The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarwin Sharks Jumper.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Shark is creative enough to be copyrightable and the image is a derivative work of the actual jumper-logo as can be seen at e.g., http://www.flickr.com/photos/flackin/2483067932/in/photostream. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phillip Island Football Club Jumper.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Bulldog is creative enough to be copyrightable and the image is a derivative work of the official team logo and/or jumper as can be seen at e.g., http://www.pifc.com.au/content/brothers-arms VernoWhitney (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nirmal Baba.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely Flickrwashing. Very low-resolution photo with only Photoshop in the EXIF data, and the Flickr account has very few photos uploaded. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maserati Spyder - blue2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Licensed as CC-BY-NC on Flickr. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 09:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I suggest taking this issue to FFD if further discussion is desired. —Darkwind (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Certs breathmint 2005 package.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possible trademark violations aside, (Where did I come up with this junk? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)) I don't understand the intended use of this image- it can't really illustrate the design of the packaging because it's somebody else's drawing of the design. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 14:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this a trademark violation? It is a violation only if any image showing a product violates its trademark, which I don't think is true. It does illustrate the packaging because it's a reasonably faithful rendition of it. At the same time, it's also, as a drawing, a work of skill, which renders it more free than a simple mechanical reproduction such as a photograph. (The point is to create a "new work". A simple straightforward amateur photo of a product, involving little skill, arguably does not create a new work, in which case (arguably, in some cases) the copyright could devolve to the product, so the image would not be usable (except under fair use) without a release from the owners of the Certs trademark. A drawing (and also, arguably, a photograph staged with artistic merit, such as artistic lighting and angle and filters etc) is probably more likely to devolve to the maker of the image (in this case me, since I made the drawing), hence the release under free license is more likely to stand up in more cases.) IANAL but that's my take on the matter. It's only orphaned because the nominator removed it from its article (Certs) for no good reason that I can see, so I'm restoring it. Herostratus (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikipedia isn't about things we make up one day - I have this opinion about all attempts to make a free "representation" of a logo or design.) This is a flat 2d Certs label layout, incorrectly superimposed on a cylindrical package. It's not a non-free photo, unfortunately. It's also not a free correct artistic rendering of the design - the non-realism of it is a distortion of the copyright/trademark owner's design: if I were Certs, I'd demand it be not shown on the grounds that it damages the brand. I would support a non-free photo instead. The SVG folks might have a vector solution, since they argue that drawings of logos can be free replacements for non-free images (I'm skeptical). This deserves wider discussion, and links to discussion where it has been settled before. (A little sad, since this is the forst time I've disagreed with Herostratus about anything)--Lexein (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I drew it myself from scratch in Photoshop, and donated it to public domain. How on earth can it not be free? Ir's only not free if you maintain that any photograph or representation showing a roll of Certs (or any other commercial product, I guess) is not free. Is that your position? That would be a pretty extreme position on copyright and property rights that goes well beyond the law in America and most jurisdictions, and is not likely to be accepted here, I don't think.

Now, if your point is that he image sucks, that's an entirely and completely different matter that has nothing to do with whether or not its free. Is the draftmanship of insufficient quality to appear in the Wikipedia? Maybe. Is it a misleadingly poor representation of the subject, and therefore not fit to appear in the article Certs or probably anywhere else? Maybe. Is the juxtapositioning of a Certs roll with Betelgeuse unlikely, distracting, unrealistically portrayed, or otherwise unpleasing? Maybe. But this is not the proper forum for addressing those concerns. For the first you would want WP:IFD, for the second and third you would want Talk:Certs and also possibly WP:IFD. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote poorly: I meant it isn't simultaneously provably free and correct. The flat label looks correct, just not wrapped correctly, and that part of the image looks close enough that it could be a photo (I perhaps incorrectly assumed that was how it was done, which would make it non-free). We need guidance from other "rendering of" discussions, guideline and policy. I didn't bring it here, I'm just discussing it. --Lexein (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the image is nonfree because it is imitating something you do not have the rights to. The Certs packaging is copyrighted and you're copying it. Compare File:M&Ms-Wrapper-Small.jpg, copyrighted packaging with nonfree tags. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (The image is also misleading and not very good quality. Why is there a flare effect in the background??? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

IDK. I'll leave to others who understand copyright laws and so forth better than I do. If it's true that one cannot create a new copyright for a work of skill, though, somebody should inform the Campbell's Soup Company that a very valuable property -- namely Campbell's Soup Cans -- belongs to them and not to the estate of Andy Warhol. The flare effect in the background is Betelgeuse. Herostratus (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that (the Warhol) is acceptable because it's a "transformative work" whereas this is not transformative. IANAL. On another subject: ok, it's Betelgeuse, it's indistinguishable from a flare effect to me and it makes no sense. To clarify, is this a work of art or an illustration of Certs packaging? Even if this isn't the correct place for this discussion I think the other issues make it unusable for the Certs page, although I agree we need input from someone more knowledgeable about copyright law. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 06:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for legit non-free use, note that the Warhol was published elsewhere, before being used under fair use here. If we're going for legit free use, the used portion of the logo should probably be reduced to the minimum amount of plain text which AFAIK is not copyrightable, and can be reproduced, best as SVG - hence my invocation of 'SVG'. There, three times, now one of those folks should appear in the mirror. --Lexein (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's transformative. It's my interpretation of a Certs package. Just because I'm not as famous (or accomplished) as Warhol doesn't mean it's chopped liver. At the same time, it's close enough to reality to serve as a reasonable illustration. As the caption says, "Artist's interpretation of a Certs package..." Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Certs packaging (at minimum, the label) is copyright; this, being a user's interpretation of it, is a derivative work and therefore still copyrighted to Certs (or whomever owns the brand). Cannot be a free image, and since if we are going to show what a product looks like, might as well use a real photograph of the product. This should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in no case should it be deleted; the only option on the table, I guess, is to convert the license to fair use. We don't have a photo, so deleting it would leave... nothing. If this drawing is fair use, surely a photo would be only fair use also, right? We have many photos of products in various articles, and if this file were to be deleted then certainly all of them should be also.

The US copyright office says "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." Well half the drawing is Betelgeuse. In addition, the juxtaposition of a roll of Certs with Betelgeuse creates an entirely new perspective on the product, an entirely new way of viewing and thinking about the entity; perhaps it is a comment on the mundaneness of the product compared to the grandeur of the Universe, or perhaps it is a way of saying that all objects are things-in-themselves, or maybe just a comment on the mystery of the existence of matter. I don't know; I'm not an art critic. But certainly all those things would constitute more than "minor changes or additions of little substance", I would think. Herostratus (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.