Commons:Deletion requests/File:SpongeBob SquarePants logo.svg
Above COM:TOO. Copyrighted logo. Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this image does meet threshold of orginality to meric copyright. Jarekt (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality . Simple text logo, text SpongeBob with points.
Per the United States Copyright Office:[1]
familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... typeface as typefaced are not subject to copyright.
--EEIM (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- As one can see, this image is from here, cut and vectorized. It is not redrawn with a different font, it has up to 100% coincidence of graphic elements other than text. And such a complex font itself is subject to copyright.
- File:SpongeBob SquarePants logo.svg
- when it’s large, it’s better to see, right?·Carn 17:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Everything there, including the points, is part of the font. Fonts have no copyright in the USA. There are only two words here. SpongeBob SQUAREPANTS. The owner is Nickelodeon. The licensing is This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality. This work includes material that may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions. from this web , we can change the source.--EEIM (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you use this argument then we could import any image in Commons (including ALL corporate logos): just transform them first to SVG (this can be automated), and build a FONT with it (assign some random letters for monochromatic glyphs, map colors)! Font designs are obviously copyrightable including in the US, if the glyphs are not "mere variations" of "familiar" letters or basic ornementations. However the placement of dots, relative glyph sizes for variation of letters, the choice of color palette, and everything that makes it really unique and clearly identifiable as a reserved trademark, brand or logo means that this image (independantly of the technic used to reproduce it) is effectively subject to copyright.
- May be the font used may not be copyrighted (if glyphs have reusable designs and are not intended for a single use), but after all the ASCII alphabet is also not copyrightable, but the assembly of these Latin letters makes texts that ARE copyrightable. This clearly applies here ! This is for the same reason that databases can also be copyrighted even if all their individual components are not (e.g. a geographic database, or the database containing this wiki and this talk page, even if most individual talks like "+1" are free). verdy_p (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Conclusion: Delete as this obviously violates copyright and this image (even if it's built by using some free elements) is a unique assembly clearly identifiable as a copyrighted logo. The technics used to reproduce the logo (any other numeric image format, including innovative ones) does NOT matter at all. Only the criteria of originality and identifiability matters (and here this is a high fidelity reproduction of a copyrighted design, recreated and published without permission, so here this is clearly not original to get a new authorship and new licencing term; the claimed PD is an obstinated lie)!
- And to the author of this image, @EEIM: , NEVER retry using similar concealing technics, in order to bypass the copyright law: this is a strong failure notice. If you ever retry you'll be subject to sanctions here, for repeated attempts to violate copyrights with repeated false claims that this is only a basic set of letters and simple shapes. So the (worldwide) PD licence is a pure LIE and MUST be removed immediately and adminsitratively (the second licence claim is possible but only for some juridictions, but in fact very few not in Americas and Europe, most parts of Asia and Oceania, except possibly very few countries without working juridictions or not enforcing international copyright law, like Iran, Northern Cyprus, North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, South Sudan, or possibly Brunei, Cuba and Venezuela). verdy_p (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Companies usually have a simple variant of the main logo. see main logo and simple variant logo Sony Pictures 2004–present, main logo is cc , but the variant logo is simple.
for example the use of a variant: simple, real poster .
See Logos of television programmes of US .--EEIM (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
