Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Albert Heijn

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files in Category:Albert Heijn

[edit]

All of these product packages have or had a copyright. While it is possible that some or all of them are so old that the copyright has expired, that seems unlikely, and no dates are given.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. First of all, all of these photos clearly fall under fair use. Secondly, Beesie.jpg and Wuppies en Wups.JPG show no packaging at all. Every product and its packaging if applicable, whether it be a toy, a car, a chair, even buildings, has a copyrighted design. Every photo on every single article on Wikipedia that handles about commercial products depicts a copyrighted design. This is not a problem because as per fair use a photograph of a product may be used to illustrate the subject of an article.
If you really think that depicting photos of product packages on the internet to illustrate the subject is a violation of copyright, I'd guess you will find running a webshop to be a mission impossible, since in that case webshops would get their ass sued to hell.
Dear James, how did you think that this list of nominations would help Wikipedia and its readers, or even the world? Please contribute in a useful way instead of trying to white knight misinterpreting copyright laws. --Rderijcke (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that your first major contribution here is met with a DR, but before you make ad hominen attacks on Commons or, for that matter, anywhere on WMF, it might be well to get a little more experience (60 edits on Commons, 323 total edits on WMF) and read the various applicable policies and laws. In particular I suggest Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging and Commons:Fair use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tins i upload are before 1930 and as i understood it therefore have no copyright anymore. There is a friend of mine running a website who is a specialist in tins, who you can ask for confirmation if you doubt what i am saying. Here is the info: tincollectors.nl or email info@tincollectors.nl Alfvanbeem (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is also the trademark added in case there should be a problem there, and multiple people who do deletion requests, generally told me that when it is trademarked, people who use this pictures for commercial purposes are warned to first make contact with the company if it still exists. Alfvanbeem (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1930 is far too recent to assume that the creator has been dead for 70 years. We generally use a date around 1885 for that assumption. You have over 120,000 edits here -- I am very surprised that you don't know that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the designer is not mentioned, this work is anonymous and the copyright is expired in the Netherlands after 70 years (PD-EU-anoymous). Please include for copyright discussions the correct object information with the date these designs were created. Not only the photograph as 'own work 2014'. --Hannolans (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP File:Liquorice choices.jpg is COM:DM and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material". Autopilot (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The test of DM is whether the item that is said to be DM can be removed from the image -- blanked -- without it affecting the image. Since everything in this image has a copyright, DM cannot apply -- if you blanked all copyrighted items here, you would have a white page. As for "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role", images on Commons must be free for commercial use, so it must be possible, under copyright law, to use anything in this image on a commercial package of candy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is going way too far lately. It started recently when all pictures of OV-Chipcards were deleted due to the OV-Chipcard logo being shown, now this. Fair use doesn't count anymore, apparently. You might as well delete entire Commons then, as there's always something on a picture someone holds copyright to. PPP (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use has never been available on Commons -- claiming fair use depends on a specific use and Commons, as a repository, serves uses of all kinds. While some of them may qualify as fair use, Commons requires that its images be free for any use, whether fair or not. As for your second assertion, Commons has almost 25 million images. While some of them should be removed, almost all of them do not fit your comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The following ones, as being obvious derivative works:

No opinion on the rest. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 11:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) PS: fair use has never counted in commons. If you wish to support fair use, go to a specific project, gather consensus for accepting fair-use images and create a proper exemption document.[reply]

Deleted: As per Jim. We don't accept Fair use, works are not old enough to assume PD and there is not enough evidece that PD-EU fits. If you take some effort and take a dive in Aholds archives I'm sure you'll find who the artist is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Albert_Heijn&oldid=152151432"