Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blåhaj

Some discussion has taken place on enwiki indicating these are derivative works of a non-free model and therefore copyrighted. I don't have sufficient knowledge of copyright law in that area, especially given that laws in Sweden, the Netherlands, and the US are likely different, but if that is true then these images should be deleted.

• File:00662244kevin.jpg
• File:Blåhaj! (51836802716).jpg
• File:Blåhaj.jpg
• File:FF36 DSC6174.jpg
• File:IKEA Blåhaj plush shark toys - regular and small variants - bottom view.jpg
• File:IKEA Blåhaj plush shark toys - regular and small variants - side view.jpg
• File:IKEA Catch 0127 (5203047797).jpg
• File:IKEA East Palo Alto - July 2021 - 28.jpg
• File:IKEA Taoyuan 20200813.jpg
• File:Mattress Expansion (30923678767).jpg
• File:O NO Shark 8142 (4614039911).jpg
• File:Sharks at IKEA SH (4370022811).jpg

Elli (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• this probably falls under Commons:TOYS. Evrik (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The initial point of discussion, for context. File:FF36 DSC6174.jpg might be OK, given that the shark is more of prop... hard to tell. File:IKEA Catch 0127 (5203047797).jpg might be OK, but it definitely seems like the plushies are the reason why the photograph was taken. File:IKEA East Palo Alto - July 2021 - 28.jpg and File:IKEA Taoyuan 20200813.jpg I have similar thoughts on. File:Mattress Expansion (30923678767).jpg... maybe, if we assume the shark was just there. The rest I think are pretty clear derivative works of Blåhaj and must go, unless it can be proven that the design is really old or something. Batsignalling Clindberg. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• COM:TOO Sweden states: A simple general rule is that if it is unlikely that two persons would create, for example, a text identically or similarly, the text is probably sufficiently original to qualify as a protected work. (..) Often, the requirements for copyright protection are considered to be relatively low. This might disqualify Blåhaj… Maddy from Celeste (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Conceding with the assessment of User:Brainulator9. If some or all of the files named by them as possibly okay can be retained (particularly the Taiwan one, as it has encyclopedic value proving the notability of Blahaj as a popular product used by IKEA in marketing, and is of the interior of a building rather than focusing the toy so it should be okay... I hope?) then that would be quite good, but I don't know enough to say if copyright law permits it. I support the deletion of the other files. I was not aware they would potentially be copyvios (and now I have learned something!).

If not already done, editors at the Korean, Russian, and Norwegian Wikipedias should be notified as well so that they are aware of the discussion and may take appropriate action in accordance with their own project policies and the copyright law of their respective regions, as all their versions of the toy's page feature some of these files. Joyce-stick (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Two of the images, specifically File:IKEA East Palo Alto - July 2021 - 28.jpg and File:IKEA Taoyuan 20200813.jpg are also used in a gallery on the Japanese Wikipedia's version of the "IKEA" article. They should be fine, given that they're both primarily focusing the interiors of the stores and not the toy, but it bears mentioning anyway that the JA wiki editors may need a notification as well. Joyce-stick (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, another editor uploaded yet another Blåhaj image at File:Blåhaj IKEA Kungens Kurva, June 18 2022.jpg. I believe this one could probably be fine since it's yet another one that's more a picture of an IKEA store and less a picture of the toy shark, but I'd honestly not be opposed to just deleting this regardless since it doesn't exactly convey anything not already in the other pictures (I guess it is a marginally higher quality photo than the Palo Alto one?) and we don't really need more of these pictures to be worrying about. I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate to add yet another image to this deletion discussion or if we need to start yet another deletion request/discussion to get that one deleted, if it needs to be, so I'll leave that up to more experienced Commons users. Joyce-stick (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the photograph is focusing on the sharks to me. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. It's definitely the intent, at the least. Well, I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. If it must be deleted, then it should be. Joyce-stick (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and COM:TOYS. The toy is imho too prominent on the photos of the shop interior to be evaluated as de minimis. Cropping would be useless. Therefore all images have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prior deletion discussion above, these appear to be derivative works of a copyrightable toy, and are therefore not suitable to be hosted on Commons under the terms of COM:L.

• File:Blahaj trans flag.jpg
• File:Blåhaj taken with Game Boy Camera.png

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: File:Blahaj trans flag.jpg seems to have been automatically and erroneously transferred from dewiki. If deleted, should probably be put back there. Madeline (part of me) 21:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blahaj is a copyrighted toy. Unfortunately, this means that we can't include derivative works that incorporate the three-dimensional work in a greater-than-de minimis fashion. This one does; it's clearly a posed picture that choses a Blahaj to be its central focus, so it needs to be deleted in light of COM:CARES and COM:PRP.

• File:Blahaj Ask Me About LBJ.jpg

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree per nom --Brainy J (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]