Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ticket to Ride (10344596076).jpg

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.

File:Ticket to Ride (10344596076).jpg

Although this is boilerplate text and a fairly basic design, the British threshold of originality is much lower than this, and thus a copyright can be assumed to have attached to this work. Under the precautionary principle, it should be deleted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Keep I disagree, this is far too simple a design to be covered by the British threshold of originality or copyrighted Oxyman (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This logo was held to be copyrightable by British courts (see the deletion request). This ticket is easily more original than the logo in question. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep. The nominator has made an incorrect assessment of the British threshold of originality, based on an apparent misreading of this case, wherein the court specifically enunciated the presence of unique font elements in a logo as a basis for originality. The nominator has not shown that the British Rail tickets at issue contain anything other than standard fonts in an arrangement entirely dictated by the function of a rail ticket. Furthermore, the nominator has individually nominated dozens of similar files for the exact same reason, when the proper approach would have been to make a single nomination of all files, so that discussion could have been kept in a single place. In order to avoid disparate results, if one of these is kept, they should all be kept. Ideally, the nominator will withdraw these multiple discussions and file a single discussion. BD2412 T 20:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Except all of the files have different design elements, and all of them have different degrees of originality. Running them as a set would confuse the issue. Several of them have pictures and other elements which are clearly copyrightable even in the US. All of the files have to be examined as individual images. Furthermore, you clearly haven't read the nominations, since 6 or 7 of them had different wordings owing to the conditions of the tickets.
  • You state that this ticket only consists of "standard fonts in an arrangement entirely dictated by the function of a rail ticket", yet fail to explain why the layout is as it is (if the layout was "entirely dictated by the function of a rail ticket", how could it differ from ticket to ticket?) or the wording used. You also fail to discuss the National Rail logo, use of color, and repeating pattern in the background. There is a degree of originality in these tickets which is even greater than in the "Edge" logo (deletion request here for interested editors/admins). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The vast majority of the files are very similar. To the extent that there were differences, you could have nominated them in groups. Your legal analysis is the wrong way around; a work is not protectible unless design elements can be shown to be original and nonfunctional. The information that appears on a train ticket is the information that has to appear on the ticket for the ticket to be usable by everyone who interacts with it. The arrangement is not markedly different from tickets for comparable purposes that have existed all over the world, for decades. For future reference, I would suggest that you do what I have done, which is to graduate from a law school in a common law country, and then practice in the field of intellectual property for several years, and handle actual copyright cases addressing actual copyrightability issues. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)