Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Piglit.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Piglit.jpg

Image is a derivative work of a copyrighted figure and thus a copyright violation. --Angr 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piglit.jpg is a figure made by a well known Wikipedian, with featured pictures to her name. Please point me at the image or thing copied - thanks. --Gordo 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which copyrighted figure ? --Juiced lemon 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en:Piglet (Winnie the Pooh) --88.134.45.6 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article is not a copyrighted figure, and a teddy bear with a 'W' on it either. --Juiced lemon 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the character of Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh are copyrighted until 1 January 2047 (70 years after E. H. Shepard's death). This is a derivative work of Shepard's drawings and therefore a copyright violation. Angr 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard's drawings were inspired by stuffed animals. Stuffed animals are not derivature works from his drawings. There are numberous tales with pig characters, and many of them are in the public domain. You don't explain why this picture should be Piglet and not an another character, or any pig. --Juiced lemon 13:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion would be sound if this is a derivative of the Piglet character. However, nomenclature aside, this does appear to be merely an unidentifiable stuffed pig. TheGrappler 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to both the above comments, the stuffed toy looks unmistakably like Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh, not like any generic stuffed pig. This is borne out by the fact that the image is being used to illustrate articles on the Winnie-the-Pooh character in Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and Hungarian; see its CheckUsage. Up until yesterday, it was also being used at English Wikipedia to illustrate the article on Piglet (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piglet_%28Winnie_the_Pooh%29&oldid=65350720). Angr 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circular argument. If I name Piglet a stuffed hedgehog, of course it will be a dressed Piglet and so a copyrighted figure! Actually, the toy on the picture doesn't like as a pig, and therefore doesn't like as a special pig. --Juiced lemon 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is so ungrammatical I can't understand what you're trying to say, but my point is that the picture is being used to illustrate articles about the Winnie-the-Pooh character "Piglet", therefore it is perceived by many people as being an illustration of that character, therefore it is a derivative work of the original illustration of that character. If this image is not intended to illustrate that character, then it should be removed from all those articles. Angr 08:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough originality so that it is not really a derivative --Astrokey44 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still identifiable as Piglet, so it's derivative. Angr 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piglit's front is sewn up reversed. It is therefore a representation that has deviated from the original. If there is an original. --Gordo 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the drawings are the original. There are plenty of 3D toys that are derivative of 2D drawings, like Mickey Mouse dolls, Opus the Penguin dolls, etc. This is no different from them, except that this toy isn't actually made by Disney (who now owns the rights to Shepard's drawings), meaning that not only is this photo a copyright infringement, so is the toy in the photo. Angr 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The toy was bought from a shop. I don't see how that infringes any copyright, since it must have been under some licence agreement? --Gordo 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Derivative works. If you take a picture of a toy, the original copyright of that toy remains. Photographs of copyrighted toys, like copyrighted works of art, are not acceptable on Commons. Angr 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's not Winnie's Piglet. Compare with [1]. However, if it's a copyrighted toy, it shouldn't be here... Platonides 20:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Winnie-the-Pooh's Piget; it's based on the original E.H. Shepard drawings, not on the Walt Disney version you linked to above. See [2], [3], and [4] for some examples. Angr 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ese bicho no se parece al piglit salvo en el color y en el nombre. ;-) Sanbec ✉ 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Chewie 14:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's obviously Piglet, but that's entirely beside the point. It's still a picture of a copyrighted object (namely, the toy); whether toy is itself a derivative work is irrelevant. Powers 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If whoever made that toy had sufficient creation, taking a picture is a reproduction. We cannot keep it if there are sufficient doubts as whether it is okay here.--Jusjih 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted for now. The source of the toy bought in a shop is not so clear like no source info and the item looks like copyrighted. We cannot let this case hanging around forever. (per COM:DEL, "In contrast to Wikipedia the Wikimedia Commons deletion requests is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion." If anyone has a very good reason to appeal, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests.--Jusjih 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]