Commons:Deletion requests/File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png
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 simple enough geometry for PD, ergo copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Wikimedia claims that File:Commons-logo.svg is copyrightable, and we should apply the same standard to works from other sources. I am aware that "other stuff exists" is typically a fantastically poor argument, but the Commons logo is not just some overlooked corner at the periphery of the wikisphere; it's copyrighted, non-free status has been a matter of great debate. Anyone claiming that File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png is not copyrightable would need to explain how it differs from File:Commons-logo.svg in terms of original authorship or, failing that, effect change in the tagging of the Commons logo. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Commons accepts simple logos. You are going of what you think that should not be allowed here. The image contais just a letter and 4 shapes with shadows. Yes! The same way US flag is copyrighted but has it's Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure that mattbuck is aware that Commons accepts simple logos. The problem is that this most likely does not quality as a simple logo. You still haven't addressed how File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png differs in copyrightability from File:Commons-logo.svg. Oh, and the flag of the United States is not copyrighted. It's in the public domain because it is a US Federal Government work, and because it's not an original work but rather a work based on older versions. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- And because there is only one way to express it -- the dimensions are precisely defined in words. That would be a "merger doctrine" case ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- As for this ... hrm. At first blush I would have said copyrightable, but the main symbol is a stylized "P", so that is primarily not copyrightable. I don't think the rest qualifies either... "aesthetically pleasing" for sure, but just three dashes. I'll say Keep on this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- LX, I would say that the part of the logo that would be closest to be copyrighted would be this "P" but as Carl already said above, it's just a stylized "P" (even this font nears it). That, with 3 dashes, plus 'shadow', makes me say to Keep it. Yah msg 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, this logo passes the treshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
