Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg

COM:PACKAGING? SHB2000 (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a bit further, while I think the text is unlikely to pass the threshold of originality, I think the grapes may pass COM:TOO. SHB2000 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before taking and uploading the image I also asked myself if the object or the print could pass the threshold of originality. I (obviously) didn't think so. The can is just a cylinder. The paint largely is just purple with a few letters in it. The "FANTA" writing on the can is about as original as any other textlogo. The grapes themselves are very simple shapes done with a surprisingly low resolution. They are not great art that is worth protecting, but rather a bunch of simple shapes that are arranged in a simple way (If you didn't know this thing should be some grapes would you recognize them?) --D-Kuru (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the threshold of originality: Compare the design of the can in the image to Pepsi Mango. If not deleted by the hoster the artwork on the beverage cab can be found here. In my opinion there is a clear difference between the simple design (from my point of view PD level) and a more complex and artistic design of the can. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. The copyrightability of the label does not matter: "We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nomination.

While the photographer of the Fanta can has released their photograph under a free license, the image still constitutes a derivative work of the copyrighted design on the packaging, and Wikimedia Commons’ policies do not allow such works without permission from the copyright holder of the underlying design. The reasoning to keep the image based on Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is flawed because that case addressed whether a photographer could claim copyright over their own product photographs, not whether the underlying copyrighted design could be freely reproduced by others. Commons requires stricter compliance with copyright law, and derivative works—such as images prominently displaying copyrighted packaging—cannot be freely hosted without authorization from both the photographer and the copyright holder of the derivative work (think photo of a 3D artwork). Unlike in Ets-Hokin, where the focus was on the photographer’s copyright claim, the issue here is whether the photograph infringes on the copyright of the label itself, which it does under Commons’ rules. Freedom of panorama does not apply to product labels or packaging, and keeping the image risks violating copyright law. Commons operates under the precautionary principle, meaning that any uncertainty about copyright compatibility should result in deletion, and the copyrighted design on the Fanta can creates legal uncertainty regardless of the photographer's intent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The can is utilitarian, but the label's leaf and grapes are copyrightable. The label is neither incidental nor de minimis. Also fails first paragraph of COM:PACKAGE: the grapes illustrate the contents. Glrx (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Glrx I'd love to  Keep per {{Useful-object-US}} and two below. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment as Josve05a didn't respond to my comment from 2023-01-02 I will post the same comment again: "The can is just a cylinder. The paint largely is just purple with a few letters in it. The "FANTA" writing on the can is about as original as any other textlogo. The grapes themselves are very simple shapes done with a surprisingly low resolution. They are not great art that is worth protecting, but rather a bunch of simple shapes that are arranged in a simple way". In other words: The "packaging" in it's entirety ineligible for copyright and therefore it doesn't matter if some court case does may or may not apply here. If you say that the package is copyrighted you should explain what exactly and why it is copyrighted. If this information is not provided, this DR would not be based on a valid copyright claim. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I don't necessarily agree that the grapes are below TOO; but regardless of Et-Hokins (which is currently under discussion), I believe the grapes are in low resolution and take a very small portion of the image and is incidentally included (i.e. You can't scratch the grape off like a PET lable) which may make it DM either way.--Takipoint123 (💬) 01:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone blurs/remove the grapes from the image, would the image still hold the same "value" as an illustration? If not, then it is not an incidental part of the whole. But, alas, I'll await the VP/C discussion to ebb out. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps. It is context dependent but as I said, it is in low resolution and painting it over with purple paint wouldn't necessarily make the file useless. Takipoint123 (💬) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant to say "[While] you can't scratch the grape off like a PET lable, [it wouldn't become useless immediately and isn't severely difficult to remove it using other methods like slightly turning the can or using a purple marker]." My laptop is broke and typing in mobile does break my chain of thoughts :(. Takipoint123 (💬) 01:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is directly on point with the Ets-Hokin decision -- the photo is not a derivative work of the label or logo; the photo is of the entire product, even though the logo is prominent -- the logo is incidental and unavoidable. The leaf and grapes are likely the only parts of the logo which is copyrightable in the first place. A crop to the logo might well be a problem, much like a de minimis photo can't be cropped to a copyrightable element. There is certainly no permission to reproduce the logo elsewhere (same as a FoP photo of a sculpture gives no right to reproduce the sculpture elsewhere, just the photo itself). I think this is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Carl. 沪A 05683D_S5A-0043 01:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Carl L. above. --Yann (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]