Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg

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.

File:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg

[edit]

COM:PACKAGING, derivative work of non-free content (the label on the bottle), I don't think de minimis applies here. Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not an original packaging: that shape of glass/bottle is used by several trademarks for a long time. Heddryin [🔊] 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep en total accord avec l'analyse de Heddryin --JPS68 (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep agree with Heddryin. Marianne Casamance (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Je ne vois même pas d'argumentaire au sujet de cette demande de suppression. Un seul lien dénué de phrase et de contextualisation constitue-t-il une argumentation. J'en doute fortement. Sur le fond, je ne vois pas en quoi cette photo peut poser problème. Est-ce l'illustration sur l'étiquette ? J'en doute, dans la mesure ou l'étiquette est déformée par le fait que la bouteille est cylindrique, en l'état la photo déforme grandement toute l'étiquette et les illustrations qui pourraient s'y trouver. Enfin, l'étiquette de la bouteille et la bouteille n'étant clairement pas les aspects centraux de la photo : oui il y a une composition avec une bouteille, un verre, une hauteur de bière, un gâteau, un piédestal en pierre, de la végétation derrière, etc, on est en plein de minimis. Ludo (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I blurred the illustration on the label. — Racconish 📥 11:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I removed this. Ludo (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just tried to help find a consensus. — Racconish 📥 12:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I think this picture have not problem with copyright in the first version. So I prefer that we discuss with this version. Ludo (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the inclusion of the bottle was deliberate, I don't think COM:DM applies here. Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be the inclusion of Louvre Pyramid in this picture is an accident. The Pyramid came by coincidence. Ludo (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main subject is the Louvre plaza and the pyramid is an unavoidable and small part of the subject, so COM:DM applies here. In your image, the beer and its brand are clearly the main subject. Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The issue is not the shape of the bottle, but the copyrightable artwork on the label. That it is slightly 'distorted' by being wrapped around the bottle is irrelevant... COM:PACKAGING specifically addresses that point. The obvious desire of the photographer was not a 'generic' composition with a glass, bottle, etc, but to portray that 'specific' brand and the design of it's packaging. Multiple objects bearing the name are shown, and the name was specifically referenced by the uploader in both the filename and the description of the image. This is a clear case of not being de minimis. Revent (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious desire of the photographer was not a 'generic' composition with a glass, bottle, etc, but to portray that 'specific' brand and the design of it's packaging. No. Clearly not. I'm the photographer. Ludo (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ludo29: I can't speak as to what was going on in your head, of course, but that the name of the brand is prominently in the image twice, in the filename, in the description, and you categorized it under the name of the brand. The 'obvious' conclusion is as I stated, even if it was not your intent. Revent (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The illustration and the bottle are not the main subject, so COM:DM could apply. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Label is not free. Intend was to show the label, otherwise the bottle could have been rotated. Therefore Com:DM doesn't apply. Blurred version kept, original deleted. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg

[edit]

Selon la précédente demande, un admin décide que la photo dans son état premier ne peut être éligible à une CC by SA. Il est donc interdit de la modifier sans l'accord de l'auteur. Je suis l'auteur, je refuse la modification opérée. La photo doit être supprimée. Ludo (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep — Under the terms of the CC BY SA 3.0 license you can not veto the creation of an adaption of your work. However, per sections 4(a) and 4(c) you have the right to have removed, to the extent practicable, any credit to you. Would you like the author field in the {{Information}} template changed to something like "Credit removed at the request of the original author"? —RP88 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RP88: Ludo's rationale is that because the file was in the first place not eligible to be under CC-BY-SA, then the CC-BY-SA terms cannot apply. Elfix 08:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it his argument that the presence of any copyrighted work in a photo invalidates the photographer's ability to license the photo? While I understand that argument, I strongly disagree. To use a derivative work of a copyrighted work you need a license from both the author of the creative content unique to the derivative work and a license from the author of the underlying work. We have a license from the author of the creative content unique to the derivative work (in this case it is CC BY SA 3.0) and by blurring the portion of the photo that potentially derived from the underlying work (the label) we've removed any need for a license from the label's author. If you think about the implications of Ludo's reasoning for a moment, you'll see that it leads to rather outrageous conclusions such as us not being able to keep a crop of a politician's face because in the background of the uncropped photo there was a copyrighted work of art. —RP88 (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing this up. Elfix 09:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The CC-BY-SA license grants the right "to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work". In order to clarify the matter and to respect the terms of CC-BY-SA, I have added a {{PD-retouched-user}} template. — Racconish 📥 09:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Racconish, ShareAlike (SA) requires that you use the same license as that of the original work. I think {{Retouched picture}} should do it. Elfix 10:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good idea. The {{PD-retouched-user}} template says "This work is based on a work in the public domain" which is not true in this case, so I changed it to {{Retouched picture}}. —RP88 (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. — Racconish 📥 10:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per RP88.
And note: there is also OTRS request to remove the image. Ankry (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete just forget rules two minutes please and see it is horrible. Thank you. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 23:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete As a courtesy and to avoid any more pointless drama over an unused and unremarkable image. --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I agree with Fæ. — Racconish 📥 16:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, obviously, as this is an interesting image, well in scope and with good re-use value. That’s all that should weight in the decision to keep or delete, as the copyright problem with the label was already solved by blurring — which is the usual, untroubling way to deal with these problems and has been used countless times in the past.
There are a few pending issues in the file page, such as the attribution byline — though some were already fixed, such as the right way to indicate that blurring was added. Further improvements (such as adding Category:Bokeh) can be routinely made once the file is unprotected. Those are no a reason to delete.
Appeals have been made to allow some sort of courtesy deletion to help tone down the drama surrounding this matter: I very strongly disagree. While I cannot blame a user for reacting hotheadedly (something I am guilty of too often, and something that some times is sort of a good thing), the present case has been dragging for several days now, and has nothing worth of such courtesy: The user in question is not a drive-by photographer who donated some of his work under an incomplete understanding of licensing, he is/was an administrator. More, not less, strictness should be used when dealing with this kind of problems when the use is an admin! Here we have had repeated, prolonged, and on-going
  • insults (personal and public — flies-on-poop photo in his user page?!),
  • edit/revert warring (both file page contents and file versions),
  • intentionally faulty use of templates ({{Delete}} with no arguments, like a noob),
  • canvassing (salut tous les copins!),
  • removal of mantainance templates (at least {{Kept}})
— whoa!, a full bingo card, worth of immediate blocking for any random user, let alone an admin. Treating this case with less than the full extent of allowable penalies would reinforce the notion that if you are an admin and you make enough drama, you can get away with (almost) anything.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as a courtesy. Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Please avoid the irrelevant arguments, specifically, the behavior of a user, who just fell a long way, is irrelevant. In the other direction, "As a courtesy" to whom? There are multiple users involved in this content. I am not sure that I understand the history here, but there seems to have been an upset over others modifying the image originally contributed by Ludo29. It is trivial to fork an image, so that multiple versions exist, there is never any sane reason to fight over this. The first image to be actually used on wikis should keep the same filename, and new versions should be given a modified name. The wikis can then decide which version to use. All involved, please seek consensus. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Clear keeper. First upload 2012. Then in 2015 the uploader flies off the handle and we grant a courtesy delete for photograph that a) is on Commons for three years and b) correctly licensed with an irrevocable CC-by-sa-3.0 Maybe I would have considered differently, due to the latest revert war by the uploader I have no intention of doing any favors outside protocol. This is not a kindergarten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not kindergarten? Where, then, is Commons for Kids? I wanna know! Where can we learn how to get along with each other, so that we will be ready for First Grade? --Abd (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Tuválkin and Hedwig. I would have considered this differently if Ludo would have behaved properly. Yann (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg

[edit]

In the Template:OTRS ticket (sent after the closure of the previous DR) the illustration's right holder still asks for the image removal despite its blurring. Linedwell (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, and let them file in a complaint with WMF legal. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the OTRS ticket is confirmed as being from the original label copyright owner, which has not happened to my knowledge, (See the File talk page.) then the image should be deleted, and spending WMF legal time to protect an image that is not in use anywhere, as far as we know, is a waste of precious funds. However, absent that, it should be kept, pending. If the "illustration's right holder" is the original creator, consider tar, feathers, and pitchforks. As human beings, we dislike being bullied. What is weird here is that I'd think that the company that sells the beverage would want that image released, it can do nothing but help them. Blurred, it will do them no harm at all. So something is off. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, I hope you’re not suggesting that Ludo29 was bullied in this matter. Any definition of bullying includes a power imbalance which, in this case, was fully reversed: Almost everybody groveled around him, apologizing while merely pointing out he was going against a dozen policies; he had a treatment of regal exception with a degree of respect way above anything his actions inspired, and indeed he was desysopped in meta by his own request: After all the insults and vandalism, he’s not blocked and he even still has the admin flag in the local project: He was not bullied, indeed he bullied Commons — and this 3rd (!!) DR is the off-wiki follow-up of that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the Privacy Policy, I am not able to tell you who did the claim, but it is definitely not Serge-Alain Voisot and, anyway, the request made on OTRS says that the illustration on the bottle is owned by the sender, there is no claim about the trademark or the bottle itself. Since the illustration has already been blurred, I see no problem keeping this file. --Scoopfinder(d) 10:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Français : Je ne demande évidemment pas de violer la politique de confidentialité ; mon idée était plutôt de donner des informations publiques pour aider à comprendre le mail OTRS. De même l'enregistrement de la marque ne concerne pas directement Commons (Commons:Non-copyright restrictions) mais l'information me semble utile. Strictement et légalement, je ne vois pas non plus de problème mais si il y a eu plusieurs mail OTRS et demandes de suppressions (dont une de l'auteur du fichier), clairement il y a un problème ; vu que le fichier est inutilisé. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. My opinion: The OTRS ticket is insufficient and doesn't prove ownership of the picture or the picture on the bottle. COM:PCP could be applied here (especially since the picture is not used), but I don't think that the OTRS-sender gave enough information to consider his request seriously. --Scoopfinder(d) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as a courtesy; to avoid further drama around this image, given its history of unclear copyright status and unwanted blurred version. I don’t see a point in keeping it. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as courtesy. Unused image. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Les_Nutons_du_Condroz.jpg&oldid=176073193"