Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 30
Based on the discussion we have archived about the image, it was a clear consensus that it should stay.
Furthermore, no clarity for the reasoning behind the decision was made following a declined appeal to the admin for reconsideration.
The user who put it up for deletion did not return to make an opposing statement.
The undisputed statement was:
"It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted."
Based on the previous statement:
"As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image."
I have since applied the image with the following template:
 | This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos. |
The side of caution has already been taken. There's no reason at all to delete the image. This image is linked in two articles where it's a contribution. Editor182 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think we have to go back to first principles, which is the relevant law: [1]. Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts may well be an inaccurate representation of the law. It seems to me there are two questions: whether the logo constitutes a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring", or "typeface as typeface". I don't think it falls into either category. It is much more than a mere variation of lettering. And it is not "typeface as typeface". Typeface is a form of representation of a set of letter of digits: this logo on the other hand is a creative variation of one letter of the alphabet only. That seems to be the distinction that paragraph (e) gets at by saying "typeface as typeface".--Mkativerata (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you endorse its retrieval based on the image not falling into either category? The trademark template is there for a reason, and I think it's applicable here, not a deletion. Editor182 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- If it doesn't fall into either category, it is subject to copyright. Categories (a)-(e) list things that are not copyrightable.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia article concerning fonts is fallacious, then it needs to be corrected, but for now, I'm going to stick to agreeing with the statements made above based on Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, that it is not subject to copyright claims, and that leaves only Trademark issues which are covered with the template.
If there's doubt, then it should clearly side with being against deletion, and the article can be corrected first and foremost, but I really don't want to beat around the bush with this, an endorse or overturn decision would be good for now. Editor182 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to fall within WP:Public domain#fonts either. That says "typefaces and the characters they contain" are not copyrightable. This appears to be neither: it is a creative representation of a single character, not part of a set of characters constituting a typeface. If a publisher had created a typeface by which all letters of the alphabet could be represented like this "M", it would not be copyrightable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations)." If we're to draw a conclusion for now, then it should side with the "M" logo not being under copyright protection in the US, and the article speaks about having a soft-copy of the design which may then fall under copyright, but this is a photograph, of a can, it's a "hard-hard copy". It's not like the logo being used in the article under fair use, which is a soft-copy of the trademark, although it's still not under copyright protection even then. "Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States." - Let alone my photograph of a can. Can we draw a conclusion based on what we have now? Editor182 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, the distinction is between "font" and "typeface" on the one hand, and a stand-alone creative representative of one character on the other. Of course, if I'm wrong in making that distinction then I'm more than happy to be corrected. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm going with what was stated above; "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved - if it is still recognizable as a letter - then in the US it may not be copyrighted." I think going into this topic any further will be perpetuating unreasonable doubt and pulling at straws. The admin offered no rationale for the deletion, except to be on the safe side and the user who put the image up for deletion withdrew themselves from the discussion in acceptance of the information presented on the contrary. Perhaps this is about not being so fast to reverse a firm decision made by an administrator, but it was a firm decision based on no research or justification, only a self-assured unwillingness to consider otherwise. If something solid comes up in the future to justify its deletion, then it may be removed, but at this point in time, it should certainly be restored, as there is nothing thats been presented to validate or justify deletion. Editor182 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should also add that I did contact the closing admin regarding this, also I had requested to userfy the article after the Afd was completed, but did not receive a reply. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse Consensus for deletion, backed by appropriate arguments, was present. There is no reason that this material should not be added to the parent articles, but consensus that this should not stand alone as an article justifies the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- overturn But for AGF, I'd think this resembles repeatedly nominating an article until it has a consensus to get deleted due to the random fluctuation of who has shown up. If something has gone through multiple AfDs, it should take more than a borderline consensus to delete. Given that multiple of the delete arguments carried no substantial commentary (such as just claiming that it was "unencyclopedic" which is a synonym for IDONTLIKEIT), the consensus is even less strong. While there was also not many secondary sources in the article they do exist outside (for example, Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" among others) which could be easily incorporated into the article. (And yes, I know that this last argument is more appropriate at AfD but it wasn't brought up then and is relevant because it constitutes new information). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with you that this is nonsense, it is repeated nomination until desired outcome is achieved. Spot on. However, the AfD itself is pretty clearly in favor of delete, and admin was within discretion to close as they did. Seems we are in need of a new policy? How about WP:REPEATED?
- Endorse - As the keep calls amounted to "keep I like it" and little more. While I am a fan myself and could likely rattle off some of these dates from memory (i.e. Dumbledore opens a can of whoop-ass on Grindelwald in 1945), this is just fancruft with no real-world applicability or notability. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)