Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
JPS68 (talk | contribs)
27,419 edits
Yes
Fred J (talk | contribs)
15,332 edits
m linkfix
Line 61: Line 61:
:*There's no hard and clear lines on de minimis, but the focus of an image is never de minimis, and the label of the bottle is the focus point of a straight-forward picture of a bottle of wine.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:*There's no hard and clear lines on de minimis, but the focus of an image is never de minimis, and the label of the bottle is the focus point of a straight-forward picture of a bottle of wine.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
::Even if the label is not de minimis I think that an image could be kept if the "grapic element" is only a small part of the label. --[[User:MGA73|MGA73]] ([[User talk:MGA73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::Even if the label is not de minimis I think that an image could be kept if the "grapic element" is only a small part of the label. --[[User:MGA73|MGA73]] ([[User talk:MGA73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
*{{vk}} or Move to Wikipedia. What about all the pictures of wine, whiskies, cognac, soda, etc bottles ? On the french Wikipedia we had this subject on discussion [fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/mars_2009#Etiquettes_de_bouteilles]. [[User:Matpib|Matpib]] ([[User talk:Matpib|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
*{{vk}} or Move to Wikipedia. What about all the pictures of wine, whiskies, cognac, soda, etc bottles ? On the french Wikipedia we had this subject on discussion [[:fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/mars_2009#Etiquettes_de_bouteilles]]. [[User:Matpib|Matpib]] ([[User talk:Matpib|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
*{{vk}} idem Matpib [[User:JPS68|JPS68]] ([[User talk:JPS68|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
*{{vk}} idem Matpib [[User:JPS68|JPS68]] ([[User talk:JPS68|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:19, 7 March 2010

Wine labels

Mass-tagged for copyright violation by Polimerek (talk · contribs), following the speedy-deletion of File:Beaujolais Nouveau bottle.jpg. I speedy declined per non-obviousness, as the tagger himself question the deletion of the first file. You may read Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Beaujolais_Nouveau_bottle.jpg. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Most of these could be speedied. Why not just list debatable cases? Are there any? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Every one of them has some copyrightable element on the label.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Move to Wikipedia. Image uploaders are encouraged to place images on Commons rather than Wikipedia, where these images are used in several articles. They should easily be covered under Fair Use on Wikipedia. It isn't any different from the plethora of scans of CD covers, books covers, etc. I doubt these images would have been an issue had they been uploaded to Wikipedia instead. Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I admit that I am still researching the issue for a more definitive legal answer but from a practical application I fail to see the difference between Wikipedia's use of these images compared to their usage on wine blogs and other wine related web sites and publications. In years of working in the wine industry, I've never heard of a winery claiming copyright infringement for use of their label in some discussion about wine. On the contrary, they are more often thrilled to have their image out there for the publicity. Agne27 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, fair use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. See our licensing policy. Blurpeace 01:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The images ended up at Commons under the (possibly faulty) assumption that such images aren't Fair Use licence type, but rather private reproductions of the exterior of a product that noone pays to simply watch, and visual copyright concerns, especially of antiques, seem tenuous. The comparison is closer to an old ticket stub where the image is insufficient to go see the show. If such documentation now is counter to Commons policy, it would be appreciated they last long enough to be transwikied. Murgh (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Of course, if some images are allowed under fair-use on some Wikipedias, we shall give some time to transer them / undelete them for that purpose. In any case, we are discussing here whether they belong to Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Anachronist, if they are to be used under terms of fair use, they can not exist on Commons, which only accepts freely licensed images. Your argument is a keep argument for Wikipedia, not here on Commons. I'm sorry but your argument is invalid. Agne27, we are not concerned with the choices that various blogs make in their use of images from other sources. That's their concern with regards to copyright, and not ours. It has no influence here. With regards to whether they would complain of copyright infringement, that is not a concern for us either. We do not host images awaiting a cease and desist letter from the copyright holders. If there is reason to believe the image is copyrighted, we delete it from Commons. For my own part, I fail to see any evidence these images are free of copyright from the holder of the copyrights to the labels. All of them contain artwork that is copyrightable. Further, these photographs are focused on the labels, and the labels are not incidental to the entire image. If any of these labels are in the public domain in their country of origin by way of another means, such as age (I did not detect anything, but I could have missed something), then there is an argument to keep those specific images. But, such arguments are not currently present. Therefore, delete the lot, transferring as needed/requested before deleting. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The majority are too simple to qualify for copyright, or use very generic icons or pictures that are simply ineligible for copyright. Trademark law is what protects these. -Nard the Bard 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Trivial Reproduction of copyrightable elements. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some  Delete and some  Keep. We should delete copyvio but we should not be more holy than the pope. I think that we could keep some and should delete others. Some examples:
Many of the "artworks" are quite simple and copyright should require some creativity. --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with some of MGA73's assessments. An illustration of grapes, or a building, even if "simple", may still qualify for copyright. But I agree with the general sentiment. Keep the unquestionably PD-text labels, but delete (and selectively restore at en.wiki) the ones that contain more complex artwork (even simple line drawings of building and grapes). I think there may be a couple PD-OLD labels in there as well (though they may not have been tagged), so we should consider that as well in keeping. -Andrew c (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Admissible. Mpmpmp (t) 19:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any picture depicting an entire bottle passes the margin that the label itself should be considered de minimis. However, most photographs of just the label do not pass that bar, and any photograph of just a label that may be considered artistic should be remove. Bastique demandez 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any legal cite/precedence for that interpretation of de minimis? If a wine bottle were sitting on a table, with cheese, some grapes, etc. ok...but focused on the bottle only? I think the line is different than you suggest. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no hard and clear lines on de minimis, but the focus of an image is never de minimis, and the label of the bottle is the focus point of a straight-forward picture of a bottle of wine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the label is not de minimis I think that an image could be kept if the "grapic element" is only a small part of the label. --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Wine_labels&oldid=36222998"