Commons:Deletion requests/Polydor logo

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.
[edit]

I'm concerned about the Polydor Records logo's potential eligibility for copyright protection in Germany and the United Kingdom. The company was originally founded in Germany, but it also has been headquartered in the UK. The company was acquired by the Universal Music Group, an American company, in the late 1990s. To put it another way, the logo may still have been copyrighted in the UK and Germany per COM:TOO UK and COM:TOO Germany. Furthermore, the UK's originality standards are very low and can apply to most British logos. Maybe this logo is British-German, German, or British? If the logo is complex enough for copyright in the UK, then the decision would affect other images containing the logo, like the German sleeve of the Beatles's first (German?) album. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue was discussed previously in COM:Village Pump/Copyright. Even there was no action on one of enwiki images containing the logo. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, I used Photoshop to recreate the File:The Beatles' First (German 1964 album).jpg cover. I used the copy tool to recreate the title but the rest is a fac-simile. It is placed in the infobox, it is only text and geographic shapes and is used to illustrate the original artwork. It might be copyright infringement for the French page, but it should be fine for the English page. I would not understand why this should be deleted while the British 1967 cover illustrating the English article, which is a direct copy, should kept. If the problem is the Polydor logo, which I imported from the WPCommons file, I could very well replace it with a red box without the design. Would this solve the problem ? 184.162.24.150 23:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Copied and pasted from User talk:JeanPaulGRingault by the IP editor. George Ho (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping the logo out of the sleeve would alter the image's meaning and representation of the album release. I think, if the logo is deemed unfree in Germany and/or the UK, then deleting the sleeve would be the best way especially for Commons. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not knowledgeable in copyright law or the WP policies for infringement but I do have qualms about removing these files. Firstly, most WP articles I consulted on record labels do have a reproduction of their logo, whether they be German, British or American. Why should this be different with Polydor ? Secondly, the German page used my reproduction of The Beatles' First! cover to illustrate the article. This might also be an infringement, but if it is in fact acceptable on the German page, the image should just be removed from pages in languages where the law prohibits them while be kept in WPCommons to be used in lawful situations. Thirdly, why should one user preemptively remove images just in case it is deemed unlawful. There should be broader consensus than just we two before we lessen the content of Wikipedia. My « vote » is to remove the image from specific pages where its inclusion infringes copyrights but keep the images in Commons. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:Licensing, foreign (i.e. non-US) works must be free to use in both the source country and the US. Otherwise, such work doesn't belong in Commons at this moment. The logo may be free in the US but possibly not in its source country. --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, record company logos are everywhere on WP. Why remove them if they MAY not be legal. On the licensing page, « Simple Design » section it is stated « ...Commons accepts any trademark whose copyright has expired. Moreover, Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a recent trademarked logo ». I think we're good ! Please leave them be and if a company lawyer complains, we can adjust. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. Edge logo has "E" looking different and unique enough for courts to find it original enough for copyright. If that's not enough, how about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg? British courts can consider half portion of vinyl disc underneath the word logo original enough, right? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Polydor is originally a German label, not British. If we start preemptively removing all logos because they MIGHT infringe on copyright, we will weaken the encyclopedia. I am not sure they are allowed but more importantly you are not sure they are not. Again, please do not remove these files without a consensus by more people. Let sleeping dogs lie ! JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure local enwiki copies of the logo are well archived and can be undeleted. --George Ho (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JeanPaulGRingault: You mention Wikipedia articles including logos. You should know that some Wikipedias, including the English Wikipedia, allow fair use, while Commons does not. Brianjd (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: Any time I upload a picture or image I use Commons. How else does one import these types of files to WP? But I still think removing these images is premature. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JeanPaulGRingault: You can upload files directly to other projects. But every project has its own rules. I know that the English Wikipedia has strict rules about whether a fair use file is allowed in the first place, how that file is allowed to be used, and how this must be documented. Brianjd (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote before: On the licensing page, « Simple Design » section it is stated « ...Commons accepts any trademark whose copyright has expired. Moreover, Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a recent trademarked logo ». I do not see a problem. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including me on this discussion George Ho! Would there be a difference in the copyright issues regarding the images for Polydor label scans for records that were specifically released in the United States? The following three images are all from U.S.-based Polydor releases as indicated by the New York address at the bottom of the label. Amineshaker (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The logo should be free to use in the United States. Uncertain whether it is in the source country also. If not, then it would be labeled "PD-ineligible-USonly". However, an image should be used in at least one article in enwiki. An orphaned image is a no-no. --George Ho (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Nor is there any obligation for files to be used on any Wikimedia project, let alone an obligation for files to be used in enwiki articles. Brianjd (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I was trying to say, if the images are deleted, then they should be (re-)uploaded to English Wikipedia as "PD-ineligible-USonly", which doesn't exist in Commons, as I hate to admit. But a file must be useful or then deleted as orphaned. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: The indentation indicates you were replying to Amineshaker's comment, which is a standalone comment (not following from the previous comments) with no reference to enwiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjd (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 November 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
The current license used for the US-based Polydor label scans (referenced above) is {{PD-1989}} -- which is specific to the United States "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years." Therefore, it would appear to me that the three aforementioned files would not impacted by the nomination for deletion. However I am a bit confused about the guidance of deleting them from Wikimedia Commons and uploading them to English Wikipedia. Shouldn't it be fine to keep them on Wikimedia Commons based on the language in the aforementioned license {{PD-1989}}? If there are no objections, can I remove the "nomination for deletion" tag for those three files? Thank you. Amineshaker (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amineshaker: The labels of US releases still contain the non-US, foreign logo. Furthermore, even lacking a notice still wouldn't make a difference. But please don't remove the deletion tags. That's against procedure. --George Ho (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amineshaker: Do not remove the deletion request tags unless the request is closed or the files are removed from the request. Brianjd (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amineshaker: To ease your concerns, I uploaded the local copy of one of the labels at w:Basketball (song) as "PD-ineligible-USonly" for now. George Ho (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preserving this source in case the logo copies get deleted. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The Polydor logo under discussion here originated in Germany ca. 1963 and is therefore a German work as far as Commons is concerned. The treshold of originality in Germany is lower than before after a court decision from 2013, but this logo is below even this lower TOO in my opinion; it consists of the brand name and some very simple geometric forms (sections of circles). The font that was used can already be seen in a previous Polydor logo from the 1950ies; any protection of the typography (like the UK has) should have expired after 25 years at the longest. --Rosenzweig τ 20:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Polydor_logo&oldid=876513124"