Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hellogoodbye logo.svg
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.
Derivative of copyrighted album covers. Covers in question can be viewed here: [1] [2] --IllaZilla (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Typeface is typically exempt from copyright protection as a "useful article", see {{PD-textlogo}} and simple design. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zombies_Aliens_Vamps.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HereInYourArms-Hellogoodbye.jpg){kind=link}
- This is not a typeface. Each individual character is different. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semantics. The verbiage regarding what is generally not eligible for copyright is "mere variations of typographic ornamentation"; consideration of variation from character to character is not made. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a typeface, it is hand-drawn artwork from the band's album cover. Either way, it's not even tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, it's tagged as {{PD-self}}, which it clearly isn't because as I've shown it appears to have been taken from an album cover or other licensed media, which makes it a derivative work (unless the uploader User:danBLOO is the copyright holder, which I highly doubt due to his history of problems with non-free images). Does {{PD-textlogo}} even apply in the case of a derivative work? I'm not sure what the stipulations are on that. Regardless, that doesn't seem to be the case here as it's clearly not a font or simple text. It looks to me like a simple case of the image being uploaded under a false license tag, which is clear copyvio. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Useful articles do not receive copyright protection. Call it text, call it font, call it typeface - it doesn't matter; they're all useful articles and all "variations of typographic ornamentation". No consideration is made as to whether it's hand-drawn or computer-generated. Yes, this is derivative, but it is derivative of a "work" that is not eligible for copyright in the first place (not a copyvio if the work being copied isn't copyrighted). No disagreement that it is incorrectly tagged, but that doesn't mean we delete it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a typeface, it is hand-drawn artwork from the band's album cover. Either way, it's not even tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, it's tagged as {{PD-self}}, which it clearly isn't because as I've shown it appears to have been taken from an album cover or other licensed media, which makes it a derivative work (unless the uploader User:danBLOO is the copyright holder, which I highly doubt due to his history of problems with non-free images). Does {{PD-textlogo}} even apply in the case of a derivative work? I'm not sure what the stipulations are on that. Regardless, that doesn't seem to be the case here as it's clearly not a font or simple text. It looks to me like a simple case of the image being uploaded under a false license tag, which is clear copyvio. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semantics. The verbiage regarding what is generally not eligible for copyright is "mere variations of typographic ornamentation"; consideration of variation from character to character is not made. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a typeface. Each individual character is different. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we're hardly talking about a mere variation of ornamentation of Helvetica here. The fact that something looks somewhat like familiar letters doesn't mean that it can't be copyrighted. Keep in mind that the US has a significantly lower threshold of originality than Germany, for example. The general test applied is whether two artists would come up with the same representation of an idea independently. That seems questionable here. I'm not saying you couldn't find a judge who would rule this ineligible, but I wouldn't be willing to gamble my own money on it. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Elcobbola, how can you claim that it's "derivative of a 'work' that is not eligible for copyright in the first place (not a copyvio if the work being copied isn't copyrighted)"? It's derived from an album cover. Album covers are copyrighted in 99% percent of all cases. As to simple design, this is clearly not "text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes". --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an album cover. This is not derivative of an album cover. This is derivative of text that was used on a cover. No elements eligible for copyright protection remain present in this image. Please see COM:L, the Copyright Office, Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer, among others, for articulation of germane concepts (text, regardless of "ornamentation" is not eligible for protection - even text that is highly stylized and "unique", e.g. IBM logo and signatures). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm certainly no copyright lawyer, but without the uploader telling us specifically where he got it from I don't think we can make assumptions about where this specific image was derived from. I'm inclined to think it came from an album cover or other form of copyrighted/trademarked/licensed artwork, since that's where it appears most often and I doubt the uploader had access to the original text that was used to create the covers. It's all well and good to say "it's derivative of text that was used to create a cover", but unless the uploader got it from that original source then that's not where it was derived from. If he scanned it from an album cover, then it's derived from the album cover. In any case, I'll grant you that the Bond logo may be much more akin to a typeface than this Hellogoodbye "logo", but I still don't think this one falls under the "text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes" clause. If highly stylized text is ineligible for protection, regardless of ornamentation, then how do you explain the KISS logo which "is a registered trademark, © 2006 Kiss Catalog Ltd", or any of the other stylized-lettering logos in this category? I note under Commons' explanation of "simple design" that "Any design which is an artistic work may be copyrighted." This is almost certainly an artistic work, as it was created as part of an album cover and for the act's merchandise. It is not a typeface nor a simple design. This Hellogoodbye "logo" is an example of a common problem on the English Wikipedia: Somebody takes an image of a band's album cover, crops and vectorizes the name off of it, uploads it there or here, and calls it a "logo" so they can slap it across the top of an article purely for decoration. That's exactly how this one was being used, and it can hardly be called a "logo" anyway: the band has only used this stylization on 1 album and an accompanying single. They have at least 4 other releases on which they use other stylizations of their name. Even calling this a "logo" is stretching the bounds of credibility. This is a topic that's been hotly debated over at en.WP. I don't mean to come off as copyright-paranoid, but I really don't think that we should allow people to use {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}} to skirt or "get around" fair-use issues, especially in cases where it's serving only a decorative purpose and where the image in question is not a recurring logo anyway and almost certainly originated from a copyrighted source. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an album cover. This is not derivative of an album cover. This is derivative of text that was used on a cover. No elements eligible for copyright protection remain present in this image. Please see COM:L, the Copyright Office, Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer, among others, for articulation of germane concepts (text, regardless of "ornamentation" is not eligible for protection - even text that is highly stylized and "unique", e.g. IBM logo and signatures). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Elcobbola, how can you claim that it's "derivative of a 'work' that is not eligible for copyright in the first place (not a copyvio if the work being copied isn't copyrighted)"? It's derived from an album cover. Album covers are copyrighted in 99% percent of all cases. As to simple design, this is clearly not "text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes". --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we're hardly talking about a mere variation of ornamentation of Helvetica here. The fact that something looks somewhat like familiar letters doesn't mean that it can't be copyrighted. Keep in mind that the US has a significantly lower threshold of originality than Germany, for example. The general test applied is whether two artists would come up with the same representation of an idea independently. That seems questionable here. I'm not saying you couldn't find a judge who would rule this ineligible, but I wouldn't be willing to gamble my own money on it. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. per ЭLСОВВОLД MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
