Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS 1971 id.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.
This file was initially tagged by DaneGeld as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: claims to have been added by Herb Lubalin, who died in 1981. Without that, it's unsourced. COM:TOO? PD-US-no notice? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- As the tagger, I would say this passes the Threshold of Originality. It's more than just simple shapes, colours, and text that anyone could do; Lubalin even created the font that he used in the work. Besides that, as I said, according to the source box on the work, it was added by Herb Lubalin, and he's been dead since 1981. Regardless of the TOO, we don't even know if Lubalin was in the US when the work was created, so using PD-US-no notice would be dubious too. Thoughts? DaneGeld (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that this is a US work is not in doubt IMO; what we do need is evidence that it was published with no notice before 1978. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so when you say "published without notice", what do you mean? Is it that you need proof the work was published without telling anyone, or the fact that it was published without his name attached or connected initially to the work? DaneGeld (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that this is a US work is not in doubt IMO; what we do need is evidence that it was published with no notice before 1978. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete- Thanks to IronGargoyle below for additional confirmation of PD US status. File can be kept
if current fraudulent license claim is replaced with a factual one. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)- The license is already the correct one that is being discussed, PD-US-no notice. My concern was originally that it was unsourced, because of the upload being attributed to a dead person. Even with the correct license, it's still unsourced because there is no way of knowing where the user obtained the image from. DaneGeld (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- License was corrected since my earlier comment. Yes, the notice requirement for pre-1977 US works is a rather curious bit of copyright law, but is well documented. I have added a "trademark" notice on the file page. Seems OK to me now. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The license is already the correct one that is being discussed, PD-US-no notice. My concern was originally that it was unsourced, because of the upload being attributed to a dead person. Even with the correct license, it's still unsourced because there is no way of knowing where the user obtained the image from. DaneGeld (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks to IronGargoyle below for additional confirmation of PD US status. File can be kept
- Delete The license status is unclear and it seems beyond the threshold of originality ツSenador Tell me! 15:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I'm convinced by the {{PD-US-no notice}} argument. Here the logo in a broadcast from 1971. There is no notice. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully though, when have you seen a television station (or any company for that matter) put a copyright notice on an advertisement or a broadcast leader? DaneGeld (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- And that is exactly why we are able to host so many old advertisements on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- A serious question then; if I (or someone else) were able to find out that the creator of that image and the font used, had copyrighted it, would the fact that it was published before 1978 still mean you could keep it here, or would that basically mean that you had to remove it? DaneGeld (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Before 1978, copyright registration and copyright notice were both required to sustain a copyright; if it was registered but was widely published without notice, then it would still be public domain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- A serious question then; if I (or someone else) were able to find out that the creator of that image and the font used, had copyrighted it, would the fact that it was published before 1978 still mean you could keep it here, or would that basically mean that you had to remove it? DaneGeld (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- And that is exactly why we are able to host so many old advertisements on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully though, when have you seen a television station (or any company for that matter) put a copyright notice on an advertisement or a broadcast leader? DaneGeld (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per IronGargoyle's find. [1] is a series of additional broadcasts with no notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Corporate identity published without a copyright notice before 1978, and I could not find a registration entry on loc.gov. I'm also not convinced the logo passes the threshold of originality. The transformation of the letter P is pretty trivial, and basic text letterforms are not copyrightable (besides, ITC Avant Garde, used for this logotype, was publicly released through a type foundry and is not proprietary per se). DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; issues seem resolved. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
