Russavia wrote "To crop the
logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a
copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even
force) any modifications of an image to be free also?
JP aka Amqui
2014-12-11 11:04 GMT-07:00 Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>om>:
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_matte…
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia
<russavia.wikipedia(a)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
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>