Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24

File:UT Arlington Mavericks Wordmark.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned free image; File:UT Arlington wordmark.png has replace this image in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Idaho State Bengals Athletics Wordmark.gif

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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; File:Idaho State wordmark.png has replaced this image in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 01:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Axisoffeeble.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, as the only article (in which this images is used) doesn't contain critical commentary about it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this one does not meet [[WP::NFCC#8]]; it's just a reference to a pun on the article title/topic, hardly something that needs a non-free image.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:2DOPEBOYZ logo.png

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: convert to {{PD-logo}}. Source country is the United States. — ξ ^xplicit 04:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clearly not original enough to be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:The reason why you listed this on FfD is clearly ridiculous. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@OluwaCurtis: Er, FfD doesn't just handle image deletion nowadays. It also handles changes to an image's licensing/copyright tag.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source country of the logo? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Insert Name Here.png

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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 04:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a screenshot, this does not look original enough to be copyrightable, at least in the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Ryman Stationer Logo.svg

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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 04:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is not original enough to be copyrightable. Not even sure if it would be copyrightable in the UK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image is clearly the identifier for Ryman stationary. It is a custom-made typeface. See UK trademark no UK00002527218. If you would like to replace the logo for the page, go ahead. ∫ A Y ^™ 12:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (Update 2016-01-28 - can we close this yet as keep?)[reply]
Er, @Daylon124:, I was not requesting deletion of the image. I was requesting its copyright license to be changed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: right, and I stated that it is recognised by the United Kingdom as protected. "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright." This is correct, as proven by the trademark registration. ∫ A Y ^™ 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trademark and copyright are very different things (if an image is trademarked, we simply mark it as {{Trademarked}})). As noted on Wikipedia:Public domain, the English Wikipedia doesn't use UK copyright law, only US one. And while such a logo may be copyrightable in the UK, it's very dubious that it would in the US.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If you feel like the current main logotype version is not copyrightable, would this version, which is white-on-red and features the banner beneath be copyrightable and distinctive in your opinion? ∫ A Y ^™ 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-plain fonts are a weak point in my copyright understanding, so you'd need someone else's opinion on this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Tanfoglio logo.png

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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 04:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears below the threshold of originality in the US, however I'm unsure of its status in Italy. It should be retagged as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if Italy's TOO can't be determined, or {{PD-logo}} if it is also free in Italy. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this lawtext, Italy's copyright covers "works of ingenuity of creative character". Don't know of any case studies.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Toy story.jpeg

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 F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation - photo of box with copyrighted characters/logos prominently displayed. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not inherently a copyright violation. However, I don't think the photograph of a box (and more importantly, its 2-D art) counts as original work, so this is an orphaned non-free image. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:C.Fred: On Wikipedia, a non-free image is typically treated as a 'copyright violation' if the file is unfree and fair use is not asserted. Whether something is a copyright violation according to copyright law is another thing. This file is clearly unfree and the uploader does not assert fair use, so this counts as a 'copyright violation' under the usual Wikipedia meaning of the term. That said, box art is typically allowed in articles about products, so it's maybe better to leave this discussion open for a week in case the uploader tries to add the file to a page and clean up the file information page if the file is acceptable on that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The violation is repairable if fair use is asserted, so it's not a violation in the same way as if the uploader had claimed the image as their own work. That's also why {{orfud}} has a time limit rather than triggering instant deletion.

That said, if we're assuming good faith, the image should be allowed to wait out the time limit. If, however, we think the upload was in bad faith, delete it now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.