Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en.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.
Text on page is copyrighted dictionary entry and is therefore non-free and cannot be used in image. MBisanz talk 16:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Hmmm? How do you know the text on the page is copyright protected? I cannot even read it. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)- Keep The text on the dictionary page is completely unreadable, it could be a lorem ipsum for what can be seen. -- IANEZZ (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The text is legible if zoomed in, and has been a known copyright violation for more than a month. See meta:Talk:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting#Actual words?. See also File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en with transparency.png and File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en-old.png, which have the same issue. Dominic (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Text recognizable on a 135x130 pixel image? Perhaps you are talking about another version, definitively not this one. At least, delete only the first version, but even the 563x463 pixel version is completely unreadable to me. -- IANEZZ (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, true. The legible file is File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en-old.png and the transparent version. Is it acceptable to take a copyrighted text and call it call it free as long as you only display it in sizes in which it is to blurry to read properly? (That is a serious question.) Dominic (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think so, because it'll be a) de minimis and b) not usable for the same purpose as the original and c) useless as a dictionary. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, he said "displayed". I believe only de minimis could apply in this case (and it wouldn't apply, since you could use a lorem ipsum with the same layout and get the same result). IMHO, the text is already blurred enough on the 135x130 pixel version to be completely unrecognizable at any zoom level. On the 563x463 pixel version there's actually a word or two that could be identified with a certain grade of accuracy at an high zoom level: personally I think that's borderline, but other say that's well in the copyright infringiment area. I'd say: just blur what's is supposedly recognizable and be done with it (is a text layout copyrightable at all? Expecially one that doesn't express any originality?) -- IANEZZ (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't think a text layout of a dictionary is normally copyrightable, because they look the same for at least a hundred years now. Even dictionaries now out of copyright look exactly the same. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, someone will have to decide what to do with the other two that are clearly legible. It sounds like the small version might be somewhat acceptable. Dominic (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Which ones that are clearly legible? Surely not the 563 × 463 pixel versions. In the US, typographical layout is not copyrightable; nor is a word or two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, he said "displayed". I believe only de minimis could apply in this case (and it wouldn't apply, since you could use a lorem ipsum with the same layout and get the same result). IMHO, the text is already blurred enough on the 135x130 pixel version to be completely unrecognizable at any zoom level. On the 563x463 pixel version there's actually a word or two that could be identified with a certain grade of accuracy at an high zoom level: personally I think that's borderline, but other say that's well in the copyright infringiment area. I'd say: just blur what's is supposedly recognizable and be done with it (is a text layout copyrightable at all? Expecially one that doesn't express any originality?) -- IANEZZ (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think so, because it'll be a) de minimis and b) not usable for the same purpose as the original and c) useless as a dictionary. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, true. The legible file is File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en-old.png and the transparent version. Is it acceptable to take a copyrighted text and call it call it free as long as you only display it in sizes in which it is to blurry to read properly? (That is a serious question.) Dominic (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Text recognizable on a 135x130 pixel image? Perhaps you are talking about another version, definitively not this one. At least, delete only the first version, but even the 563x463 pixel version is completely unreadable to me. -- IANEZZ (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- The text is legible if zoomed in, and has been a known copyright violation for more than a month. See meta:Talk:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting#Actual words?. See also File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en with transparency.png and File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en-old.png, which have the same issue. Dominic (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see anything here, in this version or the larger ones, of any concern copyright-wise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Text is not readable so copyright is not violated. MGA73 (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
