Commons:Deletion requests/File:Super Mario Bros World 1-1 2021-12-26.gif: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Deleted: Per nomination. This is a borderline case, but the arrangement of elements and gameplay are pretty clearly derivative of Super Mario Brothers (even if you ignore the file title). |
Grey ghost (talk | contribs) m added Category:Undelete in 2081 |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
'''Deleted:''' Per nomination. This is a borderline case, but the arrangement of elements and gameplay are pretty clearly derivative of Super Mario Brothers (even if you ignore the file title). --[[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
'''Deleted:''' Per nomination. This is a borderline case, but the arrangement of elements and gameplay are pretty clearly derivative of Super Mario Brothers (even if you ignore the file title). --[[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{delf}} |
{{delf}} |
||
[[Category:Undelete in 2081]] |
Revision as of 17:20, 7 July 2024
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.
This file was initially tagged by 49.98.62.85 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F3. Per Thuresson at COM:UNDEL: "Nintendo does not have a copyright on the concept of platform games." However, Jameslwoodward has raised the question of COM:SCOPE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete I believe it very much is in scope. However, I still believe this is a copyright violation even though there is't direct "copy-and-trace" copyright infringement here. I'd argue that this still is some kind of infringement of intellectual property. I could take up examples in regards to en:idea–expression distinction, but I think the best analogy is fake Gucci bags - they may not be a straight copy-pastes, but stil infringements. Nintendo does not have copyright of "platforming", but any one with eyes can tell that is trying to display level 1-1 of Mario Bros. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- What you say is related to patent rights, not copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm fully aware, but they share similar language in law on how to determine whether or not something is an infringement. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here on Commons, we only care about copyright issues. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and my point were "where does something stop being a clear derivative work and and when does it become an original work". A derivative can be ok copyright wise, as long as its original in its presentation. I don't think this is original enough to clear the original works copyright. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here on Commons, we only care about copyright issues. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm fully aware, but they share similar language in law on how to determine whether or not something is an infringement. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- What you say is related to patent rights, not copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete While what Thuresson said may be true, the uploader admits in the description that this file was intended to be derivative work. 1989 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)``
Comment About COM:SCOPE. I made this animation file to replace a static diagram in the article en:World 1-1 (to be precise, its Japanese translation) because animated description would be more helpful for readers to understand the article text and the image caption such as "... encounter a slowly approaching Goomba", "Bumping one of the gold-colored blocks from below makes a coin pop out", "The Mushroom (light green) appears ... initially rolls to the right, until it falls off ... then turns around and rolls toward Mario", and so on. -- Asanagi (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep As creator of the file. I intended to make each copyrighted material ambiguous enough to avoid copyright issues. -- Asanagi (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is pretty difficult, trying to find the point of the idea-expression divide, as mentioned. It does not look like any particular graphics are copied, which is the usual obvious way to copy expression in video games. The main question is if there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright on the general game layout, of which this may represent a copy. That is a possibility, though that can depend on the number of elements being arranged. If you count the particular squares in any particular level as individual elements, maybe that is enough. It's dancing around the edge. I'm not sure this really violates a character copyright; I think enough details have been removed. Whether there is a copyright on particular aspects of the game play, or a game's particular physics, is a much grayer area -- does that count as expression in a fixed medium, etc. There might be trademark or trade dress issues, but unless hosting the work here is actually a violation (which would get into the question of trademark fair use), don't think that would matter. I don't think there are any scope issues -- if File:World 1-1 obstacle schematic.PNG is widely used (and therefore automatically in scope here), I can't imagine there would be scope issues with this. We can't use "some form of intellectual property" as a deletion rationale though -- we have to ground the arguments strictly in copyright. If the Gucci knockoff did not copy any actual expression, then they may still be guilty of trademark issues, but not copyright infringement. Illustrating such a knockoff would be OK here. But, if this was used in a competing game, the question is could they claim copyright infringement. If it is only OK because of its educational context, then it may be an issue. It's certainly dancing around the edge, to me. This article goes into a couple of different methodologies that courts have used to try and determine infringement at this level -- one of them, as long as the level design isn't copied, is much less likely to result in infringement. The other approach would not be as likely. I think Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. is one of the cases mentioned; that combined extrinsic and intrinsic tests of "substantial similarly" (which is the major ingredient of copyright infringement). The extrinsic test looks at specific elements that were copied, i.e. the "selection and arrangement" I mentioned, or the level design. The intrinsic test would be if an "ordinary reasonable person" would think they were substantially similar. That is likely the aspect which @Josve05a: finds problematic. Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co. is another of the cases mentioned. All the above is strictly U.S. law of course; these types of boundaries can be different elsewhere, increasing the uncertainty. Copying the level design, combined with some of the aspects of game play, may make this problematic, despite all the expression that has been removed. I'm really not sure though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete it's a copy/remake of the famous gameplay with slight modifications. Yes I checked COM:FAN but it's a "I know it if I see it" kind of thing. Derivative! Hekerui (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. This is a borderline case, but the arrangement of elements and gameplay are pretty clearly derivative of Super Mario Brothers (even if you ignore the file title). --Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)