Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joy & Heron - Animated CGI Spot by Passion Pictures.webm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2019 at 19:06:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • We promote pictures all the time because we like the craftsmanship behind them, how the light falls on a tree, the curve of a bottle, the color of a flower, the lines in a slope, etc. All very subjective reasons and digital photography is hardly groundbreaking by now. I don't see why we can't promote some moving pictures on the same grounds. Educational? I don't care if it has the heron's feeding habits wrong, what I care about is that it teaches that unselfish generosity can be rewarding even if you don't expect it. A rather good thing to educate youngsters in IMO. (Sorry about the spoiler, but it has been viewed by a lot of people now.) In the old days, such morale was taught with the help of allegories and fables, now we have animations. I don't think that grapes are what foxes normally eat either, but people usually overlook that in favor of the fable.--Cart (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Fish are the main diet, however herons do eat worms. --BoothSift 00:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get hung up on the worms. I only mentioned it as the only educational aspect I could find was heron diet, and that was wrong. They might eat worms occasionally, but they aren't its main diet and there is no way the chicks would refuse any food. While there is a moral story, that argument holds for many works of fiction.
Compare Elephants Dream which was created on open source software to demonstrate what it could do. It has its own wiki article so is notable itself. This is a commercially produced short film to promote a big Chinese company (though with a oddly American-looking fisherman). Since adverts and other promotional material are not typically sold (and I assume the dog remains trademarked) then giving this a free licence is just a clever way for the promoters to increase its footprint on the web. The Commons I like is free, independent and has an educational mission. This is Commons being abused as a platform for the commercial promotion of large corporations. Don't think that represents us at our "finest" at all. -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) We are usually very happy when professional photographers with companies and other companies (like SpaceX) release their material to us via OTRS. Yes, it is beginning to dawn on marketeers that it is good to give out some free photos and media. That is why we these days have so many good free photos of politicians and other notable people, some of which are FPs. This is the same thing. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Limited images from promotional material can be very useful to illustrate a product or people. SpaceX launches are notable so having material that documents them is great. I think this crosses the line too much. It isn't providing information about a product or the company. It is just brand promotion dressed up in a cartoon, and you can see from their Wiki article that the company is heavily investing in promoting its brand. There's nothing notable here. We seem to have a mindset with film/CGI that anything with a free licence is in scope. I don't think pure advertising/promotion is a valid use of Wikimedia servers. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are just as guilty of helping big brands ourselves when we promote gorgeous photos of cameras, watches, booze, airplanes and luxury cruise ships to FP. --Cart (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No we aren't "just as guilty" as those have educational value, those illustrate real actual things and having a great picture of them hugely improves Wikipedia or WikiVoyage or someone's educational book on how best to use your camera, etc. On their own, the promotional value is low and they represent distinct products. We'd have more problems if the camera was obscured with a splash saying "World's fastest autofocus" or a ship had a banner saying "Live your dreams on a --- cruise". We don't currently have folk uploading promotional short films for luxury cruises, with voice-overs from famous actors, and beautiful models pretending to be captains and waiting staff. Or an advert where some Canon brand ambassador is standing in a breathtaking location and explaining why he chooses Canon to get the job done. I hope you'd think those were out-of-scope.
This film is totally about brand promotion, which is not concerned with getting across information but about establishing good emotions for the brand. We don't learning anything about JD.com at all, or about fishing or about herons. But that cute dog mascot is stuck in your neurons linked to positive emotions. Someone somewhere in a marketing meeting, dreamed this up solely as a way of getting "cute dog mascot" brand awareness up from X% to Y% and about ensuring that brand awareness is a positive one. "Generosity" is in the film not as a moral tale to improve society but because that's a positive social value we now link to "cute dog mascot" and will recall if we see the JD.com logo. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so opposed to this film, why don't you nominate it for deletion per out of scope, I think that would be a more appropriate place for such discussions. That way you will get a better response from the community on whether free material from Company A is good and free material from Company B is bad. Here where we should mainly discuss the quality of the film. Btw, personally I think the dog is ugly. --Cart (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it but "in-scope" deletions are notoriously difficult. There is a gap between "so obviously out-of-scope that the community wishes to delete the file and prevent any use on any project" and "so barely in-scope that it isn't an example of our finest educational media files". -- Colin (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I respectfully disagree with Colin on this. It's a cute film and very well done. It doesn't matter to me if it promotes a company (and if it does, not so well for anyone like me who still hasn't a clue which company it is). Hell, every Disney film promotes a product, if you think about it, even if the product was originally the Disney films themselves. I don't think that would ever make a Disney film unworthy of a feature in the alternate universe in which they decided to make one freely licensed. I can also definitely think of advertisements that if they ever became freely licensed would be great FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My photos don't "promote" any products. They are neutral. They could be used to promote a product. They can also be (and are) used to illustrate a Wikipedia article about a shaver, camera or steam iron. And they do so at high level quality of illustration. That's the difference. This is a fictional cartoon created by a marketing agency. Yes you aren't supposed to spot the hidden marketing objective. And you aren't the target market (yet) because this is a huge Chinese brand. If you were Chinese, you'd recognise the dog. The film director wrote "we ... saw an opportunity to play with his [mascot dog Joy's] innocence, and connect the audience with the company’s ethos in a genuine and meaningful way". The film closes with title "Make Joy Happen" which is a current brand theme. JD asked the production company to make a short film to promote their brand. That's 100% what this is about and 0% about what Commons is about. -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 23:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated