This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
It is requested that a photograph of the company's products be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
I have seen that Heller Furniture has made a great comeback and currently has the windows at MoMA. I am trying to create their history page as they are similiar to the company Kartell. But I may need some help. I grew up with this product, and love seeing it available again. Would be awesome to make sure the history is documented. DesignGuru118 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GALLERY, the gallery section is excessive, and makes this look like a mirror of the Heller web site. I removed it, but it was reverted without explanation. I am bringing this here for discussion. These images are all from Commons where there is a deletion discussion about permissions. Assuming permissions get straightened out and the images are kept, then a {{Commonscat}} link in the external links section would provide access to all the media associated with Heller. Select items illustrating points in the article would be appropriate but not this giant image gallery. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I believe some sort of gallery would be valuable. I've worked on the gallery sections of Dieter Rams and Braun articles (amongst others), and do think something along these lines would be appropriate here too.
My interest is in improving the visual content of the encyclopaedia (especially relating to architecture, design, and the visual arts in general). With this in mind, I'd like to see the images and gallery remain (and, for that matter, the article itself – as in addition to the photo deletion discussion, there is another discussion about the merits of article itself).
[NB: For what it's worth, I'm not inclined to (or particularly interested in) the aspects of Wikipedia that involve sleuthing out the motivation (or identity) of others, though it seems highly likelypossible that there is an undeclared COI somewhere here too. If so, I hope that that can be sorted out properly and equitably so that the valuable content and imagery may be preserved.]
Since it all seems certain to be deleted from Commons as unlicensed copying, the discussion here is basically nugatory. At the most we could include one or two images under the fair use rules: we'd have to justify both using someone else's photographs, and showing copyrighted furniture/houseware designs – the latter even if we took the photos ourselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nugatory? Smarts (a bit) that. I'm just trying to help avoid losing these lovely photographs down the dread Commons Licencing rabbit-hole (the Hellerware shots in particular, not so much the "Jim Bastardo Photography"). My bet would be that the uploader (or their employer) may actually own the rights to the photographs. If so, they simply may not understand: A) Commons licensing requirements; B) COI declaration policy. As the user is new, I think this is a fair guess (and judicious application of WP:GOODFAITH). If they are reading any of these threads, the result could be a positive outcome. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should think the uploader was indeed from Heller, and deffo didn't know a thing about Commons, Copyright, or licenses. It is not inconceivable that you might manage to get in touch with them and persuade them to fill out a letter to confirm the company's granting of CC-by-SA --- go on, give it a go --- but I'm not holding my breath. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If they're so minded, the easiest solution would be for them to put a note beside the images on their website that the images are CC-by-SA, with a link to the CC-by-SA page for good measure. (I did just that on my website.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start by hoping that they are (a) inclined to continue with their newfound interest in Wikipedia, (b) login to their account before the clock runs out, (c) see this thread, and (d) act upon your wise counsel accordingly. I'll remain optimistic (for no good reason other than it beats the other option). I'll also drop another note on their Talk page. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that, hence "b" above. Too bad. Are you the sort of person who might be inclined to email the company directly and tell them about VRT, etc.? (Maybe I ought to change my user name to "doe-eyed optimist".) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go using the uploader's email link (still a long shot). If that doesn't work then we'd need to work out who to contact - could be Edelman, of course. Breathe deeply now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No reply; article is rescued, I see today. I assume the uploader can't have been from Heller, so image deletion at Commons is now inevitable. You could take a photo of a storefront or shop interior and we could use that image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chiswick Chap, great news about the resolution of the AfD question! Too bad about the photographs :-(
I'm a visual thinker who would like to see the kind and quality of images used improved as much as possible. I've struggled mightily with this part of the wiki project (please see this, this, this , and this if the subject is of interest). Commons seems a bit Kafkesque sometimes.
Again, I also want to steer very wide and clear of the rocky shoals of identification/motivations/etc. Without prejudice or even a hint of accusation, my personal opinion is that there would seem to be some kind of connection with the company. I'm probably simply reading too much into the coincidence of the "Key person" (now rm) being similarly named to the "Author" of the "Own work" Commons upload, and a nearly singular focus on one subject. I do think it may be worth emailing the company ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Feel free, as I said already. Such contacts are always a long shot. We have no way of knowing what the connection was (could have been a paid editor...) and it doesn't matter, we can't force them to do anything. Even if they were linked with the company, since the copyright belongs (almost certainly) to the photographer, even asking the company may not be sufficient. You imply these are Wiki-rules, but actually they're not, it's a matter of copyright law, and the Wiki-powers-that-be could get themselves into big trouble by ignoring the law, so not surprisingly, they don't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and understood. I didn't mean to imply anything other than as a non-lawyer, I've struggled to make useful contributions to Commons or even use images found there in articles here on Wikipedia (which seems to bring improperly uploaded images to the attention of sharp-eyed editors who patrol these things and results in their deletion – so in one sense, I suppose that I've actually inadvertently helped clean-up some of this rights problem). I also suppose I ought to put in the time required to get a better grasp of copyright law. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviving a question from the now closed as KeepAfD discussion: Should this article be renamed "Heller, Inc." or simply "Heller" (which is how the Museum of Modern Art entry reads: "The manufacturer Heller introduced the award-winning design to America in a range of colors")? The company manufactures both furniture, housewares, and even a lamp called Gladys Goose according to the company's own website (which also states that, "Alan Heller [...] created an impressive collection of housewares and furniture"). For comparison, see other companies in the same sector such as Kartell or Knoll, Inc. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't call it "Heller" as that's a disambiguation page. "Heller Furniture" is clearly wrong as the company sells houseware and dinnerware. It could be "Heller, Inc." if desperate but that's a pretty limp abbreviation; or "Heller (US company)" or "Heller (1971 company)" if we want a plain but disambiguating title. Feel free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think there's any house-on-fire urgency. Of the suggestions we have thus far, my preference would be for either "Heller, Inc." (per Knoll, Inc.) or "Heller (US company)", which is clean and no-nonsense. I asked a similar question re: Joe Columbo and also added a move request tag (though I don't remember exactly how). This brought a few other folks into the conversation. We could do the same here too. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
