Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png

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 Vinamilk (2023).png

This file was initially tagged by Đơn giản là tôi as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "© 2014 Copyright by Vinamilk Corp. All rights reserved." COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment This logo is completely made by a typeface and too simple to be copyrighted. Thus, it's PD-textlogo. Sửa tào lao là giỏi (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  The logo is created by a typeface set called VNM Sans. See here. Compared to this logo, I think the new logo is more COM:TOO. Sửa tào lao là giỏi (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sửa tào lao là giỏi Note from that page: "Lưu ý: Font chữ chỉ sử dụng cho mục đích cá nhân." (Note: Fonts are for personal use only.) I am I ^Talk 05:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Đơn giản là tôi: Biết thì thưa thốt, không biết thì dựa cột mà nghe. Bạn cần học hỏi nhiều hơn về vấn đề bản quyền hình ảnh. Tôi dám cá tôi hiểu biết nhiều về vấn đề hình ảnh hơn bạn. Đừng trứng khôn hơn vịt. Thứ nhất, typeface nói chung không nằm trong đối tượng được bảo hộ bản quyền. Thứ hai, cái trang tôi dẫn ra chỉ nhằm mục đích chứng minh nó là một typeface (có tên gọi là VNM Sans) được thiết kế bởi Vinamilk, chứ không nhằm mục đích chứng minh trang đó tạo ra typeface đó (có thể do designer của Vinamilk leak ra). Vì ngay cả khi chủ sở hữu của trang đó tạo ra typeface trên đi nữa thì các ký tự bất kỳ được tạo ra từ nó cũng không đủ điều kiện để bảo hộ bản quyền. Typeface này có nhiều trang đăng tải. Ví dụ [1]. Cho nên cái dòng "Font chữ chỉ sử dụng cho mục đích cá nhân" chỉ là một thằng ngáo nào đó viết ra, đừng để tâm. Thằng này còn không phân biệt được thế nào là font và typeface. Nó không có giá trị gì về mặt pháp lý, tin tôi đi. Bạn làm tôi cười sặc nước bọt. Sửa tào lao là giỏi (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sửa tào lao là giỏi Ok thôi, kiến thức tôi chắc chắn không bằng bạn. I am I ^Talk 13:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sửa tào lao là giỏi Vậy tôi thấy trang vẫn còn biển xóa nhanh kìa. PHONGDANG ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 09:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @DANG GIAO: Đó là biển biểu quyết xóa của Commons. Bqv King of Hearts đã thay nó cho biển xóa nhanh tào lao của Đơn giản là tôi đặt lên vài ngày trước. Sửa tào lao là giỏi (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sửa tào lao là giỏi @Đơn giản là tôi Tôi đã viện trợ từ một người có am hiểu bên Wikipedia tiếng Anh và phiền hai bạn sử dụng tiếng Anh khi thảo luận để các thành viên khác có thể tham gia. PHONGDANG ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 13:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The logo is almost certainly {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US and COM:FONT; however, Commons also requires that it be "PD-logo" in both the US and the country of first publication, which would seem to be Vietnam. There's nothing about the Vietnamese TOO in COM:Vietnam, so that's going to need to be clarified. Does anyone know of any Vietnamese court cases or copyright law rulings involving similar logos which might shed some light on this. Even if it's not something about this particular logo per se, if there's something about Vietnamese copyright law that can lead to reasonably assuming this would be "PD-logo" even in Vietnam, then the logo can be kept. If, by chance, the file can't be kept, tehn it could be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia and licensed as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. It's uses on other language Wikipedias, however, would depend on those Wikipedias' policies on image use. Finally, I understand that Commons is a multi-language project, but it might be helpful to those who don't understand Vietnamese if the comments were made in English or at least sort of translated into English, particularly if its something important to determining the copyright status of this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Marchjuly I will ask members from Vietnam to use English when discussing. Thanks for your comment. PHONGDANG ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 13:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Marchjuly @King of Hearts The logos in the typeface are not protected by copyright in Vietnam. If a person owns this type of image but does not want others to use it, they will apply for copyright protection. Usually in Vietnam, the typeface image is also used freely as is the law of the United States. The owner of this logo has never proven that they have copyrighted the above image, so it can be inferred that they never claimed the copyright and the image is free to use. PHONGDANG ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 14:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide any information that supports this. For example, a link to some sort of official Vietnamese government website that states as much or maybe the name of the Vietnamese law or act that specifies the country's copyright laws. If such information can be found and verified, it can possibly be added to COM:Vietnam for reference. As for the comments in Vietnamese, something like Google translate can be used to get the general idea, but some Commons users might just skip over the discussion if they think translating all of the comments is going to be too much of a hassle. It would, however, be helpful if important stuff that might affect how this discussion is closed was also in English; not required per se, but helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Marchjuly and DANG GIAO: This is a big issue and can affect a large number of logos related to Vietnam, so I recommend that it should be discussed at Village Pump, and we need invite knowledgeable members on Commons and Vietnamese Wikipedia for comments.

  Legally, Vietnam Intellectual Property Law 2005 (amended and supplemented in 2022) stipulates:

“

Article 72. General conditions for marks to be eligible for protection A mark shall be eligible for protection when it satisfies the following conditions: 1. It is a visible sign in the form of letters, words, drawings or images including holograms, or a combination thereof, represented in one or more colours. 2. It is capable of distinguishing goods or services of the mark owner from those of other subjects.

”

• And the "capable of distinguishing goods or services of the mark owner from those of other subjects" was defined in article 74 of this code:

“

Article 74. Distinctiveness of marks 1. A mark shall be deemed to be distinctive if it consists of one or more easily noticeable and memorable elements, or of many elements forming an easily noticeable and memorable combination, and does not fall into the cases stipulated in clause 2 of this article. 2. A mark shall be deemed to be indistinctive if it is a sign falling into one of the following categories: (a) Simple shapes and geometric figures, numerals, letters or scripts of uncommon languages, except where such sign has been widely used and recognized as a mark; (b) Conventional signs or symbols, pictures or common names in any language of goods or services that have been widely and regularly used and known to many people; (c) Signs indicating time, place and method of production; category, quantity, quality, properties, ingredients, use, value or other characteristics descriptive of goods or services, except where such sign has acquired distinctiveness by use before the filing of the application for registration of the mark; (d) Signs describing the legal status and business sector of business entities; (dd) Signs indicating the geographical origin of goods or services, except where such sign has been widely used and recognized as a mark or registered as a collective mark or certification mark as stipulated in this Law; (e) Signs other than integrated marks which are identical with or confusingly similar to registered marks of identical or similar goods or services on the basis of applications for registration with earlier filing dates or priority dates, as applicable, including applications for registration of marks filed pursuant to a treaty of which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a member; (g) Signs identical with or confusingly similar to another person's mark which has been widely used and recognized for similar or identical goods or services before the filing date or the priority date, as applicable; (h) Signs identical with or confusingly similar to another person's mark which has been registered for identical or similar goods or services, the registration certificate of which has been invalidated for no more than five years, except where the ground for such invalidation was non-use of the mark pursuant to sub-clause (d) of article 95.1 of this Law; (i) Signs identical with or confusingly similar to another person's mark recognized as a well known mark which has been registered for goods or services which are identical with or similar to those bearing such well known mark, or for dissimilar goods or services if the use of such mark may affect the distinctiveness of the well known mark or the mark registration was aimed at taking advantage of the reputation of the well known mark; (k) Signs identical with or similar to another person's trade name currently in use if the use of such sign may cause confusion to consumers as to the origin of goods or services; (l) Signs identical with or similar to a protected geographical indication if the use of such sign may mislead consumers as to the geographical origin of goods; (m) Signs identical with, containing or being translated or transcribed from protected geographical indications for wines or spirits if such sign has been registered for use with respect to wines and spirits not originating from the geographical areas bearing such geographical indications; (n) Signs identical with or insignificantly different from another person's industrial design which has been protected on the basis of an application for registration of an industrial design with a filing date or priority date earlier than that of the application for registration of the mark

”

• In which, Clause 2, Article 74 of this code clearly states that:

  Simple shapes and geometric figures, numerals, letters or scripts of uncommon languages, except where such sign has been widely used and recognized as a mark, is not deemed to be distinctive

• Source: Vietnam Intellectual Property Law 2005 Sửa tào lao là giỏi (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  The source of the Logo cited in this file is unclear as it is a secondary source, the file was not obtained from its original publisher. Website https://thegioitiepthi.danviet.vn/logo-moi-cua-vinamilk-20230706215500387.htm has copyright on the posted content. Does using such an image in a website like this mean that the image is free to use?. But if according to the above quote, the file is free to use. PHONGDANG ^{No risk, no life. No malice, no fear} 10:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  @DANG GIAO: Không quan trọng nguồn lấy từ đâu vì tác giả gốc vẫn là Vinamilk. Một tác phẩm đã thuộc phạm vi công cộng thì người sáng tạo không có quyền tác giả gì với nó, nên kể cả khi tôi phát hành tập tin này với giấy phép CC-BY-SA 4.0 và ghi tên tác giả là tôi thì cũng không ảnh hưởng gì, vì khi đã xác định được nó thuộc phạm vi công cộng, tác giả là ai hay nguồn từ đâu cũng không còn quan trọng. Sửa tào lao là giỏi (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  (Edit conflict)The best source for a file is, ideally, something under the control of the original copyright holder of the work (e.g. an organization's official publication) since that meets COM:PUBLISH, helps determine whether the work is "official" and allows copyright holder COM:CONSENT to be assessed. The next best source is probably something published a reputable publisher (e.g. a reputable news agency's official publication) which gives the en:provenace of the file or other information that allows a reasonable copyright assessment to be made. Questionable sources like the ones listed in COM:PRS are hit or and miss, and COM:BAD sources should be avoided at all times. So, whether this file is kept isn't really going to depend upon its source per se, unless the claim is that this file was never been published by its original copyright holder, but was "leaked" by the source website without the consent of the original copyright holder. Since the same logo can essentially be seen at vinamilk.com.vn it's almost certainly going to be considered published for Commons' purposes and the company's official website can simply be added as the source. It could be argued that the blue background isn't accurate, but that's not really a copyright element. In that case, the background can be removed or a new version of the logo without the background could be uploaded.

  Many companies have a copyright statement at the bottom of their websites. This is sort of a way to cover all of the original content appearing on its website and claim its copyrighted. Individual elements of the website that aren't 100% the original work of the company probably aren't covered under such a claim of copyright. Similarly, anything that would be considered to within the public domain by relevant copyright laws probably also aren't covered under such a claim of copyright. Companies applying for copyright protection of their work (e.g. their logos) do sometimes have their applications rejected because the work isn't something considered to be eligible for copyright protection by the relevant copyright authority. If it can be shown the Vinamilk submitted an application for copyright protection to Vietnamese copyright authorities and that application was approved, then Commons shouldn't keep this. If there was some court cases involving a dispute over this logo that resulted in it being deemed eligible for copyright protection by a judge, then Commons shouldn't keep this. If there have been similar logos granted copyright protection by Vietnamese copyright authorities or court cases involving similar logos that resulted in them being deemed eligible for copyright protection, then perhaps Commons shouldn't keep this. Absent any clear-cut evidence clearly showing this logo is copyrighted or likely copyrighted, whether the file is kept is going to most likely depend on COM:PCP and what consensus is established through this discussion. It seems to me that whether this file is kept depends upon "Article 74 Clause 2(b)", but I don't know what "uncommon languages" means? It that an official term used by the Vietnamese government or is it someone's translation of a Vietnamese expression. Does it mean Vietnamese is a "common language" and everything else is "uncommon"? Is the way that the expression is used at the end of the sentence meant to mean that "of uncommon languages" applies only to "scripts" or also applies to "Simple shapes and geometric figures, numerals, letters"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Are Article 72 and Article 74 quoted above in any way relevant to copyright? That would all seem to be about trademarking. - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)