Talk:Eclipse (mints)

What's the point of the picture? It could do with a more informative picture, instead of one with a black hole in it. Dragosian 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A good question. The user seems to have uploaded several self-made images of a similar nature (breath mint products superimposed over NASA images) and included them in the respective articles.  When one can simply take a picture of the relevant item rather than rely on a crude hand-drawn image of the packaging, I fail to see the point of the self-made picture prominently featured in those articles.


 * Also, the extended description of the picture background (space images) is totally irrelevant to breath mint articles. --84.85.0.110 19:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC) KeplerNiko
 * Well, the picture is hand-drawn, thus is more free than even a photograph (let alone an advertising picture provided by the company). A photograph, unless it shows "original creative effort", is judged in some jurisdictions as being a merely mechanical reproduction and thus it does not create a new copyright. It might be possible to make a photograph that shows original creative effort, by using creative lighting, setting, etc. - but that's dubious, in my opinion. But a hand rendering is definitely original creative effort, thus a new copyright is created, and there are no fair use issues. Herostratus 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Was looking for the ingredients for the mints and found them on the Wrigley website (http://www.wrigley.com/wrigley/products/products_nutritional.asp - seems to only work in IE). Sorbitol, natural and artificial flavors, magnesium stearate, acesulfame K, sucralose, lactic acid, calcium lactate, Blue 2 Lake Feb 20th, 2007.

Image:Eclipse mints.jpg versus Image:Eclipse-mints-orange-and-cinnamon-flavours.JPG
There is some dispute over the best picture to use for this article: or Absent commentary to the contrary, my inclination is to restore the latter image. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) As to the former, and not to impugn anyone, but on the grounds that you can't be too careful, I challenge this as being created by the uploader, as it is professionally staged (e.g., the boxes and mints are balanced with concealed holders, etc.). Pending more proof (more examples of the uploader's work, either here or on other web sites, and image information (camera, etc.) taken from the original image) I am dubious as the the provenance of this work.
 * 2) There is some dispute over which image is more free. Photographs are generally considered less free than drawings. The latter image, however, is creatively staged, which may make it a copyrightable creative work, but I'm not sure of this. Does anyone know more about this? At any rate, without knowing more I would guess that the latter image is more free.
 * 3) In the latter image, the inclusion of the black hole is intended to make the image more surely an original creative work. The inclusion of this element, although not strictly necessary, doesn't take anything away from the image.
 * I took the photograph of actual boxes of the product that I had purchased – you can see in the file's metadata the details of my camera, which is the same with most, if not all, of my other photographic contributions. In similar respects with your concern raised, I believe that an actual shot of the real product is much better than a simple drawing of the product, and you can't get a better way to give the reader of the article an impression as to what the product actually looks like.  SEO75  [  talk  ]  00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm convinced. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Boo hiss boo. The black hole picture is a billion kazillion times better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.47.29 (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)