Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Ravenswood, West Virginia.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 TheVexillologistofKingwood as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: uploaders request
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file does not qualify for G7-speedy.

Same problem with:

-- Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moorefield, Ceredo, and Morgantown's seals. They look pretty simplistic, and can count as PD-ineligible. Flagvisioner (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Moorefield, Ceredo and Morgantown's seals should also be deleted because they are owned by the city and are guarantied to have copyright on them, look at Kansas City's seal as an example. Frank Zigler (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being owned by their respective cities doesn't necessarily mean the logos are eligible for copyright protection. The threshold for originality under US copyright law is comparatively low and generally simple combinations of color, text and shapes are not considered to be "creative enough" to be eligble for copyright protection. There's a difference between en:copyright and en:trademark as explained here and Commons is really only concerned with the former. Of course, any assessment of the creativity of the logos made here in this discussion is going to be somewhat subjective and is in no way equivalent to a copyright court ruling on the matter, but the three logos in question are quite simple and they would seem to be OK to be kept under a {{PD-logo}} license. As for the Kansas City logos you refer to, it's not clear whether you're talking about en:File:KCKS-UG-LOGO.png or en:File:Kansas City, Missouri logo.png. While it's true that both files were uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content, that doesn't necessarily mean the should've been uploaded as such. Many people unfamiliar with copyright concepts like the threshold of originality and US copyright law might just assume that all logos are eligible for copyright protection. Many organizations or businesses might assume the same as well just because the logo may have some commercial value to them. Lots of files uploaded as non-free content to English Wikipedia are actually too simple to be eligible for copyright protection; it's just the uploader just wanted to be careful or just didn't really give it much thought. Some people uploading files want to use them asap so they don't really do a thorough copyright assessment or seek input from others. In the case of the two Kansas City logos, the can also be seen on used on the respective city flags File:Flag of Kansas City, Missouri.svg and File:Flag of Wyandotte County, Kansas.svg and both flag files are uploaded to Commons as public domain. Of course, the flag files might not be OK for Commons, but I think the logos are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and thus the English Wikipedia files don't need to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Wikipedia I suggest that these seals should be reuploaded to the English Wikipedia as fair use as Frank really misunderstood the concept of copyright policies of Commons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion, deleted all except File:Seal of Moorefield, West Virginia.svg which consist of simple shapes and text and can be considered below TOO. All others are copyrighted (because too recent designs) and are above TOO. --Ellywa (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]