Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shape big.gif
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.
The logo of SHAPE, the supreme NATO headquarter can not be subject to German law. Therefore the current license can not be used. ALE! ¿…? 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- well, any alternative suggsetions? Is that a Belgium organisation or what? It's an international organisation. So it is quiet difficult to decide which license suits.--TUBS (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is not difficult because there are free licenses that can be used for international organisation. In this case I think that you need a permission from them. Please read Commons:OTRS. --ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- This website describes the design and authors of that logo. is it now safe that a licence applies that states that this work is created by a United States service member and thus is public domain? Otherwise I'm gonna ask them, if we may use this logo for the purpose of displaying it in the Wikipedia --TUBS (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)--TUBS (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm talking about that specific license template: {{PD-USGov-Military}} --TUBS (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- NATO is an international organization not an US governmental organization, so US law does NOT apply. Answering you second suggestion: A Wikipedia only permission is not good enough. Please read: Commons:Licensing and Commons:Email templates --ALE! ¿…? 14:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is it realy important where the organization is from, though? The guys who were in charge to create the logo aswell as the majority of the people who actually did aftwerwards, were service member of the US armed forces. Hence the license above may apply. The license does not state that it becomes automatically invalid for US servie member that were not in the US or were not working with US companies or organizations while creating the disputed work. Be aware that any NATO staff member stays a member of his/her national armed forces corps. Müssen wir eigtl. die ganze Zeit Englisch reden?--TUBS (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nein, wir können auch deutsch reden, aber dann versteht kein anderer mehr was. Dies ist ja eine öffentliche
- Is it realy important where the organization is from, though? The guys who were in charge to create the logo aswell as the majority of the people who actually did aftwerwards, were service member of the US armed forces. Hence the license above may apply. The license does not state that it becomes automatically invalid for US servie member that were not in the US or were not working with US companies or organizations while creating the disputed work. Be aware that any NATO staff member stays a member of his/her national armed forces corps. Müssen wir eigtl. die ganze Zeit Englisch reden?--TUBS (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- NATO is an international organization not an US governmental organization, so US law does NOT apply. Answering you second suggestion: A Wikipedia only permission is not good enough. Please read: Commons:Licensing and Commons:Email templates --ALE! ¿…? 14:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm talking about that specific license template: {{PD-USGov-Military}} --TUBS (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Diskussion So back to English so everybody can understand. Do you have a proof that the logo was created by US army members? Besides from that I am still not sure whether an US license would apply for a logo of an international organisation. But maybe somebody else who knows better can comment on that. --ALE! ¿…? 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Macht Sinn Well, besides the information on the website I referenced above where it seems that mainly US officers were inolved in the design of that coat of arms, I don't have a true "proof". To be honest: I'm not so sure about all theses licence things myself, that's why I'm discussing that issue here back and forth and that's why I like the idea best to just ask them for permission. Let's see what happens. Thanx for your help.--TUBS (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Offical request for permission is on its way. Answer is pending, though.--TUBS (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- "The Secretary of the Staff, Colonel Robert J. Wood, United States Army, who was charged with preparation of the insignia, described its evolution as follows:"http://www.nato.int/shape/about/logo.htm makes it a work of the us and public domain--CnrFallon (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Offical request for permission is on its way. Answer is pending, though.--TUBS (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I am no expert in copyright law. So there is nothing more I can say. By the way: my request to get an explicit permission had no sucess. It's not that they didn't permit use in Wikipedia; they simply didn't answer...--TUBS (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, from this page it seems that the major part was indeed done by US servicemen, so PD-USGov could apply, but it also states The basic idea came from the sketch submitted by Mr. Arthus Bertrand (a designer in Paris), so its status is not entirely clear. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
