Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banco di Napoli Logo.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This file was already nominated for deletion and was kept because Italy has a semi-high bar for what constitutes an original work and also to "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." Racconish can it's above TOO, but there's zero evidence COM:TOO Italy has been made clearer since the original keep decision or that anyone has found more legal precedent since then to determine if it actually goes against COM:TOO Italy or not. In the meantime, the file should be kept until it's actually clear that it legally constitutes an original work. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 10:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment:@Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to. Otherwise, where does it say anything about logos? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, it's also worth mention that section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The problem here is COM:TOO Italy is highly problematic. It is based on a single source [1] which is obsolete (it refers to a 2006 jurisprudence rendered obsolete by the Flos jurisprudence [2] and extrapolates without any source an old juriprudential solution on industrial design to logos ("Probably this applies to logos too"). Not only has the theory of scindibilita been dropped but the Italian legal analysis is now aligned on the European one with the consequence that cumulative protection under copyright and design laws is now permitted in Italy and copyright protection is granted to designs as long as such works posses creative character [3]. — Racconish 💬 11:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
