File talk:DVD logo.svg: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
There reads: ''This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.''<br /> |
There reads: ''This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.''<br /> |
||
It is not copyrighted and is in public domain, but still is a trademark? How exactly is that possible? It does not make any sense, anyone could have anything applied for trademark. [[Special:Contributions/82.141.66.232|82.141.66.232]] ([[User talk:82.141.66.232|talk]]) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
It is not copyrighted and is in public domain, but still is a trademark? How exactly is that possible? It does not make any sense, anyone could have anything applied for trademark. [[Special:Contributions/82.141.66.232|82.141.66.232]] ([[User talk:82.141.66.232|talk]]) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:The logo actually is in Commons, although here lacks the "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." note. The reason might be this: the files are in different nominal size: this wikipedia one is 202 × 93 pixels, and [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DVD_logo.svg|the one in commons]] is 512 × 261 pixels. Strangely they both have exactly same name. [[Special:Contributions/82.141.66.232|82.141.66.232]] ([[User talk:82.141.66.232|talk]]) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:11, 30 January 2012
Why the hell is there a fair-use rationale for this image? This image is free, so a fair-use rationale for this image is not nessacery. I had to keep removing the rationale because the image was in the public domain! DUDE! I'm not even doing any Vandalism! So STOP! (74.77.134.184 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
There reads: This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.
It is not copyrighted and is in public domain, but still is a trademark? How exactly is that possible? It does not make any sense, anyone could have anything applied for trademark. 82.141.66.232 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The logo actually is in Commons, although here lacks the "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." note. The reason might be this: the files are in different nominal size: this wikipedia one is 202 × 93 pixels, and [one in commons] is 512 × 261 pixels. Strangely they both have exactly same name. 82.141.66.232 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
