Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Stella Artois Dielectric.jpg

Info created by Mehran Moghtadai uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice one :) from your user page I guess it's from your friend. This is just me, but couldn't he make the logos smaller and opaque ?? I think this would be much closer to the real model stella glasses ;). Benh 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure this image is compatible with Commons policy, as it contains a trademarked/copyrighted logo in a context where it is not an incidental part of the image. That makes it non-free, AFAIK. --Yummifruitbat 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say the logo is incidental, since it is not even completely visible.--Eloquence 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "incidental", I mean that the logo doesn't add any useful information to the image that couldn't have been provided by some other means - it's not a photo of actual Stella glasses; it's not a photo that happens to contain a Stella logo because it's part of a scene; it's a piece of art which, fairly gratuitously, incorporates a trademarked logo where some other form of marking or graphics would have served exactly the same purpose. That seems to me to make it a derivative work and therefore non-free. --Yummifruitbat 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about copyright/free stuffs, but I think that the logos can be arranged to be seen in part so there's not violation of copyright (and so the image can be freed) and anyone familiar with the brand can guess it's "Stella Artois". That's already the case for the lying glass, but maybe we can see too much on the standing one. Benh 06:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, but the picture just doesn't have any esthetic value as far as I'm concerned. The glasses aren't centered and the colour of the liquid clashes with the background. Anrie 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting, lo-res --Leafnode 06:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If nothing else, there are problem with picture licence. --Karelj 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A definite violation of Stella Artois's copyright in their logo. It's not just incidental, either: the creater has spent some considerable effort making an exact copy of their copyright work. A substantial part of the copyright work (ie the logo) has been taken; it doesn't matter that it's quite small in the resulting image. --MichaelMaggs 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm copying here my comment from wikipedia for the same nomination “I checked Fair use and it might be possible that in this case, the picture doesn't violate copyrights. Although the material copied is clearly a copyrighted one, we can safely assume there is no commercial intention behind the picture. The goal of author was probably to make a realistic rendering of a glass of beer, and he had to use a realistic logo to do so. He arranged the scene so only parts of logos are in sight (but maybe more than one third the logo is too much). Also, I think this may only benefit to the brand.”. I'm not very sure, but so far, there's nothing so sure about the opposite neither. The question is how much part of the logo being in sight would be acceptable ? Benh 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu