Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lego minifigures

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.

I could certainly be wrong here, but it seems to me that any photos or artwork of Lego minifigures are derivative works of copyrighted toys. Unless there is any reason to believe these toys are in the public domain? See COM:TOYS.

Absolutely, keep. Sorry - I did try to look through these as I compiled the bulk delete, but obviously not carefully enough. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would NASA not be subject to regular copyright laws? I realize that photos produced by the US government are copyright free, but I don't see why the content wouldn't still be copyrighted if it doesn't belong to them. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the content does belong to them. It's ornamentation on a space probe. -- 14.2.3.245 15:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your reply. If I understand correctly, you're saying that NASA created these figures and that they aren't technically derivative of Lego toys, even though they look like lego toys and are labelled as such. I'm neither familiar enough with the back catalogue of LEGO toys nor knowledgeable enough about copyright law to argue one way or another in this particular case. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, keep. Sorry - I did try to look through these as I compiled the bulk delete, but obviously not carefully enough. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need more experienced people to comment here. I don't think Lego minifigures count as art, either on a practical level or a legal one. ɱ (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the real breadth of application of copyright is uneven and illogical, as it results from real tolerance or legal pressure in various domains. Eg. films or photos are often considered as protected even when they are absolutely not "creative", but simply a work of craftsmanship or even automatic. Unfortunately, LEGO characters (I'm not sure about simple construction parts) have a certain extent of artistic originality, and LEGO company is very active and aggressive in their defence. In the Czech Republic, the Pirate Party used characters freely inspired by the LEGO figures in their election shot, and was condemned to a penalty.[1] However, there is some space to seek and defend limits of application of copyright to be not quite absurd. --ŠJů (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nordic copyright law is less illogical in that aspect: most photos are considered to be below the threshold of originality. Since it is useful to provide copyright protection for photographs, Nordic countries therefore protect photographs through a related right, which is not based on originality.
Lego bricks are made by a Danish company, so Denmark is probably the source country for many of the figurines. Per COM:L, we therefore need to consider at least the laws of Denmark and the United States.
In the United States, there is a rule that utilitarian objects are ineligible for copyright, but toys are considered to be non-utilitarian. The only toy example we have is File:Koosh Ball Wall.jpg which is too simple to be copyrighted, but that toy is obviously a lot less simple than these figurines.
In Denmark, utilitarian objects are eligible for copyright, so there are more examples to look at. This knife and this chair are copyrighted in Denmark. Originality in the Nordic countries is largely about the risk for dual creation, so one would have to consider how likely it is that someone else accidentally might create identical toys. I'm guessing that the risk of dual creation is low for most, possibly all, of the figurines, but it is hard to tell. For example, the hand design is a bit unique. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: While a single Lego brick may not have a copyright, the more complex parts clearly do and any assembly of bricks or other parts also does. I have kept several that are covered by FOP, but deleted those where there was only an outline as I think even the outline is above the ToO. The NASA figures clearly infringe on the Lego copyright and while Lego may tolerate or even encourage NASA doing that on a space probe, that does not put the result into the PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Per COM:TOYS

 Keep, clearly {{FoP-Czechia}}. --ŠJů (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Racconish 03:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, except some which are likely covered by various FOP laws. --Storkk (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

COM:TOYS.

Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 09:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

COM:TOYS.

Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 09:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Photos of minifigures COM:TOYS: "When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country."

Lord Belbury (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]