Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 9



File:Otter pops.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Otter pops.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Glane23 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I'm not sure this qualifies for fair use. For one, the Otter Pops wordmark is fairly simple and does not meet the threshold of originality. The packaging does show copyrighted characters, but those are not essential to the article in my opinion and can either be cropped out or treated as de minimis. If we want to illustrate the freeze pops, then an image without the packaging should be adequate, assuming we have an image of the logo. Furthermore, there is no record of the photo's license, which can no longer be checked as the original photo on Flickr has been made private. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I uploaded this image in my first year as a volunteer after finding it on Flickr using the Flickr Search tool, which is limited to finding free images. It is not a quality image, but the only one I could find at the time, as I was working on a 750+ backlog of image requests for food-related articles as my first project effort on Wikipedia. (I'm a strong believer in illustrations for encyclopedia articles.) In any event, I am not sure how the image fails to qualify as fair use, which label I selected in an abundance of caution as to the trademark and packaging. The best solution would be a better image, of course. By way of example, there is a current free image on Flickr showing a container full of Otter Pops:  (as archived here ). Perhaps that one would work better as a fair use image? But as to the existing image, can you elaborate your concerns? Or maybe we can toss the old one and use the current image I linked to? Thanks! Geoff &#124; Who, me? 17:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that the original image could be replaced with a combination of a public domain logo and a separate image showing just the food. Do you consider the characters on the packaging to be essential to the article?


 * If you used the Free Image Search Tool to find this image, then we could actually keep it and change it to a free license because the characters on the left could be considered de minimis. The only downside in this case is that Commons probably won't accept this image as the source photo has been set to private and cannot be used to verify the license. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How about replacing the article image with a free image I've made and uploaded to Commons here: ? I flipped them so that the brand is on the underside and shows reversed through the lighter liquids. Do you suppose that works to keep them as non-infringing images? I do kind of favor the recent Flickr free image of the container full of them, but I thought I'd run an alternative by you. Let me know. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 22:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this one is a lot better in terms of quality and freeness. The only issue is that most logos do not appear right side up (the logo at the top is in the correct orientation but is hard to see against the purple color). However, flipping the package over vertically should resolve the problem. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I purposely turned them over, so the logo does not show clearly and is in reverse, in order to avoid the potential trademark infringement issue where the logo is visible through the lighter colored flavors. Are you thinking that flipping them so that the logo does appear correctly will not be a problem for Commons use as free images? (no fair use allowed there) I can try reshooting, I suppose. I was also thinking of freezing them for another image, as the current one shows how they appear when purchased unfrozen. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 13:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, trademarks are not an issue. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, followed your lead and replaced the Commons image with an image of the packages aligned and showing the print side. See the file now at . While I was at it, I froze the same six flavors and uploaded that image here: . Think they both belong on the article or just one? Geoff &#124; Who, me? 21:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is even better, thank you!
 * I've gone ahead and replaced the image in the article. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.