Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spring Mountain 1982 Falcon Crest Chardonnay.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
copyvio Themightyquill (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Pretty bottle, might want to consider drinking it soon, but, unfortunately, the painting of the house is copyrighted. Courcelles (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Keep per Foundation Attorney Mike Goodwin at Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels and the US 9th Circuit 2000 decision in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. As an editor on en.wiki noted in the discussion regarding a similar image, the 9th circuit court made a distinction between images that focused solely on the wine label and those that included the bottle in its entirety, as this image does. Plus, only an assumption has been made that the image on the label is copyrighted and was not pd released. Given Goodwin's thoughts and the distinction that the 9th Circuit made, I'm not sure that assumption provides strong ground for deletion. It's questionable, at best. Agne27 (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- There's a very key part of the 9th Circuit's decision in Ets-Hokin v Skyy, however, "there are no pictures, illustrations, or other noteworthy features on the label or elsewhere on the bottle." That is why the court ruled that bottle does not merit copyright protection, and why that case does not decide this one- here there is very clearly a picture. Courcelles (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- But we don't have any evidence that the image violates a copyright protection. No complaint has been made which I think gets at the heart of Mike Goodwin's thoughts on the previous deletion request of wine label images when he was the Foundation's attorney in charge of protecting the best interest of the project. If a complaint was made because the image wasn't pd released and if the image solely focused on the label, that is a whole other ball game. But between Goodwin's opinion, lack of evidence for a copyvio, and the 9th circuit's distinction between label and bottle in a whole, I think this is a much more questionable case for deletion than several of Quill's other mass deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chateau bellet.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gewürztraminer SGN 1989 label.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soffoconelabel.jpg. Agne27 (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- No complaint has been made? Sorry, that's not how we operate around any of the WM projects, and if the former general counsel said anything along those lines, he was wrong. We don't host copyvios until someone bothers to complain- we kill them as soon as we find them, and try to avoid making work for the legal department- see also COM:PRP. Hoping we won't get a DMCA takedown order or a lawsuit is not how we can, or should be, building a free repository of media. Courcelles (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again, we only have an assumption that this is a copyvio needing to be killed. That's like shoot-first and hope that he was guilty. And the fact that Goodwin is the former general counsel doesn't discount his opinion. He certainly wasn't fired for incompetence or negligence and when the previous deletion request was going on, Goodwin was explicitly entrusted with protecting the best interest of Commons and the Foundations. It was his opinion that maintaining such images didn't pose any harm and, given the 9th Circuit court's distinction and the lack of evidence for a copyvio, Goodwin's opinion makes sense for images like this one. It certainly makes more sense for images like this than for images like File:Chateau bellet.jpg which focus solely on the wine label. I'm not arguing for a blanket keep of all wine label images but blanket "killing" of images that we kinda, sorta, maybe, possibly, shrug, who knows, think could be copyvio is not the way to go. Agne27 (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- (NB: It's Godwin, not Goodwin.) And, still, that's just not how we work- we don't need to be 100% sure that something is a copyright violation to kill it. To keep something we need to be, worst case, reasonably sure it's not a copyright violation. Again, the 9th circuit case is almost worthless here because it was focusing on a bottle that, if uploaded here, would be marked pd-ineligible. This label does not fall within that definition, and we should use extreme caution in applying that case here. This label was published in 1983 or later (1982 vintage, Chardonnay is rarely/never released as a vin de primeur) with a painting being its central focus. There is not one piece of evidence presented here that that is outside of copyright. We simply do not mess around where copyright is concerned- 50/50 cases are deleted. Courcelles (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again, we only have an assumption that this is a copyvio needing to be killed. That's like shoot-first and hope that he was guilty. And the fact that Goodwin is the former general counsel doesn't discount his opinion. He certainly wasn't fired for incompetence or negligence and when the previous deletion request was going on, Goodwin was explicitly entrusted with protecting the best interest of Commons and the Foundations. It was his opinion that maintaining such images didn't pose any harm and, given the 9th Circuit court's distinction and the lack of evidence for a copyvio, Goodwin's opinion makes sense for images like this one. It certainly makes more sense for images like this than for images like File:Chateau bellet.jpg which focus solely on the wine label. I'm not arguing for a blanket keep of all wine label images but blanket "killing" of images that we kinda, sorta, maybe, possibly, shrug, who knows, think could be copyvio is not the way to go. Agne27 (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- No complaint has been made? Sorry, that's not how we operate around any of the WM projects, and if the former general counsel said anything along those lines, he was wrong. We don't host copyvios until someone bothers to complain- we kill them as soon as we find them, and try to avoid making work for the legal department- see also COM:PRP. Hoping we won't get a DMCA takedown order or a lawsuit is not how we can, or should be, building a free repository of media. Courcelles (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- But we don't have any evidence that the image violates a copyright protection. No complaint has been made which I think gets at the heart of Mike Goodwin's thoughts on the previous deletion request of wine label images when he was the Foundation's attorney in charge of protecting the best interest of the project. If a complaint was made because the image wasn't pd released and if the image solely focused on the label, that is a whole other ball game. But between Goodwin's opinion, lack of evidence for a copyvio, and the 9th circuit's distinction between label and bottle in a whole, I think this is a much more questionable case for deletion than several of Quill's other mass deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chateau bellet.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gewürztraminer SGN 1989 label.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soffoconelabel.jpg. Agne27 (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)Also, something the enwiki discussion didn't get to, but it ought to have, is that Latour has been using that drawing of the tower for a very long time- I've seen it as early as the 1919 vintage. Courcelles (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- True, but how do we know when the painting featured on this label was created? The vintage year of the wine is not an indicator and with the older style architecture of the house, it could have been an old 19th century image that the winery used. We simply do not know and given Goodwin's opinion plus the US 9th Circuit court's distinction, we are certainly only left with guesses as proof that this image is guilty and merits "killing". Agne27 (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agne, if you click "upload" on the left column, then "I don't know who the author is, or I don't know what license applies" you get this page. I'm not sure how this could be clearer. The onus is not on me to prove that it's copyrighted. Similarly, see Commons:Essential information. If we don't know who created it or what license it falls under, it gets deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- True, but how do we know when the painting featured on this label was created? The vintage year of the wine is not an indicator and with the older style architecture of the house, it could have been an old 19th century image that the winery used. We simply do not know and given Goodwin's opinion plus the US 9th Circuit court's distinction, we are certainly only left with guesses as proof that this image is guilty and merits "killing". Agne27 (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits[1] did indicate that photographs of the entire bottle would not be considered derivative works of the label even if the label was copyrightable. And per Foundation Attorney Mike Goodwin's comments on the issue. feydey (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
