| 1+
Derivative works of the bottles bottle labels.
-mattbuck (Talk) 15:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment this is a rather sloppy deletion request. The nominator seems to have robo-tagged the files in the category without even bothering to look at the files. Take for example this image. The bottles only contain text. The nominator should read Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging and clean up this list of nominations. Multichill (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment request deletion curious, indeed, with a pattern and a motivation that escapes me. Marianne Casamance (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My motivation is that I believe most if not all of these files are copyright violations, and thus cannot be hosted here. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC(
- User:Mattbuck this mass deletion request is definitely curious. In fact, reviewing many of your own submitted photos there are many which are in violation. If you continue with this deletion, I will personally hunt down all of your questionable submissions for legal review and deletion. You believe "most if not all of the submissions are copyright violations" but all you have done is tag every image in a category. That is obnoxious. --180.183.203.142 16:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are threatening to review my images because I nominated these? Please, go ahead! If I have uploaded something which is a copyright violation, it needs to be deleted. You should not let the outcome of this DR affect that. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Weg damit, Werbung. Brauchen wir hier nicht. -- Smial (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hint: The comment above from Smial is ironic. --Stepro (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sicher? Ich nicht mehr. Btw.: Weshalb wurden nicht alle Fotografen auf ihrer Diskussionsseite benachrichtigt? -- Smial (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:I_am_Kloot_foot_tapping.jpg it's ridiculous, the bottle is barely visible, you can't even tell what's on the label SpiderMum (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What... I swear I did go through looking at the pictures. I have this feeling it reselected some I had deselected. That one shouldn't even be in the category! Apologies, I'll redo this. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (: SpiderMum
- Only after the last photo has been dropped down / Only after the last picture has been deleted / Only after the last DR has been proceeded / Then will you find that no one will claim such minimis. --Cree (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for Mattbuck's DR for the contents of these following categories:
Either we are consequential on this one, or this DR is just blatant vandalism and copyfraud-trolling.
Ah, and for this one  Keep, unless all other questionable images in the categories listed above are deleted. --Felix Talk! 22:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this DR follows on from one of vodka bottles. You're quite right, those categories probably need cleaning too, but I only have so much patience for bad faith, thus this will have to do for now. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The focus of the image isn't the bottle, it's the label and the content of that label, so there's no argument for incidental inclusion, meaning these are all derivative works of copyright images and do need to be deleted. The only bottle images that can be kept are those with labels which do not meet the threshold for copyright or those which have passed into the public domain (there should be a few for both and more than enough to provide good quality images of whisky bottles in any case). I'm quite sure we've been here before (maybe it was on English Wikipedia) as I've a feeling of deja vu. Nick (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepI can't comment on every file listed here, nor do I think it's in all our interests to put a DR in some sort of omnibus blanket request. Of the one file that is mine, Cardhu single malt - pure (vatted) malt.JPG I would request an independent review. While the labels are visible, the image relates directly to a controversy involving Diageo Corp. and the passing off of a vatted malt whisky as a single malt. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardhu_distillery#.27Pure_Malt.27_Controversy for more information. The image is vital for the Wiki article in question and for maintaining a public record of what occurred. Markmark28
- The Cardhu bottle images would need to be considered on a fair use basis, because, once again, it is the label and not the bottle that is the primary subject of the work. The label is not incidental inclusion, but I don't see any issue in retaining the images on local projects under fair use doctrine. Nick (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Split up the request into logical and manageable parts. Some images the bottle is not the main item, some labels are just text and sme may be actual copyvios so please split up the request. // Liftarn (talk)
- A mass-delete request like this is ridiculous. I don't have enough life-span left to judge the merits of each entry.--Pawyilee (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pawyilee, if you are actively dying, please stop editing and go to a hospital. Liftarn, I would be happy for the DR to be split up into more manageable chunks. Since clearly I am not capable of this, perhaps you could? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to know why you think images such as File:GlenGarioch.jpg aren't copyright violations. That's not plain text, that's not incidental inclusion, that label is the primary subject and reason the photograph was taken, and is no different to a scan of the label in terms of copyright problems. Assumptions of bad faith on the part of the nominator don't help either. Nick (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Matpib: I agree, all images of packaging, be they bottles or general packaging will need to be deleted. I think, looking at the comments of people here, this Deletion Request is going to be insufficient and a more prosaic approach via discussion noticeboards will need to be considered, but ultimately all images which show labels under copyright protection will need to be deleted from the project as they're not free work and cannot be released under a free licence. A large number, probably the majority of images listed as part of this deletion discussion are derivative works and present copyright problems for both Commons and downstream reusers. Nick (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I understand, in the US bottles are not copyrightable, per s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. So at least as far as US law is concerned, any claims of derivative work of the bottles are rather questionable. --Rosenzweig τ 19:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That was specifically about the shape of the bottle. I apologise, I misworded this DR, I mean that these are derivatives of the labels, which I do not believes Ets-Hoken covers. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, Ets-Hokin spoke directly on that matter. It ruled that photographs of entire bottles are not derivative works of the labels, even if the labels are copyrightable. A photo must be mainly of the label itself to qualify as a derivative work. When photographing the entire bottle, the label is incidental.
- We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. The district court erred in so concluding.
- It's somewhat of a technicality on the wording of the law, but basically the copyright owner of the label really does not have any rights over photos of other objects where the label happened to be (lawfully) used. It's only when focusing on the expression of the label itself would there be an issue. That is not the only such case; in another Florida case there were photos of a motorcycle, which had copyrightable designs painted on it. Someone claimed the photographs of the motorcycle were derivative of the painted designs, and the court (similarly) ruled they were not -- the motorcycle was the "underlying work" in question, not the paintings, and therefore the photo was not a derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clindberg: How would you address the issue that the possibility that most of the images under this Deletion Request are focused largely or totally on the label ? I can't recall seeing one image which doesn't feature the front label shown in the centre of the image, square on. The Ets-Hokin ruling stems from the images not being merely, or even mainly, of the label but that's arguably what we have here. These images all exist to show the different label for each bottling or distillery, that's why there's several images which show the same bottle and different labels for different ages/bottlings, and indeed, show different products in the same design of bottle. We've also got a few which show the outer packaging carton or sleeve. Nick (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (post deletion comment) @Nick: If the point is to show the entire bottle, then it doesn't matter, from the ruling. If the photo crops off the top or bottom of the bottle to focus on the label, then it can get more problematic. If the point is to show the entire bottle, which would of course include whatever label happens to be on the bottle, then it's not a derivative work. The photo is not focusing on the expression of the label itself, but rather the bottle in its entirety, and including whatever label happened to be there. The Absolut photographs from the court case showed the labels head on as well, and as the ruling stated, it didn't matter if that label was copyrightable or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At least some of those labels are both rather basic text and ornaments as well as quite old. The Jack Daniel's label e. g. It seems to me this label is both below the US threshold of originality as well as in the PD because its basic design is pre-1923. --Rosenzweig τ 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
