Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Logo-Germany

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Logo-Germany

[edit]

This convoluted and confusing template does not have much to do with copyright issues. Just about the only thing clear in the template to me is that images with this tag are not free in the UK (and presumably most Commonwealth countries). Its not clear if this logic is valid in the United States, if it is not it is inappropriate to be on ANY Wikimedia project (due to the foundations location). As this template is clearly not free in the UK, delete this template.Nilfanion 18:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Kph 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template text is utterly nonsense: "This logo is ineligible for copyright in Germany, since German jurisdiction has set extremely high standards for works of applied art [...]". I absolutely never heard of something like this and I am a German. Quite the contrary. Germany has exceptionally low requirements for something being protected. Beside that more personal rants some more hard facts:
    • We cannot accpet "Germany only" exceptions in Commons. Commons is for all nations.
    • The original logos (and not some photographs you took from the outside of a company) are severly limited and thus unfree (you virtually need to ask for almost every usage). Arnomane 23:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have never heard about this, please read de:Schöpfungshöhe, maybe to gether with de:Kleine Münze. This is established judicatur by the highest german courts. --h-stt !? 12:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it is true that copyright standards are somewhat higher for works for which design models (design patents) are available. However, this template is confusing and will end up being used in the wrong way. It is probably not a good idea to harvest the gray area between clearly ineligible and clearly eligible works, which is what this template is all about. -- ３２４７ (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not again that logo discussion...

  • First of all, the template is not nonsense, Arnomane is spreading FUD. The text is perfectly right.
  • Secondly we have to ask if this fit's common's policies. Obviously (most) logos are not protected in Germany. We know that they actually are protected in Commonwealth countries due to the sweat of the brow based jurisdiction. It seems that we do not know how the logos are treated in the United States. It seems that we don't know anything about the ruling in other EU countries, in Russia or elsewhere (It isn't mentioned by the template). Therefore i think this is a licence which is too vague (resp. too specific - Germany only) and we should delete it. The pictures could be moved to local projects where they are accepted, i.e. de-WP.--Wiggum 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it might be confusing to some readers - which makes it eligible for improvement, not deletion. - H005 08:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true, confusing wording is a reason for clean-up not deletion. As 3247 says this template is designed to exploit a gray area. That will mean it is likely to be confusing by nature permanently. However one thing is clear; its invalidity in the UK. As its clearly unusable in at least one group of countries (the Commonwealth), it is inappropriate for Commons and should be deleted. It may however be acceptable on de.wiki, but that is up for that community to decide and independently of what happens to it here.--Nilfanion 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The above claims that this template is exploiting a "gray area between clearly ineligible and clearly eligible works" are incorrect. It does not, such claims are FUD! A gray area between clearly ineligible and clearly eligible works exists in Germany only outside works of applied art. This template does not rely on a threshold of originality argumentation, but on a lex specialis argumentation, which is legally safe and has been confirmed by Germany's highest appeals court and constitutional court strongly, the criterion is that the utility article (logo here) must clearly be above the average design, and if in doubt, protection is rather to be denied). Argumentation against this is ridiculous, since it is exactly the argumentation that prevents a photo of a car being a derivative work. Unfortunately the description under the extremely misleading title de:Schöpfungshöhe in German wikipedia has lead to the false association with threshold of originality. I am not giving a vote because the argumentation for deletion has obviously made a relation to the trademark protection and is, in itself, correct and consistent. But concerning this, please also consider the following facts:
    • Coat of Arms. They are restricted in exactly the same way as trademarks: "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Compare this to "This image shows a logo or trademark. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Why do we keep these if we may not keep trademarks? I do not see any rational argument for this. Why can we use words like 'SONY' if trademarks are forbidden? There is no difference between a logo trademark and a word trademark.
    • pictures of persons (which are nonderivative, independent from copyright)
    • pictures under freedom of panorama (which are nonderivative, by independent copyright of the displayed object)
    • pictures of patented objects (may not be used to reproduce the displayed object)
    • pictures of objects of daily use (they are basically "fair use" only, if protected by design patents)
    • nazi emblems are in fact very restricted by criminal law in many countries, yet we keep them
    • I have been told that trademarks that are not central to the picture are perfectly okay. Why? Trademark-wise there is no difference.
If you want to be consequential, you would have to propose each and every one of these for deletion, because, striclty speaking, they go "against Commons current policies". --Rtc 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

After several administrators had a discussions, and read the goals of the Commons project, heard opinions of others, etc, it was decided to deprecate this template immediately because it goes against Commons current policies. There is a one week grace period during which the logos could be uploaded to, for example, German Wikipedia. After one week, the logos will be deleted from Commons. If you upload a logo to German Wikipedia, it could be a good idea to tag it on Commons so it doesn't get uploaded twice. / Fred Chess 16:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Logo-Germany&oldid=13285545"