Commons:Deletion requests/Star Wars images

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.

Star Wars images

[edit]

These images are a violation of COM:DW --Kanonkas(talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep You can't copyright an outfit...or a costume. Dressing up as a character, whether from a movie or a book, or from a comic book does not constitute derivative work; primarily because in photographs there is no question that the character depicted is not, in fact, a true adequate representative of the character in context of the movie, or the book. Bastique demandez 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can. That's why the category says "Please do not upload pictures of action figures, masks and costumes"... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Some of these are straight copyvios Image:Yoda Fountain 2.jpg, but others are fine Image:Spike TV Nicole.jpg. There are some that will need some thinking about: we don't allow pictures of action figures and other bits of merchandising because courts treat them like sculptures, but we never seem to have a problem over actors in costume (or on set) if the photo is itself properly licensed. --Simonxag 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with the Yoda Fountain image. But the rest--there are precedented debates, but I went further this time and discussed it with Mike Godwin. Copyright belongs to the photographer in any case. The question is actually one of trademark, and whether any of these images can be mistaken for a product of LucasFilms. In practically every case, no; meaning that there is no issue. (Would any of these be used to illustrate an official publication about Star Wars? Unless the topic was Star Wars culture or costuming, not at all.) Bastique demandez 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Can you provide a link to the discussion with Mike Godwin? I would have said most (though perhaps not all) of the images are deriv works, and would be deletable along the lines of COM:FAN. In particular images of props like Image:Sebulba's pod racer.jpg would be protected by sculptural copyright in the same way as any toy or model would be. Megapixie 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionally vote to  Keep all "cosplay" pics, unless it can be shown very specifically that photographs of people dressed in costume are copyright violations (as opposed to photographs of the costume in its original packaging...). A general non-specific "derivative works" claim does not appear to adequately cover this particular type of case. AnonMoos 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these can be considered derivative works regardless of the costumes.

Some of these I definitely think should be speedied:

-Rocket000 13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How are these images with artwork in the "background" substantively different from many other images with advertisements etc. in the background, which we normally don't delete for that reason (unless the copyrighted material is the main subject of the image)? AnonMoos 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Commons:De Minimis... AnonMoos (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Well, Cary says he talked it over with Mike. Who am I to say Mike was wrong? He's a lawyer, I'm not. But I'd really like to see the reasoning. Here's my take on this:
  • Fashion is, AFAIK, not fully copyrightable in the U.S., because it is a useful article. The purpose of clothing is to cover the (human) body. You cannot copyright the exact cut of a piece of clothing, but maybe you can get a design patent if it's truly novel. Just google for +fashion +"copyright law"... The top hits look all like good information, just look at [1] or [2]. A textile design may be copyrighted, though, just as any other graphic work.
  • Costumes of fictional characters are a different beast, though. The Spiderman costume clearly came to life in the comic, and I would say it's copyrighted because of that. You can't make your own drawing of Spiderman and publish it just like that, can you? The costume is a derivative work of that original drawing, and the photo of someone wearing such a costume is again a derivative work of that costume and thus a derivative of the original comic. Hence copyrighted.
  • I would also argue the same for the Star Wars costumes. These are, IMO, not "useful articles". Their primary purpose is not to cover the human body (although the movies would look hilarious if all the actors were naked, and they'd gotten an "adult only" rating for sure :-)), but to convey specific traits of the characters portrayed. These costumes were designed in the movies' storyboards expressly to elicit a certain effect with the audience: it's no coincidence that the Startroopers all wear these strange masks and shiny body armor. It's no coincidence at all that Darth Vader is clothed in black and has a black helmet/mask. It's no coincidence either that the good guys wear ragged clothes. I would contend that these early decisions of the filmmakers are so integral to the whole movie and original enough that the precise costumes chosen might well be copyrightable. In fact, I'd be surprised if the makers of that movie (Lucas film, I think?) did not have a copyright on these outfits. They do have (or at least claim!) copyright over toys like "action figures" in the shapes of the protagonists. (As do other film makers, just take a look at the Harry Potter or the Jack Sparrow toys.) Apparently, these are considered derivative works of the movies.
  • On the Star Wars costumes, please also see Star Wars costume-maker strikes back against George Lucas, Times Online, April 7, 2008. (Also [3] and [4] at the Guardian, and many more.) Evidently these costumes are copyrighted... even if now George Lucas and the designer argue about whose copyright that is. (Unfortunately, IPKat mentions this case only in passing, and although the April 7 articles said the case was expected to last ten days, I have not seen anything on the outcome. Maybe User:MichaelMaggs knows where to find the court ruling?) Note that a U.S. court already has ruled in favor of Lucas, so in the U.S., we certainly should treat these as copyrighted.
  • Dressing up in a bought Star Wars costume is not a copyright violation. The whole point of selling these costumes is presumably that people dress up. The manufacturer of such costumes would have a license from Lucas film. But staging a public performance would, I think, require a license from Lucas film. And possibly a photo of such a performance would need to be cleared by Lucas film and by the performer. Just dressing up in such a costume and handing out candy to kids (or whatever) probably isn't a performance, but any photo of that would still be a derivative work of the (copyrighted) costume.
  • The above is my layman's opinion. With what little I know, I would say we should  Delete these. And if that's wrong, I'd really like to see good arguments (not just "Mike said so", please). Maybe Mike could explain where that's wrong? And why then are Lucas and the designer fighting in court over it? Lupo 14:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The 2006 U.S. case was Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Shepperton Design Studios Ltd, 2:05-cv-03434-RGK-MAN, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), with this final verdict in favor of Lucasfilm. The UK case seems to be Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Andrew Ainsworth, HC060C03813, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. Lupo 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo, I know how extensively you love to research this stuff, and I'm afraid I have very little time to devote to this one matter.
You repeatedly refer to "Mike", which I find insulting, for the first part. I offered more than simply, "Mike said so". I have offered good arguments, that the photographs of individuals dressed in costume do not constitute a copyright infringement so long as the individuals are not shown in context, i.e. "staged" as you mention. These people are not staged in a particular public performance, they're waving in a car, going to a party, smiling at a camera. There is a clear difference in context. Your remark that "any photo of that would still be a derivative work of the (copyrighted) costume" does not apply to these images because the copyright no longer applies when it's out of context. Bastique demandez 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's insulting about that? It was never my intention to insult anyone. Lupo 10:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Shepperton Design Studios case centers on a company that is manufacturing knockoff Star Wars merchandise for profit. Nothing like that is happening here. Instead, we're talking about a photograph, whose copyright is held by the photographer, not Lucasfilms. The "costumes" referred to in the complaint are *actual costumes*, not photographs. The Andrew Ainsworth case is similar -- defendant is accused of selling copyright- and trademark-infringing *replicas*. Whatever a photograph is, it is not a replica. Moreover, even a photograph of an infringing replica is itself not an infringement. MGodwin 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm? By that reasoning, I could have my friend make an infringing (say) X-wing model, and if I took a photo of it, I'd be free of any claim of copyright infringement (though my friend would not)? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if the "actual costumes" were copyright infringements, how can derivatives (i.e. photographs) of them not be? Could I make a free derivative, say a costume, based on these photographs of costumes? Or is this some kind of loophole that only applies to photos of costumes (and not vice versa)? If so, this is good news! For example, Image:Darth Vader.jpg would be great to illustrate Darth Vader in those Wikipedias that don't allow fair use. Maybe spend a little more time on the costume and it could be just like the real thing! Who needs fair use? :/ Rocket000 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this reasoning. Are you saying that a photo of a copyrighted 3D work or of a replica of a copyrighted 3D work was not a derivative work of that 3D work? Go take Image:Darth Vader.jpg, have T-shirts printed with it, and sell those. Would that be ok to do without a license from either Lucasfilm or Disney or both? Frankly said, I doubt it.
Besides, why did you create a new account? Now there's User:MGodwin and the older account User:MikeGodwin. Who's who? Lupo 10:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Lupo - we have two Mike Godwin accounts - why? --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he might just have forgotten that he already had an account here... anyway, I've asked him at en-WP about this: en:User talk:Mikegodwin#Accounts on Commons. If both are him, it's fine, but if not, I think we should know. Lupo 10:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys. When Lupo pointed that out, I was very skeptical... I didn't want to press the issue (AGF, I guess), but I think it needs addressing. Rocket000 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. Both are indeed en:User:Mikegodwin. See en:User talk:Mikegodwin#Accounts on Commons. Lupo 21:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to hear. Thanks, Lupo. Rocket000 07:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't understand what's that with replicas. A copy in the sense of the copyright law need not be a "replica". Ask Jeff Koons, whose 3D-sculpture was deemed a copyright violation of a 2D photo! See Rogers v. Koons. Clearly, a 3D sculpture is not an exact "replica" of a 2D photo, but it's a derivative work. Here, I think we have the inverse: photos of the copyrighted 3D helmets and costumes are derivative works. Lupo 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Derivative works. I looked at computer mouses in form of Darth Vader and Startrooper and they are clearly bear Lucasfilm copyrights sign. I don't think that other Star Wars merchandises are different in any sense. --EugeneZelenko 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to go with Cary and Mike on this one.  Delete the obvious derivative works, like the Yoda statue, and  Keep the cosplay stuff. Kelly 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per EugeneZelenko. I'm no copyright expert. However, at the very least, if the ones described as "possibly speedy" ones by Rocket000 were in the speedy deletes while I was working on them I would delete them without a second thought. --Herby talk thyme 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure, most of the work here should be  Delete, even the cosplays and especially the photos of toys taken in a shop. But I'm unsure about Image:Taun_taun.png, which it's part of an official document of the united states, probably the patent of these creatures as graphical symbols or something like that. This pic should be handled like a logo of a company, not like a drawing because all copyrights were stripped, only the trademark remains. --Yamavu 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Most of the pictures were published under a free licence by "Official Star Wars Blog". Pay attencion to the word "OFFICIAL", please. If it is an OFFICIAL site it means that Lukas Film know about it and accepted what they do. Follow this: if there is no objection of Lukas Film and they published that photo under a free licence it means that have rigts to do this and Lucas Film acceped this licence indirectly. For example a one of parts of this blog is "The 501st Legion" They have such statement:
"The 501st Legion is a worldwide Star Wars costuming organization comprised of and operated by Star Wars fans. While it is not sponsored by Lucasfilm Ltd., it is Lucasfilm's preferred Imperial costuming group. Star Wars, its characters, costumes, and all associated items are the intellectual property of Lucasfilm. ©2006 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™ All rights reserved. Used under authorization".
So if they published some photos under CC licence and it is "Used under authorization" it means that Lucas Films know about it, it has no objection and they have rights to do this.
What more: some pictures were taken in the streets on the public demonstration. So the free panorama law applied... Regards :) Electron 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of panorama usually applies to permanently installed objects, and not in all countries. As for the blog thing, bear in mind that many CC-licensed projects will use images "with permission", but that doesn't make such things CC-licensed. Similarly, these images use the Lucasfilm character copyright "under authorisation", which doesn't make the characters CC-licensed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh man, this is a horribly clustered deletion request. Some of these, such as Image:Yoda fountain.jpg, are most definitely allowed, as it isn't a true derivative work (publicly installed statue with freedom of panorama), whereas Image:Yoda figure.jpg is most assuredly a derivative work, and should be deleted. The museum pieces are viable for Commons, even if they have screenshots in the background (the background image isn't the primary focus of the image, so that doesn't set off the same alarms as, say, a flat-out screenshot of the same frames from the film). I'm not sure about the costumes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep &  Delete. "Sculptures and action figures do not have utilitarian aspects and are therefore generally copyrighted "; remove those. As above some were public demonstrations, so keep. I would also like to discourage large clumps of images being requested for deletion -- images should be able to be considered on their own or in small related groups, eg. the photos of yoda as one proposal. Thanks, Monkeyblue 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You are right. There are too many photos with different law aspects... Electron (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Can't copyright costumes, cosplay is not a copyright violation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly deleted. There are quite a few obvious copyvios here. Throwing everything together like this wasn't the best idea, though most of it has been deleted. Generally, the stuff from the Official Star Wars Blog has been deleted as there's no assertion that the photographer releases copyright (taking Lupo's argument that the costumes are copyrighted, and Collard's response to Electron). The Jabba costumes noted by Rocket, and the Yoda puppet, were deleted as not being costumes. Pod racers and other such things were deleted as not being costumes, and thus being derivatives (no FOP in the US). General photos of costumes have been deleted as LucasArts, to the best of our knowledge, asserts copyright on their costumes (per Lupo). Thus, photos of them are photos of copyrighted objects, which are copyrighted. An exception that wasn't deleted was Image:Taun taun.png as a patent; see the template on the image description page.

Thanks to Forrester for helping me with this close.

I fully expect to see something at Commons:Undeletion requests about this decision, which is fine. Further discussion may be useful to help develop consensus. Ideally, this would happen somewhere such as Commons talk:Derivative works, not in a mass deletion request. Giggy (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC) & Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 08:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Star_Wars_images&oldid=893983920"