Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cola bottle and vulva.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cola_bottle_and_vulva.jpg

derivative work abf /talk to me/ 13:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete moreover out of project scope. --Svens Welt 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

KeepThe artwork (such as it is) on the Coca Cola bottle is only incidental. We have lots of pictures of things and these things (like cars) often have company logos on them. If the picture was of the artwork rather than just containing it. the situation would be different. I don't personally much like them, but some of Klashort's pictures are being used on the Wikipedia to illustrate sex-related articles. --Simonxag 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Vol de nuit 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Shows mainly the text part of the logo which is {{PD-US}} anyway. See Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Kept per Bryan. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cola_bottle_and_vulva.jpg

does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of Coca-cola bottles? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete contains copyrighted material (Coca Cola logo) in combination with female genitals, i.e. simple and cheap porn, poorly photographed. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 02:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete No educational or encyclopedic value - and PLEASE note that the model might be too young for pornographic photos! --KS aus F (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep not identifiable. & work by artist + illustration of female genitalia therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep The face is not visible. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete No educational or encyclopedic value, also with the very visible placement of the copyrighted logo it may not be legal under the freedom from panorama laws. Raeky (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment The image is likely in violation of the Freedom of Panorama due to the very visible Coke logo and bottle (also copyrighted), it couldn't be used for a commercial publication, so it is in violation of Commons:Licensing so it shouldn't be kept on those grounds. I have no objection to the nudity, it's just the Coke copyrights that I think exclude this image from Commons. Raeky (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Mmmh... there might be many problems then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  The logo you might argue is in public domain by now, but the bottle's creator died in 1972 so its copyright would still hold, in theory. Raeky (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Maybe. I wasn't really arguing, I was just pointing out that, if this is a problem for this picture, this will be one for many other pictures we have. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Also it's possible those images in the Coca-Cola category might violate the Commons:Licensing because I'm *sure* the company will assert copyright even though the logo's creator definitely died more then 70 years ago. If anything they (and this picture) should acknowledge the trademark on the logo (And bottle?). Raeky (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cola bottle and vulva.jpg (previous DR, should have been included here); the Coke logo is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Logo yes (still a trademark), bottle's designer died in the 70's, so it's copyright is still valid. Raeky (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Bottles are utilitarian objects, like cars, chairs, mobile phones, etcetera. Protection against commercial imitations is belongs to the realm of design patents etcetera, not copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  The bottle is not copyrightable (utilitarian). It may be a trademark, not sure... actually it is, according to this article. Confirmed with a USPTO listing. But, still not copyrightable :-) No reason to delete on those grounds Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Frage an die Admins, warum wurde diese Bild gelöscht, wenn File:Cola_bottle_and_vulva.jpg nicht gelöscht werden sollte. Bitte erklärt mir den Unterschied. Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cola bottle and vulva.jpg

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Useless and out of scope. Angelus ^(talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep - work by notable artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep immediately. Abuse of DR (file kept twice because work of an artist). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment The fact that it is the work of a "notable artist" does not mean that it deserves to stay. This image is beyond the scope of the project! And moreover it is also unused. No educational or encyclopedic value. Angelus ^(talk) 16:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep Not useless and in scope per Mattbuck and TwoWings. Also, just because an image is not in use it doesnt mean it has "no educational or encyclopedic value". By that kind of rational most of the images in Commons would be deleted. Tm (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment "No educational or encyclopedic value" because it is out of scope. What would be the "educational" scope of this picture? Angelus ^(talk) 16:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply because it illustrates Peter Klashorst's works. We don't use all Van Gogh paintings on the article about Van Gogh but we keep as much as we can on Commons. It's the same logic for Klashorst. Just think before writing, Angelus ! Commons templates on Wikipedia say "Find more about". How useful would it be if we'd find the same files as the ones used on WP ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Ok. Then I think this deletion request may be considered closed. Angelus ^(talk) 17:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's always nice to see that some people can question their own DR and realize their mistakes. That deserves to be applauded. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Withdrawn.