Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SOPA initiative screenshots

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files in Category:SOPA initiative screenshots

[edit]

per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WP SOPA sm icon twitter 333333.png. The twitter logo is copyrighted. Not COM:DM on a page which intentionally includes it.

(t) Josve05a (c) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much redundancy here, but we should be able to simply redact the logo if needed. It's somewhat 'arguable' (though I'm not saying it's correct) that the Twitter icon is de minimis in this context, as the point of the images is to document the blackout itself. Regardless, we should probably redirect the lower-res versions of just the 'page itself' to the best one. - Reventtalk 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia/Wikimeida Foundation does not own the copyright of the twitter logo. Twitter Inc. does. Also, COM:DM does not apply to screenshots (in most cases). (t) Josve05a (c) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: I think this is 'the exception that proves the rule'. The Twitter icon is in no way the subject of the image, and removing it (invisibly) would in no way detract from the subject matter or usability of the images for the intended purpose, other than making them less historically accurate. When the screenshots were taken, the inclusion of the Twitter icon was incidental to what was the intended subject (the blackout screen itself). The defining rule for de minimis is essentialy 'would removing the copyrighted material detract from the intended purpose of the image'. Here, it would not. The inclusion of the Twitter icon by the authors of the page was intentional, but the people taking screenshots were merely documenting the protest screen itself, not deliberately choosing to include the Twitter logo. - Reventtalk 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Tweeter logo is de minimis here. Yann (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep In total agreement with Revent. The point of the image is to document the Wikipedia (and Internet) blackout, the twitter logo its a clear de minimis case.--J3D3 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The argument about the logos does not withstand the de minimis charge. Side note: I was the person putting together the blackout page at the time. There may be some redundancy here which is not encyclopedic, but it also serves as a historical record, of how this campaign came together over a short period of time. If these deletions do go through we should first do a careful export that preserves all metadata. -- NeilK (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilK: By 'redundancy', I specifically meant the images that only show the blackout page 'itself'... there seem to be several that are effectively duplicates. - Reventtalk 07:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: They may be 'duplicates' for the purpose of an encyclopedia, but there are differences. For instance, Wikipedia_SOPA_protest_blackout_2.png and Wikipedia_SOPA_protest_blackout_3.png appear identical, but what's changed is that "Take action" is no longer a drop-down that the user has to expand. Anyway perhaps Commons is not the right place to record this sort of design process trivia. Regardless of what happens I'd like a chance to archive all of this myself, as a record of easily the most interesting/sleepless 48 hours I ever had working for the WMF, and maybe put it somewhere stable. -- NeilK (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment By the way — is the twitter logo the actual and original twitter logo, or a mostly-direct derivative of it, or just a birdie that looks like a twitter logo? Because, for example, the g+ logo appears to be the one used by Google at the time, or is it too unoriginal, perhaps? And the 'f' letter is a geometric shape, for example. -Mardus /talk 06:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  KeepTwitter logo doesn't seems matter--John123521 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Carmakers' trademarks are also copyrighted, and they happen to appear in every single picture of a car (whose design might be protected, too, by the way). Same goes for sponsor trademarks on practically every sport picture. Let us please use judgement before blindly applying rules in the stictest possible way. --Japs 88 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clairfy, I don't care either way, I just though this was worth discussion and that it is arguable to delete it, since we've previously had the "precidence" in DRs not to apply de minimis to screenshots. But as revent states, all rules requires an exemtion to prove itself. Happy to see if thse are kept though. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:SOPA_initiative_screenshots&oldid=229236864"