Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pragolaktos BL smetana.jpg

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.

File:Pragolaktos BL smetana.jpg

Per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Product packaging it needs to be discussed whether the depicted artwork is really below threshold of originality or not. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Same problem with:

• File:Nature s Promise BL gouda.jpg
• File:Tami BL jogurty.jpg
• File:Castelli BL mozzarella.jpg
• File:Hollandia BL jogurty.jpg
• File:Bohemia vroubky horcice.jpg
• File:Pom-Bar original.jpg
• File:Sedlcansky Hermelin BL b.jpg
• File:Sondey Neapolitaner oplatky.jpg
• File:DeLacto BL maslo.jpg
• File:Krakonos 10.jpg
• File:Cool grep.jpg
• File:Meggle BL mleko smetana.jpg
• File:Rajec sipek.jpg
• File:Zlatopramen Radler grapefruit rozmaryn.jpg
• File:Zlatopramen Radler visen b.jpg
• File:Zlatopramen Radler citron bezpvy kvet mata.jpg
• File:Strongbow Dark Fruit.jpg
• File:Strongbow Citrus Edge.jpg
• File:Strongbow Cucumber Mint.jpg
• File:Zlatopramen Radler grapefruit.jpg
• File:Zlatopramen Radler citron.jpg
• File:Radegast razna 10.jpg
• File:Lisacke jablko merunka.jpg
• File:Lisacke jablko hruska.jpg
• File:Lisacke jablko jablko.jpg
• File:Royal Dog cider.jpg
• File:Sterilgarda BL Mascarpone.jpg
• File:Omiros BL Feta.jpg
• File:Nature s Promise BL Camembert.jpg
• File:Nature s Promise BL Cottage.jpg
• File:K-free BL certsvy syr.jpg
• File:K-free BL Cottage.jpg
• File:Kunin BL mleko.jpg
• File:Lucina BL.jpg
• File:DeLacto BL jogurt.jpg
• File:Galbani BL Mozzarella.jpg
• File:Sedlcansky Hermelin BL.jpg

In my view, this package File:Pragolaktos BL smetana.jpg is below the threshold of originality - it contains just the company logo and some colors, nothing really artistic to be called 'artwork'. Yes there has been some creative input needed for its design, and for some other examples the degree of creative input might be higher or lower. But I don't think this should be the main argument here (not only because the 'threshold' can be very subjective and difficult to determine).

In general, product packaging (and likewise advertisements and company logos) are _meant_ to be displayed and widely seen, therefore, showing another instance of the same thing elsewhere does nobody any harm.

There are already zillions of images of the same nature here on Commons - for example Category:Beer bottles, Category:Beverage bottles, Category:Milk cartons, Category:Logos, with principally the same issue. I believe that Commons should maintain some consistency - either allow or disallow all of them, and not waste time discussing individual images.

The identification on the package is the sole reason for taking the photo and uploading it to Commons - it contains useful information. Taking a photo of a featureless package would be pointless. --JiriMatejicek (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Deleted: all except three. COM:PACKAGING has made it clear that packaging is generally not okay for hosting on Commons. Packaging generally includes prominent copyright elements, whether is be an actual photograph of the product or an graphic rendering of it, complex designs, etc. This was the case with the nominated files. The three files that I've kept are all bottles, which have generally been a point of much contention regarding whether the label is the focal point or de minimis in the grand scheme of the picture of the bottle. These should be discussed separately on their own merits. ✗plicit 01:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)