Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2010 Comic-Con International

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:2010 Comic-Con International

Copyrighted artwork (including signs, banners, and toys) shown

Gazebo (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[]

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:2010 Comic-Con International

These images should be evaluated; costumes and cosplay can be unclear as far as copyright goes but actual models or statues of fictional characters or actual persons are likely to be copyrighted.

Note: The File:Bruce_Lee_figure_at_Comic-Con_2010.jpg image may well be a Bruce Lee mannequin of sorts as opposed to a cosplayer; it is not clear as to whether the same applies to the woman in the File:Brian Pulido at SDCC 2010.jpg and File:Brian_Pulido_at_SDCC_2010_2.jpg images.

Gazebo (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Question. "but actual models or statues of fictional characters or actual persons are likely to be copyrighted". What is the status of the Madame Tussaud figures, then? There are a lot of photos on Commons that people took in the museums of the wax figures. I think the same should apply for the Bruce Lee wax figure at Comic Con. Otherwise all wax figures should be nominated for deletion as well. Teemeah (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[]
- Answer. The Mandame Tussaud figures are allowed because the photos were taken in the United Kingdom, where it is allowed to publish photos of copyrighted 3-dimensional artwork in any public place, see Commons:FOP #United Kingdom. But Comic Con International is in the United States, where the rules are more restrictive, see Commons:FOP #United States. -- Olaf Studt (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]

Keep File:Geoff Peterson.jpg -- does not involve Cosplay of any kind (though CosPlay images are in fact usually allowed on Commons), copyright status does not appear to be different than a photograph of a Roomba... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Keep It's the actual robot "Geoff Peterson" as seen on the show, not a model or statue. Dcxf (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Kept, per discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[]

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:2010 Comic-Con International

I believe that the previous DR was closed incorrectly. All of the images listed above and four that I have added show copyrighted characters or creations that have copyrights as sculpture. None of them are utilitarian and therefore they must be treated exactly as if they were sculptures of humans, animals, or abstract objects.

To say that the robot "Geoff Peterson" is the actual robot does not change the fact that it is itself a copyrighted sculpture.

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

At least part of these photos show cosplay, and we have tons of it: Category:Cosplay. Do you want to delete all cosplay photos, hah? --Sigwald (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I would delete any image that shows a copyrighted sculpture or other creation. That includes most masks, but not humans wearing costumes that do not include masks. Note also that it does not matter whether the sculpture is original or a copy of a cartoon or movie character -- either way it has a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Instead of making any sweeping generalizations about Jim's intentions to images not on this list, I worked only with the nominated images. The following are my votes:

Delete File:Al_FUll_Metal.jpg Description: English: Description reads: "A statue of Al from Full Metal Alchemist on the exhibit floor at the 2010 Comic Con in San Diego."
Delete File:Alien Anthology Comic Con display.JPG Image from movie over interactive set.
Delete File:Boba Fett statue (4840222760).jpg Description reads: "A giant Boba Fett statue on the exhibit floor at the 2010 Comic Con in San Diego."
Keep File:Brian Pulido at SDCC 2010.jpg is a photo of a man and woman. The woman is in cosplay costume. I can tell this is a human not a statue because she has a slight double chin and you can see her own hair under the edge of the wig. No RP fan would create a statue with black hair wearing a white wig, or permit the double chin, nor slight overlap of the breasts to occur. Image is from http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinguino/4929529983/ where it has Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.
Keep File:Brian Pulido at SDCC 2010 2.jpg photo of same man, same woman. Here you can see her eyes to the side, no more double chin. So she is obviously alive although wearing those cat-eye contact lenses. image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinguino/4929529751/, where it has Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license. Notice user picture at flickr is of same person but without the white hair and contact lenses.
Delete File:Bruce Lee figure at Comic-Con 2010.jpg is a statue, description reads "incredibly detailed Bruce Lee figure", it comes from https://www.flickr.com/photos/popculturegeek/4874442929/ where it has Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.
Delete File:Comic-Con 2010 - reporter Kermit at the efx booth (4874442585).jpg Kermit is a 3d puppet not a costumed player.
Delete File:Comic-Con 2010 - reporter Kermit chats with fans (4878074705).jpg As prior, Kermit is a 3d puppet not a costumed player.
Keep File:Comic-Con 2010 - Stan Smith of American Dad (4878075505).jpg The person depicted is a living individual, not a statue. Notice the bad fit of the fake chin and the movement on the flag as well as the strange objects in his right hand. In my opinion, the stuff around him is de minimus to the fan wearing a costume.
Keep File:Comic-Con 2010 - Superman and the Tusken Raiders (4878683964).jpg The wierdly garbed figures are humans; observe their convention badges which are clearly visible in this picture. Statues do not wear convention badges; being non-living they are not required to pay to get in. Source is correct, license at source is 2.0 Generic.
Delete File:Frankenberry giant bobblehead (4839634877).jpg This is a statue. Description reads: "A giant bobblehead of Frankenberry on the exhibit floor at the 2010 Comic Con in San Diego."
Delete File:FunKo booth (4840256154).jpg, Bobble head statue (as above) at left, storm trooper statue at right. Notice both on slight pedestals.
Delete File:Geoff Peterson.jpg Obviously a statue, no room for a human neck in there. No convention badge. Also notice CBS logo directly over his crest.
Delete File:Giant robot statue (4840240932).jpg Giant robot statue.
Delete File:He-Man statue (4840219634).jpg He-man statue. Also note "Masters of the universe" logos at right rear.
Delete File:Iron Man statue (4840270076).jpg Iron man statue.
Delete File:Star Wars giant bobblehead (4840250684).jpg Giant bobblehead statue as shown in the FunKo booth photo above.
Delete File:Transformers statue (4839617753).jpg Transformers statue, also notice large Hasbro logo to right.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I'll go with you on those I struck out above -- I simply assumed the woman was wax. I might argue about whether the fake chin actually has its own copyright, but I'll pass it for now.

There's no reason why the Bruce Lee figure does not have a copyright -- the license you quote covers only the image, not the sculpture. The Tusken masks are not utilitarian and therefore have a copyright -- perhaps belonging to Star Wars, but also perhaps belonging to the creator of these -- either way they are covered. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I don't disagree with you on the Bruce Lee statue, merely noting how it was licensed at flickr. The "Tusken" raiders outfits are homemade, there are videos online showing how to do it. Even so, those three in the outfits are human as you can see from the badges. The question was (as I understood it), which of these are statues and which are cosplay. The Tuskens are cosplay because they are real people inside the outfits which they most likely made. 50.45.171.194 15:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I'm afraid you don't understand the rules. Cosplay is not exempt from any copyright rule which might apply. Any mask, whether it is cosplay or not, has a copyright. This is true whether or not it is copied from a copyrighted mask. We know that these are Star Wars' Tuskens, but even if they were created out of the imagination of the three humans inside them, they would have a copyright. Without permission from the copyright holder, we cannot keep them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure that's the case. Clothing as being worn by people is almost always "utilitarian" or "functional" under United States copyright law. A copyrighted design (a Picasso painting or whatever) might be printed on the clothing, which is a different thing, but clothing items insofar as they serve their purpose of covering the body are not generally copyrightable. AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I suggest you read the linked items from this:

"The 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office appears to still be in effect, and although it is only advisory, it is a good indication of where courts tend to fall on this issue. It says that masks are definitely copyrightable, and that costumes may be copyrightable in certain circumstances (or at least certain features of the costume might be copyrightable), subject to a complicated legal analysis to determine whether the aesthetic aspects of the costume are "separable" from the costume's role as an article of clothing (the utilitarian aspects). Some information on the separability test can be found at [1]." [from Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay]

While a mask that protects one from the sun or the cold would certainly be utilitarian, the Tusken masks are far from useful -- in fact, with their narrow range of vision, they are just the opposite. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[]

KEEP Geoff Peterson -- Unfortunately, the "delete Geoff Peterson" arguments seem to turn on subtle points of metaphysics or philosophy, rather than what is most directly relevant to United States copyright law... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I see no subtlety at all -- it is a sculpture of a skull. All sculptures have copyrights. Why is this any different from any other sculpture?. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

The question "When is a robot not a robot?" seems to me to be on a level with such famous philosophical conundrums as "When is a horse not a horse?"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Actually it is not a robot, as it is entirely manually controlled, but even it were, so what? Since it is not utilitarian, and, in particular, the skull is not utilitarian, the skull has a copyright just like any other sculpture. Robots are not exempt from copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Deleted: except when there is opposition. I am not sure you can get a copyright on a skull. Yann (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[]