Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rubiks cube.jpg

Originally raised here; this is surely a derivative work as intellectual property rights to the image of the cube are reserved. Giggy (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Image:Rubik's cube.svg (featured!), Image:Rubik's cube v2.svg, and Image:Rubik's cube v3.svg. Giggy (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unsure, I personally think this is {{Pd-ineligible}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We consider the work of w:Piet Mondrian to be eligible (e.g. here and here); is this really any different? My understanding is that, during the patent litigation regarding the Cube in the 1980s (other entities were producing analogues on the grounds that patents weren't properly filed, if at all), the saving grace for Rubik was that the copyright protection was intact. Эlcobbola _talk 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you cite at least one of the court cases? It seems to me that the Rubik's cube is functional, not artistic, and so not eligible for copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H.C. Jehoram [1982] 4 E.I.P.R. 117 (I don't know how to cite Dutch cases, so this may be incomplete or incorrect)

Politechnika Ipari Szovetkezet v. Dallas Print Transfers Ltd [1982] F.S.R. 529 at 538

Ideal Toy Corporation v Chinese Arts & Crafts Inc. S30 F.supp 375 (SDNY 1981)

Ideal Toy Corporation v Plawner Toy Mfg Corp 685 F. 2d, 78 (3rd Cir. 1982)

Of the aforementioned cases, the first one is an explicit finding by a Dutch court of subsistence of copyright (overturning a previous decision that it did not subsist - i.e. this is "appellate" level decision). The others deal with a myriad of trade practices and IP protections; Ideal Toy Corporation v Chinese Arts & Crafts Inc. is significant, for example, as it dealt with trade dress. It seems this should almost be treated as we treat action figures (i.e. not allowed). Yes, there is a function beyond aesthetics (i.e. entertainment), but the object is still sculptural in nature. Our thoughts as Wikimedians aside, however, the subsistence of copyright in this object has been adjudicated. Эlcobbola _talk 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per my above comments. Эlcobbola _talk 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Derivative works. I'd think we could contact them to allow its usage on WMF, but for now, it's gotta go. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Colores cant be copyrighted. This is nonsense --Jodo (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The colors aren't the issue. Toys (such as this, or action figures, or whatever) are considered derivative works; check out the chart on the right side of the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not in the nature of an "action figure". The claim is not that Rubik's Cube is a derivative work, but rather that the cube is itself the original copyrighted work, and therefore that any photograph of the cube is a derivative work. EVula, you're just not paying attention to the facts or the arguments. 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Rubiks cubes are build from many different sellers and are invented by a hungary ingenieur Ernő Rubik. So if there is a copyrightholder for the toy, it is he. Where is the difference between this foto and all photos of Category:Rubik's_cube, Rubik's cube and Rubik's magic. If you want to be strict, you have to start with Category:Toys. There are much more obvious copyright violation than this toy is. --Jodo (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Who holds the copyright is not the point, it is that the copyright exists. BTW, "The copyright belongs to Ernő Rubik, the originator of RUBIK'S CUBE® who has given Seven Towns Ltd full and exclusive authority to license and administer his rights" [1]. OTHERSTUFF arguments are as unhelpful here are as on WP. Эlcobbola _talk 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2004/11/rubiks_cube_r_a.html . I think companies have resumed selling copies of the toy in question in the US. I think they only ever had trademark and patent protection, the later of which has already expired. Your mileage in other jurisdictions may vary - but in the US, self created images of "the cube"(tm) appear to be copyright free (but not trademark free). As for the companies claim of copyright - it would appear to be standard legal FUD. They aren't going to stand up and say "please copy our toys!" Megapixie (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I suppose it wouldn't help if I claimed I just drew some generic cube with colors on it, and I've never heard of this "Rubik's Cube" thing? ;) I don't know enough about free licensing to weigh in on this discussion, but to make an aside here: Even if it's deleted here, this image is still fair game on the Wikipedias, where "fair use" is king, right? It is used in Rubik's Cube articles to illustrate the subject. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it could be used under fair use on projects that accept (with a good fair use rationale, etc. etc.). If someone needs it temporarily undeleted or anything like that so they can reupload a copy elsewhere, that could be done too (once it's deleted). Giggy (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Absurd discussion. The copyright of the cube is still for rebuildings of a 3D-Dimmensional Cube and not for a Photo or Picture of it! HBR (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's called a derivative work. Your dismissive "absurd" is inappropriate and disrespectful. Эlcobbola _talk 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And one might say the same about your dismissing his dismissal :) The discussion isn't by any means absurd, but the issue certainly does feel absurd, and perhaps it's worth inquiring why. Several people want the image to stay, but can't provide much argument for it. Do they just lack understanding of the rules? Perhaps the copyright law in itself contains a bit of absurdity. Sorry about my little devil's advocacy, I'll stop musing aloud now. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the distinction between a photograph of the cube, and a drawing of the cube? As I see it, this svg is just a cleaned-up version of the original photo, and a JPG vs SVG file format shouldn't make any difference as far as copyright. If this image is deleted, shouldn't that mean every Rubik's cube image needs to go as well? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, I didn't realize the jpeg was up for deletion as well. ... just ignore everything I say. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's pretty clear that rights to the work are still asserted, strongly, and no evidence has been provided that this does not apply. It is undeniably derivative. This discussion is important because it is scheduled for use on the English Wikipedia in tomorrow's featured article. 150.203.230.27 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The copyright on the cube is dubious at best as it is just simple geometry which would make it ineligible for copyright. The company also has a few US patents, making at least those drawing the public domain. Further more, the precedent that pictures all 3d object created post-1928 is worrying, we'll need to flag every iPod and a majority of automobiles. Dispenser (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bad faith deletion proposal. The image sat here for THREE YEARS and no one proposed to delete it until it got scheduled to appear at the top of Wikipedia's "main page" on the following day. (The image was at the top of Wikipedia's article title "group (mathematics)", the Featured Article for November 5th. Now it's been replaced with an inferior image in the article.) So this nomination was just in time to derail that. Great. I hope you're proud. 17:14, 4 November 2008 Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The arguments that the photograph is a derivative work is based on a misunderstanding of copyright law. 129.22.182.136 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I'm no expert but my understanding of the Dutch case was that the only copyright they found was on the design of the the workings of the cube and not on the external shape of the completed cube. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whether 2D depictions of 3D objects are considered derivatives works (or not) varies throughout the world. See Panoramafreiheit for a discussion. Under U.S. copyright law, which is the only one that matters here, there is no clear rule. Only pictures of buildings are explicitly exempt for the architect's copyright. So, keep until they send a DMCA takedown notice. The foundation cannot be sued beforehand, thanks to the DMCA. That way at least they'll get some bad publicity for their efforts; Slashdot reported on the Nielsen media market case. Also see Freedom_of_panorama on this site. VasileGaburici (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, but transwiki to en.Wikipedia while the dispute is in progress. There may be other countries in which the image is not public domain (or belonging to the photographer, who has licensed it appropriately), so I'm not sure about the regulations for commons:, but it's clearly allowable for en.Wikipedia. Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep, there seems no credible assertion that the cube is or was subject to copyright. Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the U.K., even in the 1980s when copyright might have been held to subsist, I believe that publication (however widely) of a mere photo (rather than, say, a replica product) of what had become a highly familiar everyday object would be considered "not a significant taking" -- no copyright threat to the Rubik licensees' legitimate interests, and not something that they would be considered to have any expectation of controlling. I suspect that would also be the result, by whatever legal reasoning locally appropriate, everywhere elsewhere in the world too - by one route or another this would be considered de minimis. I suspect there is therefore no substantive copyright objection to its use, anywhere in the world, and it should therefore be considered free.

Currently the cube would not be considered a work attracting copyright in the UK, since it would not be considered either a sculpture now (CDPA 1988 s.4(a)); nor a work of artistic craftsmanship (CDPA 1988 s.4(c)) (Hensher vs Restawile [1975] RPC 31 and subsequent cases) - unlike, perhaps, the action figures considered above. It would attract design rights, but these are only infringed by products, not by photographs. This is a change from the 1980s, when the cube quite possibly would have been seen as a sculpture. With the advent of EU-wide legislation on design rights, similar shifts may have occurred elsewhere in Europe. -- Jheald (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bullies. Cowards. This discussion started two months ago, so someone has lain waiting for the moment when the preacher says "Speak now or forever hold your peace". Just waiting until the final hours when it would be too late, just to humiliate people who've done good work. Whoever did this should be banned. Whoever did this does not belong among decent people. 00:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever nominated this should be banned if, as appears to be the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? Giggy (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion was started over 2 months ago. It was not resolved in that time. If anyone is to be banned, it should be those who made the FA, who failed to review the images, not those who raised a dispute in good faith. The fact that this came up before this image again was to be featured is not surprising. That's probably because other people are doing the work the FA authors should have done and reviewed the images and realised there was an active dispute. Our FAs are supposed to be our best work. It is imperative that all the images we use are free images and if they are not, they are used in accordance to our NFCC policy. If the authors of FA are not doing their work properly, people who do their work for them should not be the ones blamed. As to why this came up when the article was scheduled, that's kind of obvious. We have over 2000 FAs. On the whole, we expect problems with them to be recognise by existing editors. When an article is scheduled for FA, editors who may have never checked out the article before review them and they may then notice if there is a dispute. In many ways I still feel that Raul really needs to start giving people more time and I've raised this issue before but no one seems to be concerned another. Be that as it may, scheduled TFAs are always going to get a lot more attention then other FAs and people are far more likely to notice if there are potential problems with their images. If editors of said TFAs don't want issues to come up just before they are featured, they need to do their jobs properly and not blame other editors who review their work later, and notice that they didn't do their jobs properly Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Giggy", are you asking about my comments or about the incomplete comments below mine? Given the incomplete nature of those comments and the fact that they don't say much, I will provide an answer based on the latter assumption. Only about four hours before the Wikipedia article titled "group (mathematics)" was to appear at the top of the "main page" as a "Featured Article", someone raised this copyright concern about the image that appeared right at the top of the article. It looked as if they were trying to derail the event by bringing this up right at that time, even though the image had already sat there for three whole years during which nobody objected to it. Some time after that someone pointed out the astonishing fact that this proposed deletion discussion had begun two months ago. Two months and the discussion was never closed. It is apparently supposed to go on undecided for all eternity. I had of course assumed it was a new discussion brought up four hours before the event, in order to derail it. This absurd situation, that it's still undecided after two months, would never have occurred to me. So it sat here for those two months, and then someone, just four hours before the event, brought it to the attention of the administrator who handles "Today's Featured Article". I don't really know who's behind all this. Whoever it is should get a life. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in fact you that needs to get a life. Rather then blaming others for 'ruining your hardwork' you need to realise that other editors don't have the time to continually monitor every single featured article, let alone every single featured article, to make sure there are no problems. Therefore it is always going to be the case thet TFA are subject to much more scrutiniy then other article, because in fact other editors do have a life and don't try to check out every single other article 24/7 but those which they feel are most important, and therefore notice problems with TFAs that they don't notice with other article. If you genuinely expect other editors to monitor every single other article 24/7, then I simply don't know what to say Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there some rule requiring this discussion to remain open forever and ever and never get closed as a decided issue. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was referring to you. Ease up on the personal attacks, or else give some evidence (diffs) of the misbehaviour you are claiming. And no, there is no rule that discussion goes in indefinitely. We're backlogged because many admins don't want to get involved of having to choose between copyright and people arguing to keeps something because they like it (not accusing anyone of anything here, just saying...). Your hyperbole is not helping get this closed any faster. Giggy (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Have I not given plenty of evidence? As I said, I don't know who did this, but somebody waited until a moment before this became consequential and blew the whistle at that moment. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have already concured that the discussion was started 2 months ago. Why then didn't any of the FA authors notice that there was a dispute? It appears to be that the problem is the FA authors didn't do their jobs properly and didn't bother to review the images properly and notice there was a dispute. If anyone is to blame, it's surely the FA authors for not noticing there was an FA dispute, not whoever raised this dispute two months ago. It seems to me that your so called hard work has not actually been done as well as you seem to think, and you've in fact been a bit lazy. So far I have seen no evidence for your claims, other then wild conspiracy theories that show a fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. As to why you cannot assume good faith, I don't know. I do assume good faith in that you genuinely believe that editors are trying to ruin your good work, it's simply that you are serious mistaken due to an apparent insane expectation of other editors Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • BTW, the editor you are accusing of trying to ruin your good work is Mostlyharmless, see here Wikipedia:User talk:Raul654#Group (mathematics) image possible copyvio. Seemingly Giggy and Elcobbola are in fact the people that usually review images at FAR. Technically it's possible that for some reason Giggy and Elcobbola have a hatred of either you or the article on groups but this is the sort of wacky conspiracy theory I'm not going to give time for (even more so since Elcobbola did in fact raise the issue of other problematic images in the FAC Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Group (mathematics)). It's technically possible also that Mostlyharmless was patiently waiting to 'ruin' the TFA, who knows, perhaps he/she even carried some sort of satellite based phone which would receive a call the moment the article was scheduled so that he/she could carry our his/her evil plan. Who knows, perhaps the German speaking, commons admin and OTRS team member Elcobbola who first raised this issue, Giggy the bureaucrat and Mostlyharmless the kiwi intermediate spanish and Indonesian speaker are colluding to carry out their dastardly deeds of ruining this FA, or 'gasp' maybe they are even the same person under three identities perhaps created so they could ruin this FA. As to why Elcobbola and Giggy risked someone noticing by raising the issue 2 months ago, I guess we will never know. However at least for me, far more likely though, my story is correct. Elcobbola and Giggy noticed this issue 2 months ago when the issue was under FAC but they seem to have forgotten to raise this issue in the FAC itself (at least I couldn't find anything) and was not resolved in that two months. Perhaps neither of them was that sure so they wanted to see what others said before they mentioned the issue in FAC or perhaps they felt that mentioning it in the FAC wouldn't help (from the standard of a lot of the discussion so far, they may have been right). It doesn't seem to matter much to be. There are likely quite busy, with all the other stuff they work on. When this article was scheduled, mostlyharmless I guess was reviewing the article and notices the cornerstone image was under dispute and raised the issue with Raul. One thing all this does make clear is the image was under dispute when the article was under FAC even if it was fairly late in the game. While Giggy and Elcobbola unfortunately didn't raise the issue, other editors, including the ones who wrote this article, and yes, including you, could have looked at the images and noticed that one of them was under dispute. Sadly no one did. Personally, I don't really feel anyone is strongly to blame here, my comments above were more intended as sarcasm about the ridicilous fallacy of blaming other editors for bringing good faith disputes when you yourself should share a part of the tiny blame that is deserving to anyone for this mess. Yes editors should review the images but particularly since the dispute only came up late in the game, it's understandable. And yes, it would have been good if Giggy or Elcobbola had mentioned this image was used in a FAC and raised the issue in the FAC, at the very least it would have avoided this hoohaa but they didn't. All I can say is, shit happens. Wikipedia is never going to be perfect, and something things happen that we don't like. The only question is, whether we presume malice to others when things go wrong, when we ourselves have arguably made a mistake, or whether we accept that a series of events, with no one at strong fault, can lead to an outcome that we are not happy with, but that's what the world is like. Anyway, I've wasted too much time on this silly dispute. If you, or anyone, want to go around and make baseless claims of other editors then go ahead, I think the facts speak for themselves Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • For my part, I started this deletion request when Elcobbola brought it to the village pump, and I agreed that it seemed to be a copyvio. I didn't know it was at FAC at the time (though Elcobbola may have found it that way). Giggy (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem is that we need a real lawyer to look at this, to assess whether there ever could be a valid copyright claim. I am confident that eg in the UK there isn't; and I'm also very dubious that there are any circumstances where the image could be found infringing anywhere else. (T-shirts?) But I wouldn't trust either my or anybody else's amateur assessment as definitive, either way, without input from somebody with genuine professional specialist legal knowledge; and that we haven't yet seen. The claims by 7 Towns Ltd look like an unjustified land-grab to me. I don't think we should just roll over and accept them (but nor ignore them out-of-hand either), until we have a lot more legal certainty on the underlying principles of this than I have yet seen. Quite apart from anything else, we need to realise the scale of the possible collateral damage -- if this is not allowable, then presumably neither is the depiction of any other commercial object here. That would be an extraordinary restriction. Hence I am not surprised if people feel they want to see a more definitive legal analysis first, before anyone rushes to a close on this. Jheald (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote. Regardless of its copyright status, the image of the Rubik cube is also trademarked in the EU. That is perhaps a more reasonable mode of IP protection. The trademarked nature is not a barrier to the image appearing here - we warn about trademarked images, using a template, but do not forbid them. Jheald (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move to en. If the copyright holders want to sue Wikipedia over the idea that a photograph of a Rubiks cube is a derivative work, then let them. Such a court case would clarify copyright law. Is a photograph of a particular car a derivative work? I hope not and would not envy the editors who would have to go through all articles on cars and all images of cars to remove them or add fair use rationales. Geometry guy (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have a misunderstanding of wikipedia and the wikimedia commons. In the case of wikipedia, our policy is to provide free images, which can be reused, including derivatives, in accordance to the license. It is not to goad other people into suing us or anyone else who reuses our images. I have no idea whether the copyright claims here are valid so I'm not going to comment on whether this should stay or go but dumb claims like keep it until someone sues us are NOT helpfully and clearly show a lack of understanding of wikipedia's goals Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no such misunderstanding. I am instead arguing that any reasonable court (in particular a US court, which is what is relevant for en) would assert that this image is free, just as a photograph of a car or a train is a free image if the photographer releases it. I do not advocate keeping all images until someone sues: that is an idiotic position. Geometry guy (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why only only American courts be relevant for en? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The Wikimedia Foundation is registered in the US, with HQ in San Francisco, and virtually all of the servers for en are in Florida. So, while the rulings of other courts may influence the understanding and interpretation of copyright law, ultimately if someone wants to sue Wikipedia, they will sue under US law. By contrast images on commons are used by other Wikipedias which have servers and organizations based all over the world. Geometry guy (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment If it is kept, will it need a marker saying the image is trademarked? The company claims it is a 3D trademark and that all images are likewise a trademark. Wouldn't this mean the image can't be used freely?
•  Keep I agree with Geometry guy. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep --DerAndre (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some rationales, this isn't a vote. --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mike Godwin (en:User talk:MGodwin#Is this a derived work?). He wasn't aware that the picture is computer generated, rather than a photograph, but this doesn't seem to make a difference. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Maxim_(talk) 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]