Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Liquor bottles

< Commons:Deletion requests
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.

Files in Category:Liquor bottles

edit
List of 175 files and long discussion
Derivative works of the bottle labels.

-mattbuck (Talk) 15:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please keep care about given permissions via OTRS. File:Wurzelpeter Flasche.jpg has a OTRS tag. If you have any doubt about this ticket use Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard.--Wdwd (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was using VFC which doesn't have OTRS notices apparently. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding File:Marzadro-18lune.jpg.
The image is correctly described on Creative commons, listing its author as Luca Marzadro, a representative of the Marzadro distillery with the power to accept the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. I have an e-mail to testify that such use has been granted. If there are problems regarding the quality of the image (only 240 × 240) I can try to request a better image.
Regarding File:Kronbrännvin Dunbodi.JPG: The image on the label is by an unknown artist, drafted around 1870. The medals on the label, which are scetchy and not really identifiable, must also be from the end of the 19th Century. So you could realistically assume that the artists have been dead at least 70 years by now. No reason for the image to be deleted. Boberger (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Boberger (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The president of the Hideous company sent me this photo and gave permission for its use for any purpose, otherwise I never would have uploaded it. Please check these things before nominating photos for deletion, and kindly contribute to the Wikimedia projects in a way that enriches, not depletes, our projects.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hideousbottle.jpg
173.89.236.187 16:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please forward that to our OTRS team so it can be properly ticketed? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding File:Rhum arrangé Madagascar.jpg: I don't understand why this image should be deleted. There is no company label on it. --Bgag (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Absinthe House Back Barroom Espresso Machine Clock.JPG. General view of a bar; any visible labels are de minimis. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I swear I unchecked that one... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:AMAROSANGIUSEPPE.gif. There is no "derivative work", the label contains only generic images and font. I work for the company Amaro San Giuseppe SRL and i have the permission to post this image -- Alessandro_Olivetto (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Jakobsbad Angelika.JPG Complies with no original authorship. Contains simple graphical characters and text. --Schofför (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Old Goldwasser bottle.jpg: seems to me that the chance of this being under current copyright is close to nil. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Becher 1.jpg No any reason for deletion, as others above. Could you, please, stop this senseless hunting and bothering of normally working wikipedians? --Karelj (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Disaronno bottle top.jpg and File:Sailor Jerry Spiced Navy Rum.jpg: These are photos of products that I took myself. They aren't copied from anywhere. I do not see how this is derivative. If anyone wants I can submit the original raw files for these photos. --Ccyyrree (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ccyyrree, I am not trying to claim that you did not take the photo yourself, and that second one is in fact an excellent shot. The question is not the copyright of the photo, it is the copyright of the label on the bottle. Just because you take a photo of something doesn't mean you hold copyright over every element in it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Floresta cachaca flaska.JPG Wahts the legal issue in taking a photo of a product i bought and posses? Is there a legal problem fotographing my property if the label of the producer is visable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Eniklasc (talk • contribs)
    Unfortunately yes. To put it simply, ownership of a picture does not mean you own the rights to that picture. If you buy a painting at a gallery, you may own the canvas but you do not have copyright of it, and so you could not make reproductions of it. The same applies here, but instead of a painting we have a label on a bottle, and instead of a gallery we have a liquor store. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking for guidelines at wikipedia commons it seems like this is actually described at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Useful-object-US howcome you say my photos does not fall under "image is of an object with an intrinsic utilitarian function" ? --Eniklasc (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottle is a utilitarian object, the label is not. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you should read the wikipedia commons guidelines better, check the photo in the example, with the label in the exact same way. --Eniklasc (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If your assumption would be right, you need to delete all your photos of train, cars, baloons with logo and so on. --Eniklasc (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The design of a useful article shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” The bottle is the utilitarian aspect, the label is not. The label on that bottle is not eligible for copyright as it fails to pass the threshold of originality. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I Maybe can see some problems with the picture of the mountain, i can censor that. Unless its a part of the business logo --Eniklasc (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you now read up on the rules for deritavie work, you should revise your list for deletion. It many of the ones that i checked that does not fall under : " pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article". It is kind of insulting to the contributors adding photos for deletion without reading upp on the facts. --Eniklasc (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep — all photos. From the pattern of nominations for deletion, it appears user mattbuck is acting in bad faith. These are all pictures of alcoholic beverages. In many of them the labels on the bottles are blurred, illegible or partially obscured and cannot conceivably be used for copyright violation or replication. It's much easier to destroy the work of others than make meaningful contributions to the Wikipedia projects, isn't it, mattbuck? Please tell us what your real reason for a wholesale purge of photos of alcoholic beverage bottles is. — Quicksilver@ 23:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have better things to do than act in bad faith, unlike you apparently. It seems you never read the whole AGF thing. Easier to destroy than make meaningful contributions? I have uploaded over 10,000 photos here, I have written about 10 good articles on en.wikipedia and contributed to many many more, I was a WLM Ukraine judge, I curate UK railway images, I am active at the Quality Image project... oh, and that's in addition to the general shit which goes with being a Commons admin. Part of that job of Commons admin is watching out for potential copyright violations. That is the most important thing we do here on Commons - we try to ensure that we follow the law with our images. I think that some if not all of the images I nominated here are potentially iffy from a copyright standpoint. Thus, as is the process for these things, I nominated them for deletion to ask for others' opinions. Perhaps some people know the rules regarding these things better than me, that's fine, they can comment here and the closing admin will take their views into account. I fully acknowledge I have made some mistakes with this DR, but I did act in good faith when I nominated them, and frankly I am fucking fed up of being attacked for it here. You uploaded images and they were nominated? I'm very sorry for it, but that's the way it goes. Copyright is labyrinthine, complex and against common sense. No one will know everything about it, and we don't expect them to. Perhaps you took a photo of a new building. That's great if you're in the UK, but if you're in France it will probably have to be deleted. You photographed a poster? In the US you're fine, but in New Zealand it's a problem. You have a photo which was taken in 1900 - in Europe it's probably still copyrighted, but in India it's probably public domain! We on Commons are not out to hurt the Wikimedia project by deleting all the photos you put in articles, we want to protect it by ensuring that the WMF doesn't get sued for using images they shouldn't have! But I'm sure that to you that doesn't count as making a meaningful contribution... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Awamori in Moscow.JPG. Hi, dear colleagues! Frankly, I do not see any reason to delete this file – as well as most of other files. I’ve made the photo myself and it makes an excellent illustration for the related article (ru:Авамори) I wrote in Russian Wikipedia. I don't know Japanese and can't argue whether there is any company label on the bottle or not. Although I hardly imagine any bottle label without the producer's logo. Should we delete all alcohol photos except the ones of homemade moonshine?:) Today is December 31, not April 1:) Best New Year wishes, Bapak Alex (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


CC question

If the company/copy right holder would accept to release a picture of a bottle with a clearly visible label under creative commons license and prove that with OTRS etc. Would they then just release that specific depiction of the label under CC? Or would it mean they have released any depiction of the label, and thus the label itself, under cc-license?--LittleGun (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just that specific photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How come?--LittleGun (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the visible label that is a problem, reading the guidelines here on wikipedia commons, as i understand it, its only a problem if the label conatains some artistic or sculptural work, wich is not a part of the buisness label. "NOT a blobby unidentifiable medallion and such." --Eniklasc (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So have you, Eniklasc, found any example in the list that should be deleted with that interpretation? I have not.--LittleGun (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them shouldnt be deleted, here is some random clicks for sure wich holds the defintion: File:Old_Rip_Van_Winkle_Whiskey_301243232.jpg File:Pernod_p_006.jpg File:Old_Bottle.JPG File:New_drambuie_bottle.jpg --Eniklasc (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. I later saw your comment of the bottle with the mountain above. So maybe this File:Berentzen Apfelkorn met druppels.JPG is correctly up for deletion too.--LittleGun (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, since it needs to be separately identifyable, and a generic apple cant be said to fall under that, so there should be absolute no reason for deletion on that. I Dont think mattbuck read up on the copyright rules before he started massposting requests for deletion. Im not sure with mine though anymore, the mountain seems to be apart of the businesslogo and not a copyrighted artistic object, but i cant find anything properly written about that. Maybe its up for deletion, maybe its not. Since mattbuck didnt read up on the rules in the first place, i dont think he is the one to answer our questions. --Eniklasc (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry LittleGun, i missread your earlier question you asked wich "SHOULD BE" deleted, and im not sure wich should be deleted. Maybe some with artistic or sculptural objects on them, maybe my mountain and a couple of more ones, but most of them should not be deleted. But i cant find anything written that explaines if there is some difference between company logo and artistic objects. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. --Eniklasc (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In view of s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., which is directly on point, I think that mass deletion of liquor bottles is problematic. There may be a few of these which ought to be deleted, but the vast majority will be keepers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 5 January 2014 (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.

Files in Category:Liquor bottles

edit

Derivative works, COM:PACKAGING, above COM:TOO.

Sealle (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Für die ersten drei: Wir haben das in den Räumen der Firma mit ihrer Genehmigung fotografiert. Borco war Sponsor von Wiki loves Cocktails. --Ralf Roleček 07:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eigentlich bräuchten wir dann eine OTRS Freigabe von Bronco. Das Problem dabei ist, dass Bronco dann das Flaschendesign bzw alle grafischen Elemente der Flasche unter eine CC-BY-SA Lizenz stellen muss und das wird die Firma vermutlich ungern machen. Amada44  talk to me 19:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ich glaube, sowas liegt im OTRS vor, darüber hat @Mangomix: mit Borco gesprochen. --Ralf Roleček 22:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sie müssen nicht das Design freigeben, nur die Fotos. Wir haben auch das Logo von Coca-Cola (ok, alt genug) oder anderer Firmen. Wenn ein konkretes Foto freigegeben ist, bedeutet das ja nicht, daß Markenrechte oder das Urheberrecht am Design betroffen sind. Die verbleiben bei der Firma und die müssen von Nachnutzern beachtet werden, wie Persönlichkeitsrechte bei Porträts. Die Firma wußte, wofür wir was haben wollten und sie haben dementsprechend auch ganz gezielt Flaschen rausgesucht, die wir fotografieren dürfen. Fotografiere ich im Rahmen der Panoramafreiheit ein geschütztes Kunstwerk, verliert ja der Künstler damit auch nicht sein Urheberrecht, er muß es nach nationalem Recht nur dulden, daß man das abbilden darf. Er bleibt Urheber mit allen Rechten. Und der Urheber des Flaschen- oder Etikettendesigns verliert nicht sein Urheberrecht daran, nur weil ein freies Foto existiert. --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um das Problem zu demonstrieren, habe ich einen Auschnitt aus der Flasche hochgeladen.
File:15-09-26-RalfR-WLC-0113-crop.jpg
Wer ist der Author dieses Logos? Du? Wohl nicht oder? Ich habe mal Kwaifeh als Author eingertragen. Unter welcher Lizenz denkst du soll es veröfentlicht werden? Will Kwaifeh dass ihr Logo unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wird? Verstehst du das Problem? Amada44  talk to me 09:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:15-09-26-RalfR-WLC-0113a.jpg
Nach geltender Rechtssprechung ist das Logo Beiwerk, da sich bei einer Änderung des Logos der Gesamtcharakter des Bildes nicht ändern würde. --Ralf Roleček 16:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Darum gehts doch gar nicht. Verstehst du, dass wenn du ein Bild unter einer freien Lizenz hochlädst, alle Teile dieses Bildes unter einer freien Lizenz stehen und somit in diesem Beispiel auch das Logo? Ist sich Kwaifeh bewusst, dass sie ihr Logo unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht haben? OTRS brauchts so oder so und bis jetzt ist da kein otrs tag dran. Amada44  talk to me 19:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doch, darum gehts. Wir brauchen hier File:Berlin, April 2016 - 22.jpg auch keine Freigabe von Saturn. Wenn alle Teile des Bildes frei sein müßten, müssen wir alle Fotos löschen, die irgendwas enthalten, was von Menschen geschaffen wurde. Man kann in jeder Stadt die Kamera blind irgendwo hinhalten, es ist immer irgendwas Geschütztes drauf. Das ist doch völlig an der Realität vorbei und auch nicht durch Rechtssprechung gedeckt, was du verlangst. --Ralf Roleček 19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per COM:PACKAGING and discussion. I am happy to undelete if we get OTRS permission from the companies of the depicted bottles. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dann wird es die nächsten Bilder nicht mehr auf Commons geben, auch gut. --Ralf Roleček 20:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Liquor_bottles&oldid=528836914"