not accepted in Commons. The board on which en:Shimajirō was drawn is big. Not de minimis.--G I Chandor (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- @G I Chandor: The big Shamjiro board can be cropped out. Would that be sufficient to satisfy copyright requirements? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WhisperToMe: I don't have authority to judge. It might be a good idea to ask administrators.--G I Chandor (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to me that either a crop or a Gaussian blur would be reasonable in copyright terms, but the photo might lose its interest. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I double-checked the image... I think that while it's de minimis it's still recognizable enough as Shimajiro products to have interest. I'm interested in seeing what it's like with a blur. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- @G I Chandor: The big Shamjiro board can be cropped out. Would that be sufficient to satisfy copyright requirements? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Copyrighted characters not indicated as free-use are not accepted in Commons. The board on which en:Shimajirō was drawn is big. Not de minimis.--G I Chandor (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep and either blur or crop out the board. The resulting image will still show the way the company displays some of its products. Daphne Lantier 08:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the subject of the image needs to be acceptable. Even if you crop out the cutout on the left, the rest of the content is still subject to copyright restrictions. A picture of two pieces of art or 10 pieces of art is no less problematic than a picture of one piece of art. You can see examples at Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines. If this image was broader, showing more of the store, you could argue that it was intended to show the store and that the display is unavoidable and essential but still de minimis. But as it stands, the photo is clearly intended to show the merchandise on display, and the merchandise is copyrighted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would say this would fall under example #5 of Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines. Daphne Lantier 20:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Daphne Lantier: I can certainly see why you would say that, but in this photo, it's not the shelf that's the key subject of the image, it's the copyrighted merchandise. In the example 5 of those guidelines, the content of the banners/photos is not referenced, for example, in the title of the image. They are photos of a ceiling and a room. That's not the case with this image. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I've seen other examples of copyrighted merchandise being presented in a "safe" way such as File:Yaoi Books by miyagawa.jpg. Do you believe that image is acceptable or not? If this image is acceptable, how does it compare with ShimajiroDisplayChina.jpg minus the poster? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Daphne Lantier: I can certainly see why you would say that, but in this photo, it's not the shelf that's the key subject of the image, it's the copyrighted merchandise. In the example 5 of those guidelines, the content of the banners/photos is not referenced, for example, in the title of the image. They are photos of a ceiling and a room. That's not the case with this image. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would say this would fall under example #5 of Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines. Daphne Lantier 20:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the subject of the image needs to be acceptable. Even if you crop out the cutout on the left, the rest of the content is still subject to copyright restrictions. A picture of two pieces of art or 10 pieces of art is no less problematic than a picture of one piece of art. You can see examples at Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines. If this image was broader, showing more of the store, you could argue that it was intended to show the store and that the display is unavoidable and essential but still de minimis. But as it stands, the photo is clearly intended to show the merchandise on display, and the merchandise is copyrighted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm certainly no expert here, but personally, I can't clearly see any artwork on the spines in the yaoi photo, whereas I can clearly recognize the multiple examples of a specific character in the shimajiro image, mostly in the artwork attached to tops of the shelves, but also in some of the books and on the screen. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- I viewed the yaoi pic at the full resolution. Some of the spines do show artwork of characters (who would have to be copyrighted) and I see a partial image of a book cover. It's all very low resolution. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: The only thing in the image that is in reasonably good focus is the copyrighted character to the left. If it is removed, then the rest of the image is too far out of focus to be usable. If it were in focus it wouold infringe on the various copyrights. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
