Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 4

< July 3	July 5 >

July 4

File:Calgary Flames 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current logo is File:Calgary Flames logo.svg which is almost the same as this one apart from the black outline this one has. It probably doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8 as you could easily describe it with words, like I just did. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per c:COM:CANADA, it states that Canada's TOO is relatively similar to the TOO of US and the nominated file seems ok for it to be {{PD-textlogo}} in both countries. At a bare minimum, I think that the license can be changed to {{PD-USonly}}. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minorax, possibly. Clindberg, the flames are in no way essential to the font I think (they don't help to form the letter "c"), but flames in general may perhaps be considered a basic shape. I was surprised by the verdict for File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg so I'm not quite sure now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too think the flames are decoration, and likely copyrightable, and not typography (which would not be copyrightable). The Cyberpunk logo is mostly a custom typeface, though the effects layered on top I thought might be copyrightable, but the compendium guidance (per that PDF) does say that text effects are considered de minimis. There are a few effects outside the letters, but guess that wasn't enough. But that PDF does say that pictorial elements separate from the letters (or even a drawing of a tree which forms a "T"), would be copyrightable. The general concept of flames is pretty familiar, so unsure if they would call those a common element, but sure feels like there is enough variation in there to be able to copyright that particular drawing of flames. But it would come down to that, for me -- if you think the flame drawing, on its own, would be copyrightable. I would lean yes but it's close since that is a pretty familiar type of pattern. Canada's line is supposed to be somewhere between the UK's and the US on such things. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2021 (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.