Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Star Wars 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.
Violation of Lucasfilms copyright. --—Danorton (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Fonts, no matter how ornamental, are not eligible for copyright. -Nard the Bard 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)- Keep In my view, what we're really talking about is whether someone can copyright this style of lettering, i.e. a font or typeface. See The Legal Side by Jack Yan at TypeRight.org, which seems to be pro-copyright protection. It includes this: "The US Copyright Office still officially refuses to accord protection for typeface designs... Copyright once did protect typefaces (see 1911 Act) but the 1976 Copyright Revision Act changed that... The Copyright Office... have determined that fonts are not subject to protection as artistic works under the 1976 act." I am assuming that this style of lettering was produced in the US. Rightly or wrongly (from a moral point of view), I don't think this can be copyrighted as a font. As a logo, it may be too simple; it contains nothing but the letters themselves, and is only yellow on black. Leevclarke (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-textlogo}}. If from anywhere other than the U.S., that may be different, but this is a U.S. work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep United States copyright laws do not protect typeface.Paloma Walker (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Square boxes aren't subject to copyright, either, but particular arrangements and colors of them are. What's more, this particular font is derived from the copyright image and converting it to a font doesn't magically remove that copyright. If that specious argument held, any image could be converted to a font and subsequently reassembled without restriction. A measure of additional art has to be applied, and this image contains such additional art. —Danorton (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if it is in a font or not. The basic shapes of letters, and minor variations of them, are not copyrightable (that is "typeface as typeface"). You would have to have a reasonably significant arrangement of squares to be copyrightable (i.e. they would form a pattern, where the pattern is creative and therefore copyrightable). From [1]: For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations. The same goes for calligraphy: Like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such, notwithstanding the effect achieved by calligraphic brush strokes across a striated surface. Also see here: Pursuant to Congress's judgment in the 1976 Act and case law, the Copyright Office does not register claims to copyright in typeface designs as such, whether generated by a computer program, or represented in drawings, hard metal type, or any other form. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that it consists simply of basic shapes. It consists of artful copyright protected shapes re-combined in a copyright-protected artful manner to reproduce the original, artful, copyright-protected image. —Danorton (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that being in a font doesn't really mean anything -- a non-standard font like Dingbats may consist of copyrightable pictures, and the output of such a font would be copyrightable too. However, as the Copyright Office has made clear repeatedly, typeface (shapes of letters), and variations thereof, are not copyrightable. The original was ineligible for copyright, and so is this. If there is ornamentation separable from the shape of the letter -- such the really fancy capital letters which sometimes start books -- then that ornamentation is copyrightable. But nothing which follows the shape of a letter, from the looks of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that it consists simply of basic shapes. It consists of artful copyright protected shapes re-combined in a copyright-protected artful manner to reproduce the original, artful, copyright-protected image. —Danorton (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if it is in a font or not. The basic shapes of letters, and minor variations of them, are not copyrightable (that is "typeface as typeface"). You would have to have a reasonably significant arrangement of squares to be copyrightable (i.e. they would form a pattern, where the pattern is creative and therefore copyrightable). From [1]: For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations. The same goes for calligraphy: Like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such, notwithstanding the effect achieved by calligraphic brush strokes across a striated surface. Also see here: Pursuant to Congress's judgment in the 1976 Act and case law, the Copyright Office does not register claims to copyright in typeface designs as such, whether generated by a computer program, or represented in drawings, hard metal type, or any other form. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Carl Lindberg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, too simple design. SF007 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
