Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:3d whole wheat box.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image.

—Angr 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed. The Ritz image is copyrighted, so any photo of it will never be free content. Accordingly this is not replacable. Martin 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't someone take a picture of the box themselves, and we could use that image, rather than this one that also fails to provide a source? MECU ≈ talk 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they could. However, the picture of the box would be a derivative work of the box art, and therefore we would still have to invoke fair use in order to use that picture on Wikipedia. I don't see that replacing one fair use image with another fair use image would be a significant improvement. Martin 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe then at least the image we are using is free and not impinging on the rights of the photograph holder. I agree that Nabisco would will own the rights to the box, but can they prevent someone from taking a picture of the box and then profiting off that box? It doesn't seem likely, since someone profiting off the image isn't likely to be confused with the Nabisco box product or brand, especially for use in an encyclopedia. I'm also marking this as no source, since there isn't a source and we don't know the status of who owns the copyright to the photograph. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As Nabrisco controls the copyright to their box art, they have the right to control copies of their box art. The photograph is simply a copy of their box art, as it does not involve any creative input. Accordingly, it will be controlled by Nabrisco. You might think that this is unlikely, but it's the truth.
 * The issue with lack of confusion is an issue of trademark law, not copyright law.
 * Yes, as an encyclopedia, we have a little extra freedom in this area. This freedom is known as fair use.
 * Does that answer your questions? Martin 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I believe the main issue is who owns the copyright of this image, not the product pictured in the image. -- MECU ≈ talk 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already answered that issue. All replicas of the Ritz cracker box art are owned partially (in the case of derivative works) or wholly (in the case of de minimus modifications) by the same group that owns the Ritz cracker box art. This is the nature of copyright law. Martin 19:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While the box in the image would be owned by Nabisco, the image would not be. There is a big different, especially for fair use on Wikipedia. I also don't think the "source" you provided is good enough, as it should be a URL. -- MECU ≈ talk 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a box of Ritz Cracers I could take a picture of and upload it and am willing to release it under CC-BY-SA-2.5. If this would be of value, please let me know. (It's of plain Ritz crackers, not wheat version such as this image.) -- MECU ≈ talk 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you took such a picture and uploaded it, it would be a derivative work, with the copyright jointly owned by yourself and by Nabisco. If you then attempted to release it under CC-BY-SA-2.5, then you would be breaking the law. Please see derivative work for more information, or consult with a lawyer. If you disagree with my explanation of the copyright situation, please cite your sources. Martin 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not completely right. He wouldn't be breaking the law by releasing it under the CC license, just the parts that he contributed would be CC and the logo would be copyrighted. If he tried to use it, he'd be infringing on copyright, unless he asserts fair use (then if he's sued for copyright infringement and wins on a defense of fair use, technically no copyright violation took place). --Rory096 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture is clearly in violation of the FUC. The box itself isn't being discussed in the article (making it a violation of FUC 8), so there's no difference if there's a picture of the box (which MyRedDice is correct about, can't be released under a free license because it's a derivative work) or a picture of the crackers themselves, which can be freely licensed. --Rory096 21:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FUC8 is certainly relevant. I have no strong opinions about whether this image passes that criteria or not. Martin 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One could draw a picture of the box and that would be original creative work, would it not? I have done this myself for other products, and believe me, it's extremely tedious and time-consuming. But it is possible. Anyway... can we agree that a photo made by an editor would, even if not free, be more free or be closer to being free than this image which is wholly the property of Nabisco? Thus the current image should go. Herostratus 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you drew a picture of the box art, that would be a derivative work, and so would not be original creative work. Such a drawing would be copyrightable, but Nabisco would own a joint copyright upon it. Such a drawing could not be used without either Nabisco's permission, or else under the principle of fair use. This would be an identical situation to the current image. I'm sorry that you have wasted time doing so for other products.


 * A photo made by an editor would in no way be "more free" or "closer to free" than this image. There would be zero situations in which such a photo could be used, where this current photo could not. Creating a derivative work can only ever add restrictions and add copyright holders to the original creative work. See for example The Grey Album for practical consequences of this. Martin 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, a derivative work depends on if the derived work has as its aim to illustrate the copyrighted work in question. If a Nabisco cracker box is laying in the street and someone were to photograph the street scene with the discarded box in one corner then Nabisco could not claim that the photograph is a derivative work. In a similar fashion auto manufacturers place their logo on their products, yet an image of an automobile is not considered a derivative work. The same is probably true for cracker boxes.

If the purpose of this image is to illustrate the artwork in question then the image is a derivative work, but if the main purpose of the image is to illustrate the package then it is not a derivative work. --Oden 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% convinced by that distinction. Artistically, the package is simply the box art + the cuboid shape. By contrast, a logo is a very small part of a photo of a car. Also, I imagine there's a difference between the found art of a discarded cracker box, and a Wikipedian putting a box on hir kitchen table and photographing it.
 * I'm also not 100% convinced that your distinction is invalid. Has this been discussed previously at all? Martin 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be discussed, because there are images of products which have been licensed under a free license (see for instance Image:Df 2.jpg, Image:Coca Cola by Zelphics.jpg and commons:Coca-Cola).--Oden 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.