Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter...
But in Steven's case, it is also complicated by Japanese law having to be considered.
Jane
FoP may or may not cover it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Tunisia states the work has to be permanently located in a public place. It could also depend on the purpose of the photo.
Nathan
I'm sorry, but I can't believe you were seriously talking about a logo on the tractor which isn't basically visible in the original photo you showed. It's call "de minimis" in the photo on Commons. To crop the logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a copyvio. There is another aspect of "de minimis" that needs to be considered. You can't walk into a bookshop and take photos of a rack of magazine covers (which would be copyrighted) and upload those to Commons, as in that context of that photo each individual part can not be separated from the overall motif of the photograph. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DM might be nice reading for you.
Steven
There's seriously so many aspects that we have to consider on Commons, and the entire VOLUNTEER community does it's best. It's not good to attack the entire community as you did in your opening post, when the editor who nominated the image for deletion did so in good faith, and in fact the issue of COM:PACKAGING deletions was being discussed in #wikimedia-commons for some hours. You make it sound that we love deleting people's uploads just to piss them off, and I guarantee you that is not the case. If you ever want to have a civilised discussion on the issues, go on project and start that discussion. Just don't approach the issue by calling us all extremists, because you'll simply be ignored, not only by myself, but by others too I would imagine.
I've got nothing more to say here I think.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:25 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_... about your long, whiny post.
Thanks for reading
Russavia
Really? The relevant caselaw isn't as clear as you appear to suggest. In particular the judges in the Ninth Circuit ruling (WMF is based in California so Ninth Circuit) have explicit rejected the idea that labels on useful articles (which packaging generally is) creative derivative when dealing with product photography. I am admittedly unaware of any case-law considering labels vs stuff directly printed onto packing but the general principles seem to hold.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe