Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo PSC 1982-2003.svg

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:Logo PSC 1982-2003.svg

Same situation as in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_PSOE_1976-2001.svg: Unfree logo. License used is not correct, as the image does not consist just of "simple geometric shapes or text" (the fist and the rose meeting the threshold of originality). Sfs90 (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And same arguments in order to oppose deletion as they are both derivative versions of a file which is compliant with Commons. --Fer1997 (talk)

Even when you created the file as a "derivative work", the fist-and-rose logo in Spain is copyrighted by PSOE, and the same case applies with the PSC that you are posting. --Sfs90 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Legally speaking, those are trademarks, and there is a

This work includes material that may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions. If you want to use it, you have to ensure that you have the legal right to do so and that you do not infringe any trademark rights. See our general disclaimer. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.

category in case the license under the content was released needs to be changed. Copyright is a different matter under Spanish law. Also, if this is a derivative file from a work which was created in Albania, which difference does it make? This file is not obtained from materials derived from party literature which would constitute a violation of copyright or trademark registries in Spain, it's just a derivation of a work created under Albanian law which,incidentally, is almost identical (as I pointed out in the discussion for the PSOE logo, there are some differences) to one which is trademarked in Spain. --Fer1997 (talk)

 Delete COM:TOO is met here in my opinion. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

After looking at it for the second time I have realised that the part that falls under COM:TOO is actually taken from the public domain image, so the rest is nothing but simple geometric shapes (series of stripes). Therefore I reverse my previous vote and now believe we should  Keep. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Copyrights laws in Spain (and the EU) are clear about the protection of logos, trademarks and any work created by an author. There's nothing more to say about it, and the logo should not continue on Commons, since is a trademarked logo, with rights belonging to their respective authors ("the author" being the creator of the logo, not the creator of a copycat uploaded to Commons, which seems to be the case). --Sfs90 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Kept: Trademarks mean absolutely nothing to us as they are a non-copyright restriction. What matters is copyright which is a completely different section of law. If the rose itself, which is the only part of that image that meets TOO, was in the public domain than this would be a derivative of something that is PD. Which would make it fine to be here. That is the entire point of the public domain. For things to be available to be redone and rethought into new creations. --Majora (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)