Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icon-windows os.svg
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.
Not trivial. Copyright violation. Derivative from copyrighted logo. 95.24.249.250 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Copyright violation indeed. Some people by mistake think that merely being simple in form makes the logo ineligible for copyright protection and simplifying anything copyright-protected into a blob of a color removes the copyright protection. Both are wrong: First, the threshold for copyright protection is either Originality of Expression or Sweat of the Brow (depending on the country), not simpleness of form. Second, making simplified version of a copyrighted image is making a derivative work and is not allowed! This logo is a derivative work of Microsoft Windows logo, a copyright-protected logo that is almost unique in expression! Fleet Command (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Please keep copyright and trademark apart. 217.174.64.116// Sertion 01:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)<- Good call. Microsoft Windows logo is protected by both copyright laws and a trademark laws. Simple test: If someone uploaded Windows logo here, it would be deleted. Now someone has uploaded a derivative work of it. Well, a derivative work of a non-free work must be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is true, but images that consist of only simple geometry are not advanced enough to be protected by copyright. In my opinion this image falls under that loop hole. Therefore I vote to keep this image. // Sertion 20:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The law says it is Originality that decides, not any ambiguous text of a Commons template that you link to out of your fanciful thinking. This image is obviously a Windows logo and a Windows logo IS original enough. FYI, in Commons, we don't do wiki-lawyering (i.e we don't use "loop holes" when it is a violation of the spirit of the laws) Also we do not seek votes here; your votes has no bearing on U.S. Department of Justice's decision to shut us down for copyright violation if it ever come to that. Fleet Command (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree in most of what you are saying, but I have a hard time seeing that Microsoft were world first to use the "flag-shape" and even more of a hard time to agree with the possibility to protect the usage of the primary colors. // Sertion 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Peter Kuiper had me read "Nikken Logo" case. As the case says, a minimal amount of creativity is all the is needed for copyright protection. The flag-shaped window seems creative to me; even unique. And by the way, Trademark laws can make an image ineligible to Wikimedia Commons. After all, Wikimedia Commons only accepts free contents; but trademarks that are protected by Trademark Dilution Act do not have the four freedom: Creating derivative works out of them is not allowed and they cannot be used commercially. And since Microsoft Windows logo is very famous, there goes another reason for deleting this image. Fleet Command (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree in most of what you are saying, but I have a hard time seeing that Microsoft were world first to use the "flag-shape" and even more of a hard time to agree with the possibility to protect the usage of the primary colors. // Sertion 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The law says it is Originality that decides, not any ambiguous text of a Commons template that you link to out of your fanciful thinking. This image is obviously a Windows logo and a Windows logo IS original enough. FYI, in Commons, we don't do wiki-lawyering (i.e we don't use "loop holes" when it is a violation of the spirit of the laws) Also we do not seek votes here; your votes has no bearing on U.S. Department of Justice's decision to shut us down for copyright violation if it ever come to that. Fleet Command (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is true, but images that consist of only simple geometry are not advanced enough to be protected by copyright. In my opinion this image falls under that loop hole. Therefore I vote to keep this image. // Sertion 20:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good call. Microsoft Windows logo is protected by both copyright laws and a trademark laws. Simple test: If someone uploaded Windows logo here, it would be deleted. Now someone has uploaded a derivative work of it. Well, a derivative work of a non-free work must be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - see Threshold of originality#United States for court decisions on what is too simple for copyright. The very short svg code of this files only contains a few cubic Bezier curves. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)- Keep. Having carefully reviewed Threshold of originality#United States and the linked PDF case files, I must agree with Pieter Kuiper. --P199 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps I shall attract your attention to something that you didn't notice: File:Wikimedia-logo.svg is copyright-protected, while it is composed of simple shapes! An arc, two crescents and a circle. (Or you can say an "i" and a crescent.) But why?
The reason is simple: As I pointed out earlier, en:Threshold of originality (yes, that's different from the page you've looked at) does not mention simplicity of shape or previous creation; it says "authorship". Both Wikimedia logo and Microsoft Windows logo, no matter how simple, reflect authorship: When you look at a Windows logo, you don't remember a flag or simple shape; you remember an operating system that is in use in 9 out of 10 personal computers in the world. That makes it copyright-protected. I urge you to read that article because the Commons version is worthless. (In fact, the Commons version also urges you to do that.) Fleet Command (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Commons page has links to decisions by courts or by the US Copyright Office. Mental associations do not matter for copyright (but are important in trademark cases). As for the Wikimedia logo, you are right, it is too simple for copyright protection. I changed this one and I made an edit request at File talk:Wikimedia-logo.svg#Copyfraud?. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I know that it contains examples; but without practical knowledge, everyone interprets example as he sees fit to his own fancy. Fleet Command (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Commons page has links to decisions by courts or by the US Copyright Office. Mental associations do not matter for copyright (but are important in trademark cases). As for the Wikimedia logo, you are right, it is too simple for copyright protection. I changed this one and I made an edit request at File talk:Wikimedia-logo.svg#Copyfraud?. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to english wikipedia "non free logo" Slowking4 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Threshold of originality is a creation of Pieter Kuiper and is a useful collection of examples of images judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority. As long as there is no court decission about this window logo, it should be deleted per COM:PRP. Everything else are specualtions by laymen. --High Contrast (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not really; it is not difficult to read the reasoning in the refusal of copyright registration for the File:Jeff Ho logo.png, and to apply it to this figure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- You compare Windows Logo to Jeff Ho's? Good luck convincing me. Even if you did, there is still Trademark Dilution that makes the logo ineligible for Wikimedia Commons. Fleet Command (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not really; it is not difficult to read the reasoning in the refusal of copyright registration for the File:Jeff Ho logo.png, and to apply it to this figure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Basic shapes and colours does indeed make this PD Fry1989 eh? 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ahem... Trademark Dilution Act. 22:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I've uploaded a new version of the image in question. This discussion only applies to versions before 2011-08-24. (Unless my edit is reverted, then never mind). // Sertion 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- And now it has been reverted. // Sertion 02:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- And reverted; and un-reverted; and and reverted; and un-reverted. And all this time none of these two versions are allowed by Trademark Dilution Act because they are similar to Microsoft Windows logo. Fleet Command (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- And now it has been reverted. // Sertion 02:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
