Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zguschene moloko.png
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.
And similar: File:Zguschene moloko z kavoju.png, File:Згущені вершки.png, File:BandW condensed milk.jpg, File:Iryska.png
Looks like DW. Label on the can is copyrighted. Anatoliy (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Following the guideline Template:Packaging it corresponds to 3 and 4 for the design (this design is a traditional Soviet design for condensed milk cans which exists since at least several decades, and the label contains only geometric figures) and 1 and 2 for the logo (the logo is a very small part of the label, about 2 or 3 percents which corresponds to DM, and this logo is in a public domain as it is a logo of Ukrainian factory which falls under {{PD-UA}} as (d) symbols and signs of enterprises). As the main purpose of this image is to show traditional Soviet design of condensed milk can and not the logo of some enterprise even if the logo will be found to be copyrighted I think it can be photoshopped without any loss for the image. Same for the awards which are so small that it's even impossible to read the signification of these awards, if they are copyrighted they can be removed from the image as well. Thus there is nothing preventing this image from being stored on Commons — NickK (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)- keep until evidence of "copyrighted" (where? when? registration number?) is presented. This is an exceptional statement which needs solid evidence (unlike modern trademarks owned by specific owners). Indeed, as NickK said, this is generic design, dating back to 1930s (author's name lost in history [1]), and is used by dozens of independent manufacturers. Unlike some other Soviet trademarks which were snatched and privatized through court rulings, this one remains generic - at least in the eyes of trademark law. NVO (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, when artist draw a picture it is copyrighted, and when painter draw the label it will be copyrighted too, won't it? I did not say about trademark. So, design of the first can label is simple, but other labels are not simple.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't know if the original was copyrighted in the United States or any other places that had copyrighting practice in place. Sounds unlikely. As for present day, why should a canning factory go these lengths? They just pick a free (and yet recognizable) pattern and save their hard-earned billions. NVO (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright exists since creation the image, you should not register your image.. (Согласно Бернской конвенции (которую подписали 164 государства), авторское право на произведение возникает автоматически с момента создания этого произведения, нигде регистрировать их не нужно.)--Anatoliy (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Author's rights and exclusive rights for graphic art, as defined in Civil Code, are quite far from the concept of registered copyright as it existed in the US. Russian legislation prescribes copyrighting for software and some other technical stuff but not for graphic art. One may equate this or that right declared in Civil Code to copyright declared in the Berne Convention, but the act of having a graphic work copyrighted (passive voice) is impossible. But this is all secondary to main point: does the pattern on a can fall into any of sixteen types of IP defined in Civil Code? Does it qualify as a work of art or not? NVO (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another question with copyright is: 1) it was created in 1930s, thus it can be already be in PD anyway, 2) I didn't find any evidence that labels for consumer goods created for government (as they were the same for all Soviet Union, and the source says that it was a centralised campaign) were copyrighted in 1930s, 3) we don't know the author, and the author was never mentioned on a can. Thus it perfectly falls under {{PD-Russia-2008}} for works published anonymously, even if we consider this design complicated enough to be {{PD-ineligible}}. The only way to deny this is to find copyright holder who have registered copyright — NickK (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe first image has been created in 1930s but others is not. And where you find information about 1930s?--Anatoliy (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another question with copyright is: 1) it was created in 1930s, thus it can be already be in PD anyway, 2) I didn't find any evidence that labels for consumer goods created for government (as they were the same for all Soviet Union, and the source says that it was a centralised campaign) were copyrighted in 1930s, 3) we don't know the author, and the author was never mentioned on a can. Thus it perfectly falls under {{PD-Russia-2008}} for works published anonymously, even if we consider this design complicated enough to be {{PD-ineligible}}. The only way to deny this is to find copyright holder who have registered copyright — NickK (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Author's rights and exclusive rights for graphic art, as defined in Civil Code, are quite far from the concept of registered copyright as it existed in the US. Russian legislation prescribes copyrighting for software and some other technical stuff but not for graphic art. One may equate this or that right declared in Civil Code to copyright declared in the Berne Convention, but the act of having a graphic work copyrighted (passive voice) is impossible. But this is all secondary to main point: does the pattern on a can fall into any of sixteen types of IP defined in Civil Code? Does it qualify as a work of art or not? NVO (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright exists since creation the image, you should not register your image.. (Согласно Бернской конвенции (которую подписали 164 государства), авторское право на произведение возникает автоматически с момента создания этого произведения, нигде регистрировать их не нужно.)--Anatoliy (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't know if the original was copyrighted in the United States or any other places that had copyrighting practice in place. Sounds unlikely. As for present day, why should a canning factory go these lengths? They just pick a free (and yet recognizable) pattern and save their hard-earned billions. NVO (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1) All logos are {{PD-UA}}. 2) All designs are too simple, see. {{Packaging}}. 3) If this is DW, than what about Soft drink bottles? --Amakuha (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if all designs are simple, take a pencil and try to draw this image: File:Zguschene moloko z kavoju.png (without Photoshop or similar editor, it is for difficult images). And you are wrong about logos. Not all nominated images are Ukrainian, and not all Ukrainian logos are not copyrighted.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment different cases from different countries; the US packaging with canned milk looks like an old design that probably would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- But it produced in Netherlands.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Zguschene moloko.png and File:Iryska.png kept as I do not see a threshold of originality met, the other cases deleted as they are derived work of more elaborate designs. Proofs that these designs are PD are missing. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Seems that File:Згущені вершки.png is a very old image as well. The same design is used in Belarus (Hlubokoe, Rogachev, Russia (Tyazhinskiy, Bielgorod), Ukraine (Kupyansk, Ichnya). It looks like it is a very old and typical Soviet design as well, but I can't find anything about author (obviously, he is not indicated on the can) — NickK (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
