Commons:Deletion requests/File:Convenience store Shisa in Isigaki island Japan.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion debate 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.
  • Add {{subst:delete-subst|REASON (mandatory)}} on the page
  • Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|File:Convenience store Shisa in Isigaki island Japan.jpg}}--~~~~
  • On the log, add :
    {{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Convenience store Shisa in Isigaki island Japan.jpg}}

File:Convenience store Shisa in Isigaki island Japan.jpg/File:Shisa_face.svg[edit]

I do not want this image deleted, but it was tagged "speedy" and this is the only way to do this properly. This is not a copyrighted image, shisa by the thousands adorn everything in Okinawa prefecture, much like tikis in Hawaii and pyramids in Cairo.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Note File:Shisa_face.svg is also directly linked to this DR as a direct SVG version of the artwork in question) The 2d artwork on the sign most likely was created by someone and used to create the sign. The artistic creation of that 2d artwork would afford it copyright protection. Without direct evidence that 2d artwork isn't copyrighted we have to assume it is. Thus the picture of the sign, and then creation of a SVG exact duplicate of the artwork, is a copyright violation. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Between your eagerness to get this deleted without community consensus (and then accusing me of "edit warring" because of my insistence to go through the proper process) and such questionable uploads of yours such as File:Finpecia from India is Cheap Propecia.jpg (both as something clearly "created by someone"-the basis for your claim-and the blatant advertisement in the name you chose), I would submit that you are not qualified singlehandedly to determine what is copyrighted and what is not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is the proper process for copyright violations that are profoundly blatant as this is, not DR. Are you saying your not allowed to upload works by someone else, lol? The filename is the title of the image on Flickr and was automatically chosen by the script that I used to upload it, don't like it {{Rename}} it. And it's _not_ a copyright violation, and the admin that initially deleted (and I had it undeleted) and then the admin that deleted it nominated it for a DR, is an EXTREME copyright paranoid, I'm very very mild. There is nothing that is copyright-able on that image you linked too of mine, theres trademarks and simple fonts and geometric shapes, nothing eligible for copyright protection. I accused you of edit warring, well the potential of starting it, because of your refusal to accept a speedy tag then the very blunt attack of my revert of your change from the speedy to {{Delete}} since speedy is the proper tag for this image. Of my >5,000 edits here on commons, and MANY uploads, as I said below, my track record speaks for it's self. Theres no need to try to impeach your character here, a quick glance at your talk page is enough to tell the story. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats probably pointy enough to be warnable and punishable. I think my track record here at Commons speaks for itself. This image is a copyright violation. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, a threat. Something I said is worse than you impugning not one but two admins? And how do you propose to "punish" me? You're a piece of work.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No threat, just acknowledging that you was dangerously close to breaking en:WP:AGF and en:WP:CIVIL by your attempt to dig up "Evidence" to impugn my character. I fail to see what admins I've impugned. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. The Ryukyuan shisa in its present form dates back to at least the 15th century, and the convenience store logo in question is nothing but a faithful 2D rendering of the archetype -- hardly an act of creativity. (Compare with eg. numerous cartoon variants of the shisa, which are clearly creative and copyrightable.) And if the original is not copyrightable, neither does taking a picture of it nor tracing it into an SVG change that. Jpatokal (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the archetype 3d version of this that this is a exact 2d representation? I think translating a 3d carving/statue into a 2d vector art is an act of creativity. I'm quite sure that translation carries with it copyright status. Any case-law, legal proof or established policy here that to backup that assertion? — raeky (talk | edits) 13:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theres a ton of pictures of Shisa but I don't see any ancient statues/carvings that this 2d art could be considered an accurate faithful reproduction of, and again, this is hardly a photograph of a statue, it required the creative expertise and skill of a 2d artist to create, so I'm pretty sure it carries a copyright even if it's very close to a 3d statue/carving. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Even the most exact copy like a photograph would still have copyright. You'd have to show older identical 2D representations here. I wouldn't be surprised to see this was a copy of older work, but a very quick glance through Google Images shows nothing appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I agree with Prosfilaes's assessment here. Though the basic design of Shisa (and, no doubt, a massive number of Shisa) is (are) in the public domain, someone could very easily claim copyright on this image. Demonstration that this 2D design existed hundreds of years ago, which is possible, would solve the issue. Compare- though Michelangelo's David is in the public domain, I could take a load of photographs of it, then not allow anyone else to use them. Equally, it's possible that this design is a recent one. Japanese copyright law does not allow full freedom of panorama for this sort of thing, so unless we can prove that the design is public domain, it's going to need to be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This RfD page is linked from two different images (from File:Convenience_store_Shisa_in_Isigaki_island_Japan.jpg and from File:Shisa face.svg), I think two different issues are mistreated as one. First issue is about original Flickr image. This original Flickr image is in some aspect similar to Category:Restaurant signs, Category:Signs and so on. And Second is about 2D svg extracted from first image (that's very nice. I like it. but problem is not the quality...). Shisa itself is very old historical icon of Ryuku(name of series of islands locate in south-west of Japan). But at the same time, this image itself is showed in signboard of small shop in Ishigaki, Okinawa. This looks difficult case. I think first is OK but second is not OK. --Was a bee (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a restaurant sign contains a copyrighted element and you take a picture of just that sign you're creating a derivative work which is against our policies. Some of the pictures in Category:Restaurant signs probably violate COM:DW. For example File:Jonrevs kfc sign with mods.JPG the Colonel Sanders art looks like it was in use in the early 50's which means its probably still under copyright, so that specific image is a derivative work, and needs deleted. Same principle here, if the SVG version of this artwork you think is not OK, then the photograph of the artwork is also not OK by the policy at COM:DW. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think so, I do not deny it:>. But there are many such images. Maybe hundreds of thousand. Almost every photo in Category:Times Square, Akihabara must be fixed or deleted. --Was a bee (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just means we have a lot of work to do to clean things up. A picture of a street like Times Square isn't an issue, so long as your not solely focused on one copyrighted image, de minimis applies. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. If your logic is adopted, it looks that firstly you have to request for deletion about some of your uploaded images(File:Tylenol bottle closeup crop.jpg). Your saying means such things? By the way, Mushroom and nature photos are very impressive. I like it. :> --Was a bee (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thats a different matter entirely, the Tylenol logo isn't copyrighted just trademarked. Simple geometric shapes and fonts can't be copyrighted. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see. I think issue is not the extraction of small part or portion from such s label or signs but a extraction of whole part or portion of such a label or signs. Other example is, sorry, File:Jeff Pasek - Portrait of an Artist.jpg. Extracting his painting from this photo and selling it on eBay may be not OK. So How and Where should we set the borderline, That is the problem, I think. --Was a bee (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thats where the policies COM:DW and COM:DM come into play. The focus of that picture is the artist, a portrait of him in his studio with some of his artwork around him. If you was to take that picture and crop one of the paintings then you'd be in violation of those two policies. But as a whole the focus of the picture isn't the paintings but the artist so the whole picture is fine. The key thing here is what is the primary focus/subject of the picture. Is it something vague like a storefront or street that just so happens to include a copyrighted element, or is it zoomed in and just that copyrighted element. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Focus of the picture. Yes, that would be good criteria. If so these should be deleted. But already pointed out sometimes at above, I am not confident either about where the original image of this sign comes from. To say creativity. Because this design is typical representation of shisa. Anyway trademark problem resides. This design is on small shop's signboard (although this image may not be registered). So deletion would be nice answer. Thanks:>--Was a bee (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for a usable PD image tonight, I found this same artwork as PD clipart at http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.okinawankarateandkobudoinstitute.com/images/shisa-button.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.okinawankarateandkobudoinstitute.com/okinawan_clipart.htm&usg=__Nmd7tVcpQ2PtLxDcgQRkVPPX7vc=&h=53&w=57&sz=1&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SkoiaX8LYRx3NM:&tbnh=53&tbnw=57&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dshisa%2Bclipart%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D549%26as_st%3Dy%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=117&vpy=301&dur=15&hovh=53&hovw=57&tx=112&ty=18&ei=xmujTKvWL42AvgOV7LGlAw&oei=xmujTKvWL42AvgOV7LGlAw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see three possibilities, the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is that it could genuinely be an PD-Old work that both of those have independently derived from, the bad is that it could be a black and white small-scale rendering of our very SVG, and the ugly is that it could be something copyrighted by the strict letter of the law that has leaked into the public consciousness and is now being used extensively without license. Your site unfortunately is a collection of stuff from miscellaneous sources, so that doesn't help a lot. Maybe we all source back to some 1980s package of clipart or something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - this "Okinawa Shisa Travelogue" says "At present, the lion-dog on Houseibashi Bridge, constructed in 1498 at Enkakuji Temple, is believed to be the oldest on record in Okinawa."   — Jeff G. ツ 05:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? We aren't arguing that the lion-dog, like the dragon, doesn't date back a long ways as a cultural icon. We're arguing that this particular rendition of the lion-dog is modern, just like many renditions of the dragon.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 21:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Convenience_store_Shisa_in_Isigaki_island_Japan.jpg&oldid=94427412"