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.
Keep I had a look at Commons:Derivative works#Isn.27t every product copyrighted by someone.3F What about cars.3F Or kitchen chairs.3F My computer case.3F. While the illustrated above the brand name certainly is copyrighted in itself, the photo has not been taken to show this illustration and it is not central in the photo: The photo shows a glas of ayran and the carton from which it came - concepts which are not subject to copyright. I think it is normal to have such illustration on food cartons. We should consider very carefully before concluding in this case because as I see it, we might have to delete many other files of "useful articles", such as other food cartons, electrical products and cars, if even an artistic element not having central role in the photo should trigger "derivative work". Nillerdk (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The glass of milk is fine, but the carton takes up a lot of room on the picture. You have to ask yourself "why is there a carton in the photo?". I pressume it's because the user wants to show the carton and its contents, which makes the carton (along with the glass of milk) the subject of the work. This is surely a derivitave work. The user might want to crop out the carton and upload it as a new version, which would be fine. Although the file history of the current version would have to be deleted. Jolly Janner (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The carton itself (a Tetrapak design in this case) is not subject for copyright. We are talking about the illustration above the brand name which is subject to copyright, but takes up a less important part of the composition. While I'm really no expert in copyright law, it seems too restrictive to me to forbid even minor artistic elements in photos actually showing something else which is not eligible for copyright. Consider this sentence from COM:DW: And, even if the three-dimensional design contains some such [artistic] element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the over-all configuration of the utilitarian article as such. Does this not tell us that artistic elements of utilitarian articles (like milk cartons) are copyrightable, but that the copyright doesn't apply in over-all configurations (like photos of milk cartons including minor artistic elements)? Nillerdk (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artistic design on the packaging is far too prominent to be allowed as COM:DM. If someone will blank it out, or blur it, this can be kept. Otherwise it should be deleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. You might be right Michael, but it would really be a pity, because there is no alternative way to make photos of modern product packages - they almost all have such "far too prominent" (as you call it) artistic designs. There are loads of photos of product packaging on Commons, and deleting this one would make precedence for deleting many, many more. In fact, it would be almost the same as banning modern product packageing except a very limited number of really puristic designs. It spent two minutes to find these examples, all of which are actually giving more attention to the package artwork rather than product. Have a look. Are they also to be deleted, in your opinion? Nillerdk (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant. I want to discuss what should happen. Am I right that these photos are the same with respect to the above discussion? Nillerdk (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That tag is not a licence, nor a "get out of jail free" card. In order to be kept here, the image must be free both in the US and in the country in which the photograph was taken. In the US, it is my view that the artistic elements printed on the packaging are too prominent for de minimis to apply. Blurring of those elements would be the best option, as there is of course no copyright on the shape of the caton itself. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It helps to bring in some context. This image is used in articles such as en:Ayran and en:Turkish cuisine. Ayran is not milk and is not a brand name; it's a drink made of yoghurt and water. This means 1. this image is not redundant with images of milk; 2. we don't need a picture of this particular brand's packaging to show ayran. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference these two, really? If we are strict, the composition of both photos can by interpreted as a deliberate try to circumvent copyright by claiming de minimis. It will be really hard (impossible) to decide whether 1/3 or 1/4 of the photo should be allowed as de minimis. Nillerdk (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all mentioned images. If there is a photo or a graphic on the package which is not ilegibel for copyright it has to be deleted. --Jodo (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these images. The "copyright" rules are the way of saving right of the author (or copyright owner) if somebody would like use her/his work against her/his interest. The picture of packing - as in all mentioned cases - never can be multiplexed in the way against copyright owner of the package design. Don't overinterpret, don't play the law just for play, always look for the target of our activity. Read avoid copyright paranoia. Julo (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are referring to fair use here, Julo. I'm afraid we have to stick strictly to copyright law (and policy) - even if the use of the files wouldn't be "against" the copyright holder. I'm also not sure we would be able to judge when something is good or bad for the copyright holder. Nillerdk (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sort of convinced that modern food packaging can't be hosted on Commons. This excludes cases with very old artwork (e.g. Coca Cola logo), extremely simple design and maybe cases with copyrighted artwork if it is very small and not in center. I have spent a few more minutes to find even more files which are candidates for deletion in this sense: Look here. In some cases, it would probably be useful to cut out the artwork in order to avoid deletion. In most cases, I think it would render the file unusable unfortunatly. We should also check before deletion, if Wikipedias allowing fair use are using or might use the files, because they could certainly be hosted under fair use (for example on enwiki). Maybe I or someone else should post on the enwiki Village Pump making them aware of the imminent deletion of food packagings. Nillerdk (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Commons:Licensing#Questionable.2C_may_or__may_not_be_OK and Commons:Licensing#Simple_design as "Products of daily use with simple designs are OK". Also: "Trademarks and industrial designs restrictions are pertinent to industrial reproduction, but photographs of such items can otherwise be freely reproduced." ^1 In current case approx. 95 % on the image is in free use, the remaining 5 % is the drawing of hills. I.e. A picture of Nike pants is ok, but the crop of the Swoosh logo is not. Note: It is often very difficult to determine whether a design is protected by copyright or not, and images of these sorts are frequently nominated for deletion, with various results.feydey(talk)12:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm mostly with feydey. This is products of daily use. The only thing in question is the drawing of a lake and hills on the package (the rest is text). In my view this is much simpler than the design of most cars and electronic equipment. And what about fashion clothes and lamps and furniture? And the two images here, [[:|No-carb_pork.jpg]] and [[:]], where is the work of art here? If the drawing vas bigger and more artistic I would vote keep. --MGA73 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if previous discussions have suggested f. ex. putting a black box over the artistic parts, making the product photo ugly, but more acceptable? feydey(talk)09:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been requested for my reasoning in the above decision.
Guidance: "Logos" are listed under the Commons:Licensing#Questionable, may or may not be OK section of Commons:Licensing. This bulleted line further refers to Commons:Licensing#Simple design, which states "Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo." It also offers the caveats "Any design which is an artistic work may be copyrighted, however" and "It is often very difficult to determine whether a design is protected by copyright or not, and images of these sorts are frequently nominated for deletion, with various results." I read the latter as an obvious fig leaf for admins hoping nobody yells at them for decisions in deletion discussions. The section "Simple design" uses as an example the Microsoft logo. (See right) Note that the phrase "Products of daily use with simple designs are OK," which is used in the above discussion, no longer occurs in Commons:Licensing.
Reasoning: There are two forms of Commons guidance: written and visual. Visual is the easiest.
Can the logo in question be reasonably interpreted to be about the same or less creative as the Microsoft logo given as an example? The Microsoft logo is a text leaned at an angle, while the packaging here includes a stylized river foreground with a depiction of buildings and roads on four hills in the background. The answer is 'no'.
Does the logo in question reasonably fall under the written guidance? In my judgment, the text in the image may be reasonably argued to be "images of text in a general typeface." In my judgment, the images in the packaging, as described above, cannot be reasonably argued to be "simple geometric shapes." The answer is 'no' and the image thus falls under a restrictive copyright not allowed on Commons.
Evaluation of arguments: I read most of the above comments in favor of deletion as being centered around the 'too artistic to not be under copyright and thus not allowed on Commons' argument. A number of users argue for keeping the image under what appears to be a de minimis basis, e.g. "It's a picture of a carton of milk not of the artwork", "The main purpose of this image is ayran...The packaging is on the second role," "approx. 95 % on the image is in free use, the remaining 5 % is the drawing of hills"). These are not convincing. First, while British law, for example, states "Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work" the image of the copyrighted logo in this image is not accidental. It was clearly set up to include the copyrighted portion, which may have been avoided by using a different side of the carton, by blurring or blacking out the copyrighted portion, or by simply deciding that a picture of a branded carton of ayran is not needed to illustrate the topic of ayran. Second, the focal point of the image, being almost entirely white on a plain background, is precisely the colorful copyrighted portion. (See the image right to compare how much of the "stuff working looking at" is copyrighted versus non-copyrighted in an acceptable de minimis situation.) The separate argument "this is much simpler than the design of most cars and electronic equipment" does not actually address the merits of image under discussion. A deletion discussion of industrial design, already partially covered under Commons:Licensing, would be separate from this one. The argument "The 'copyright' rules are the way of saving right of the author (or copyright owner) if somebody would like use her/his work against her/his interest" is problematic on several levels; is the suggestion that we should allow non-free images on Commons or that we should license non-free images as free even when we know that is false? In any case, such an argument is beyond the scope of this deletion discussion. - BanyanTree05:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that picture is okay. It's reasonably artistic. Jolly Janner (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep
Comment Hmm. You might be right Michael, but it would really be a pity, because there is no alternative way to make photos of modern product packages - they almost all have such "far too prominent" (as you call it) artistic designs. There are loads of photos of product packaging on Commons, and deleting this one would make precedence for deleting many, many more. In fact, it would be almost the same as banning modern product packageing except a very limited number of really puristic designs. It spent two minutes to find these examples, all of which are actually giving more attention to the package artwork rather than product. Have a look. Are they also to be deleted, in your opinion? Nillerdk (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=logo}
