Talk:Wine label

Sections in need of improvement

• Label differences by country Charleenmerced ^Talk 13:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Blanc de blancs: Error

The fact is that white wines, with the exception of certain sparkling wines, are made from white grapes. Thus, the term is not really telling you anything new.

This is not correct: white wines are usually made of red grapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.144.43 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Label Removal

When de-labeling beer bottles for re use in homebrewing, I have found that a percabonate based cleanser such as B-Brite dissolves the glue on most bottles and lets the label slide off. A soak process like this may be undesirable for collectors, but it may also work if the solution is sponged on with a swab.

While I know this will take labels off, I don't recall or never noticed how well they were preserved or if they could be dried flat without any damage or disfigurement, so I hesitate to put this out on the article. -MalkavianX 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image of a braille label

I do not believe it is justified under WP:NFCC for us to use a non-free image to illustrate the concept of a braille wine label. We could argue about NFCC #8, as how significant/notable seeing a non-free label that happens to have braille on it relates to the topic of this article. But more importantly, I think NFCC #1 comes into play here. If there are a number of wineries that are now doing this, it seems plausible that one of these labels could be photographed in a manner to produce a PD-text image. Not all wine labels contain illustrations and/or photographic content. Some are just text. Alternatively, in the current image, just cropping everything under the "2001", and keeping the top, would produce an image that would be considered public domain, and thus free, under Wikipedia policy. Therefore, we have absolutely no reason to use a non-free image to illustrate this concept. Please remove the image, and work on finding free content. Thank you. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The label is notable and therefore appropriate for inclusion, as explained in the Chapoutier article and the cited source. NFCC #1 isn't applicable here. There is no free equivalent image of a Braille wine label that has notability. However, if you feel you can find a suitable free replacement, go right ahead. Cropping it may be one solution, but it would clearly be a crop of the image used in Chapoutier so I don't know what you'd expect to accomplish by doing this - it's like quoting a passage out of a book, still fair use, not public domain.

Removing the fair use tag is another option. If you look at the history of that image, it was originally uploaded with a different licensing tag. Someone else came along and slapped a "fair use" tag on it without providing a rationale. To me, it looks like a photograph of this label is no different from a photograph of a city scene that happen to have copyrighted images on billboards in it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple inaccuracies in your reply. First of all, the laws that govern a city scene are called "Freedom of panorama". Taking a close up shot of a copyrighted work does not transfer the copyright to you, because of something called "Derivative work". Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the original image could be not copyrighted. Next, NFCC #1 does not say "use non-free content until you can find a free alternative". It says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This means that if it is possible to create a free equivalent (even if one doesn't exist yet), then we cannot use the non-free image. Finally, the issue of PD-text: This image only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the image is considered to be in the public domain. A crop of the label that removed the original elements, and only contained geometric and typographical elements would be considered public domain (so thus, a free equivalent could easily be created). In fact, I can do the crop myself, if you want. Or we could search for different labels or take more photographs, or any number of other options. Regardless, a clear reading of basic Wikipedia policy finds that there is no reason for that non-free image in this article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly no reasonable objection to its use at Chapoutier.

There was formerly a problem here, when this article used it with no discussion of braille labels at all in the article.

However, now that there is a discussion of braille labelling, and the image is closely associated with that discussion, that seems to me to resolve the problem. With respect to Andrew c (talk · contribs) above, I can't agree that a crop would be as useful -- the value of this image is that it shows how braille has been integrated with the label as a whole, which just showing the crop wouldn't do, and which in my view does add usefully to reader understanding, satisfying the NFCC. It also gives a fairer picture of what the originators were trying to achieve, which is a consideration given that we must deal fairly with their moral rights and trademark rights, not just copyright.

As for the argument that other braille labels may become available, well yes they may. But the sourced information we have is that so far they haven't. It therefore seems to me like using an architect's concept picture for a building (as we do on a number of articles on WP). The picture may become replaceable in future (when the building is built), but as of now it is not replaceable with any other which would convey the same meaning. Quite separate from that, there is also a notability in this one as it was the first braille wine label - one that gained publicity for that fact.

So, in summary, while when Hammersoft first took this up there was indeed an issue, it seems to me that the current version of the article now addresses what would have been reasonable concerns before. Given the article as it is now, calls to remove the image seem to me to be overdone. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On a separate point, surely we can come up with a better example of a picture of a wine label to lead the article than the present very dreary (uncharacteristically dreary) example? Even if it was pre-1923; or pre-1970s U.S. and not complying with U.S. copyright formalities? Jheald (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a simple google search for braille wine label, but why not search for "Lazarus Wine’s Braille Wine Bottle" and braille. If someone can track down that bottle and take it's picture, we'd have a free image. Therefore, this non-free image fails WP:NFCC #1. I cannot stress that enough. You are quite familiar with NFCC, Jheald, so I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me. If a free image could be created to represent the same concept, we cannot use a non-free image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have in fact uploaded a photograph of a bottle of that wine. I've placed it on the article. There is absolutely no reason why a person must see Chapoutier's wine label to understand this article. A braille label is quite sufficient, and this is a free equivalent. The arguements that the Chapoutier label is notable is no stronger than this label being notable for being the first wine to be produced exclusively by blind employees. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair cop.

But a possible vio of copyright in the photograph (and its photoshopping) itself, rather than the label, comparing with here ? Do we have an OTRS release? Jheald (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• We don't need one. There's nothing original in this photograph. It's a wine bottle, with PD-text. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Hammersoft's replacement, although I am still unclear on why an image of a Lazarus label is OK for this article while an image of a Chapoutier label isn't.

On another note, I also considered using the Lazarus label during my arguments with Hammersoft, but I felt that we shouldn't advertise wineries that don't already have their own article on Wikipedia. Whether Lazarus passes notability criteria for inclusion per WP:WINETOPICS, I can't say; I don't know enough about the winery. Anybody want to take a shot at writing such an article? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Because the Chapoutier label isn't free, and the Lazarus label is. Whether or not an article exists on a subject or not doesn't preclude us using images depicting that subject. It might be interesting to write an article on Lazarus; it may be the only vineyard in the world staffed entirely by blind people. I don't know. Not even sure if the entire staff is blind or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so clarify: What makes the Lazarus label free? Lazarus created it. Chapoutier created theirs. Regardless of the existence of a logo, there's still a design involved in each label. For all you know, the Braille could be part of Lazarus' logo. So what makes it free? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Braille is text. It is not text to the visually unimpaired, but it is text. The Chapoutier label contains artistry which is not present in the braille text. It is quite apparent from looking at the label on the entire bottle, that the braille text is just that; text. There's nothing intentionally artistic about it. Text is inherently uncopyrightable as a design. A text as a work of say a novel is a different story. This is not such. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re copyright in the photograph - what Hammersoft states, that the photograph doesn't pass the threshold of originality per U.S. law, is certainly a possible view. Compare for example the photography of 2D images of works of art under Bridgeman vs Corel. But consider also that we do (on counsel's advice) treat photographs of coins as having originality in themselves; similarly photographs of sculptures. Even though the lighting is deliberately bland, decisions have been taken about how to light and position the 3D object; and looking at the image closely, it is also clear that somebody has gone to the trouble to photoshop it. When it comes to photographs of 3D objects, there are good reasons why we are somewhat cautious. I'm therefore not quite as convinced that the image is as devoid of originality as Hammersoft makes out. Jheald (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I dispute your point regarding the photoshopping elements (if in fact that is what they are). But, regardless, would you be happier if the image was cropped to a sub-portion of the left hand of that image? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If you're going to crop it, why not crop the original Chapoutier image? I also am uneasy with your argument that all there is to consider is text. I sense a double standard. The label was designed. Some thought went in to the coloring, size, etc. I agree the Chapoutier label contains artistry. You're arguing that this Lazarus one doesn't? Isn't that a subjective judgment on your part? By the way, I like this new image and hope it stays. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Both the left and the right hand elements are images of 3d objects; normally, we would consider that to attract photographer's copyright. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• If there was something original about it, yes. That's not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be better to get a bottle and take the photo ourselves. Regardless, there clearly is a possibly free alternative, so hopefully, at this point, we can all agree there is no need for a non-free image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)