Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guitar hero logo.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Guitar_hero_logo.png

[edit]

While I agree this is just text, I feel it is stylised enough to meet the threshold of originality, and is thus a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The font is freely availabe and it's 3D perpective is just a shade of gray on it's edge to give this resemblance. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I don't think it is stylized enough. The lines all still follow the shape of the letters, which are not copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyone who thinks that this doesn't meet the very low threshold of originality as required by US copyright law needs to get a clue. It's not a simple typeface. --David Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, the U.S. has a substantially high threshold for text. Rocket000 (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a typeface. Simple or not, they are not protected in the U.S. Fonts like Dingbats (since they are not letters) are the exceptions, since they aren't really typefaces. All others are not copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the clue. Many gothic and medieval fonts are more stylized than this one. And many of them we have in our operating system and are freely available. Fraktur is ana example of it. And it has many derivative typeface based on itself. If this one was so original it wouldn't be reproduced in a typeface. See the US law below

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;

(b) Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing;

(c) Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information;

(d) Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original authorship, such as, for example: Standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, schedules of sporting events, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.

(e) Typeface as typeface.

So, what more do you guys want? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: things are running through my mind but not clicking rather well... Starting off, the description states, "Guitar Hero's logo using the typeface font Nightmare Hero".

  1. the Guitar Hero logo is published in 2005, 3 years before the font appears on DaFont.[1]
  2. fact: the author of the logo states "Inspirée de la police du jeu Guitar Hero. Tout droits reservés aux auteurs respectifs." or Google Translate: "Inspired by the police of the game Guitar Hero. All rights reserved to respective authors." Ignoring any validity to his belief of copyrights, the author does admit his created typeface is based on the game's logo.
  3. American Heritage Dictionary defines "typeface" as "The size or style of the letter or character on a block of type." and "The full range of type of the same design." So the US law of "Typeface as typeface" would mean "A full range of letters or characters of the same style of design."

Was the stylised logo a typeface? Someone other than the developer copied the stylings and rendered them to other letters of the alphabet (a derivative work), creating this Nightmare Hero font after the game has been published. Can anyone confirm if the developers actually made a typeface from their stylised letterings? This logo might be copyrightable or not, but the current description (implying that the game logo was created from a typeface released after the game, and not the other way around) just rubs me the wrong way... Jappalang (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" implies that copyright protection does not extend to stylings that are simple variations of pre-existing styles; so what base font does this Guitar Hero styling come from (and no, as already stated above Nightmare Hero is derivative of the logo, not the other way around)? I do not believe I have seen a font very similar to the styling for the Guitar Hero logo, but I would like to be proven wrong. Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it was in a font or not -- typefaces are not protectable. That includes hand-drawn letters. There needs to be some pictorial or graphic component to an image not related to the shape of the letters. If this is essentially the same as the original logo, then that was not copyrightable either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I have tough time with these myself (and thus not voting), I can agree that it doesn't matter if it was made into a font or not. The only concern I have here is styling applied to it. Personally, I wouldn't think twice about reusing this. The trademark protection would be my only concern, but then again, I think even the Google logo is simply enough yet that has been deleted repeatedly. Rocket000 (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree on the Google logo... the only argument is the precise bitmap of the 3Dish logo may have an extremely thin copyright on the exact bitmap (maybe the gradients were hand-tuned). If someone else recreates the 3D stuff themselves, that should be fine. I'm guessing that was deleted because it is such a high-profile logo, and people want to be really sure on that one in particular. The non-3D ones are definitely fine. As for the styling... going by the U.S. copyright guidelines, there needs to be creative expression to be copyrightable; the "aesthetic attractiveness" doesn't really matter. A child's scribble looks like nothing, but it is still expression. The flip side is that something which just "looks cool" -- some attractive combination of colors, or a novel (but still simple) combination of shapes -- still isn't "expression". Sort of how short slogans, while novel and maybe a play on words, are still not copyrightable. From the guidelines: In determining the registrability of a print, the copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. That is basically what this logo is to me -- typographic ornamentation with some aesthetic coloring. There is no pictorial element not related to the shape (or the ornamentation) of the letters. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, normally I would say something like that specific 3D look (vs. plain solid color like this) can make it cross that threshold, but nowadays it's hard to argue that there's anything original in simple gradient effects like that. But I think what really makes the different in people's opinion is the trademark. If it was some random word a user made, I doubt we would feel that way about it. We also tend to mixed up creativity and originality. Creativity is not what attracts copyright. You can be creative in practically everything you do. There's tons of creative but unoriginal works. I think the way the letters are arranged here (e.g. how the G, H, and u fit together) fall under this category. So in my opinion neither the typeface, style, or arrangement is original... but you can break down any copyrighted work into uncopyrightable elements so I'm again back where I started. Rocket000 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the Google logo personally I think this was too much. The font is simple and the coloring too. And coloring is not copyrightable and ornamentation either. I think some users are going way too "harsh" over trademarks. And this is not good. Of course we must be careful for not finfring someone ricghts, but the way it is, is not good for the project. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult area. We just need to keep working together and figure it out. None of us can really be sure about these things (even the courts aren't). Rocket000 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. But if we were less apprehensive about such things, it would be easier to braisntorm, look and find more interesting and significant things about theses cases. Anyway, Nightmare Hero and Circus Ornate are a little similar. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the one delete vote, I don't think we're being apprehensive about this. I know, in general, we can be, but this DR seems to be going the right way. Anyway, check out Ravenwood Two Condensed and Ironhorse (found with WhatTheFont). Rocket000 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, I think. The existence of the "Nightmare Hero" font is a red herring: one can't force a copyrighted work into the public domain just by cutting it into pieces and using those pieces in a font. But, as far as I understand U.S. copyright law (and keep in mind that IANAL, just going on second-hand information here), letters that are "just letters", however unusually drawn, just can't be copyrighted, period. The situation may be different for things like dingbats or elaborate ornamental typefaces or inhabited initials (although again, IANAL), but the ornamentation on the letters in this logo is nowhere near enough to make them anything other than plain functional Latin letters, so I would say this is {{PD-textlogo}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Avi (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Guitar_hero_logo.png&oldid=72884361"