Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tweet Button.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.
I am not sure that simply adding the word "tweet" and a bubble to the bird logo is enough to meet the spirit of Commons:De minimis. Fry1989 eh? 13:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- clearly not,
Delete. darkweasel94 14:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC) - Delete --みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep Your logic is fundamentally flawed. This file is not a derivative of the Twitter bird. In fact, it should be considered on its own independent of the previous DR. The rounded rectangle and button is clearly the most prominent feature of the image; the bird is very small and inconsequential comparatively. As a whole, the button consists primarily of simple shapes not eligible for copyright protection. —Mono 00:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that still makes no sense. I didn't call it a derivative, and it doesn't have to be. It contains a logo that is copyrighted. The only question is whether or not the bird is in the spirit of de minimis in this instance. Fry1989 eh? 03:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- For de minimis, it would need to be possible to cut that part out and retain the image's value. Clearly not the case here, or really with almost any illustration as opposed to photo/screenshot. darkweasel94 07:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- It will still be a Tweet button without the bird. Your argument makes no sense. —Mono 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- De minimis is intended for cases like posters in the background of a photo which the photographer possibly didn't even notice. But you included the bird very deliberately. darkweasel94 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- It will still be a Tweet button without the bird. Your argument makes no sense. —Mono 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- For de minimis, it would need to be possible to cut that part out and retain the image's value. Clearly not the case here, or really with almost any illustration as opposed to photo/screenshot. darkweasel94 07:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that still makes no sense. I didn't call it a derivative, and it doesn't have to be. It contains a logo that is copyrighted. The only question is whether or not the bird is in the spirit of de minimis in this instance. Fry1989 eh? 03:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The twitter bird is a clear element of the file, not just an aside in relation to its inclusion. russavia (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
