File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg

Let's make this simple

What about this logo is copyrightable? All I see is a "W" and a "V" with serifs on each, standard ornamentation for letters. As such, they aren't copyrightable (as explained ad nauseum). What am I missing here?

"You are wrong", "It's been explained before", etc. are not valid answers because they explain NOTHING. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The logo is not copyrightable. It is composed simply of slightly stylized/ornamented letters. Mere typographic ornamentation is not sufficient for copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're straying from the word of our current policy on the matter, and, as this is a legal issue, the exact word of the policy is important. We need confirmation about this and, until it is forthcoming, we will be treating this as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please advise me of the policy to which you are referring. I wasn't commenting from a Wikipedia policy standpoint but from what the law says regarding what can and cannot be copyrighted. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But we don't follow the laws of the US here. We follow wikipedia policies which are more restrictive than the laws, in order to stay always on the safe side and protect the wikimedia foundation from burning itself with some copyright lawsuit. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wordbuilder is on the right track here. For non-free content criteria to apply, we would first have to have a copyrighted/copyrightable image. Our assertion is that this isn't copyrightable and, therefore, WP:NFCC doesn't apply. So the issue is indeed a legal one. The confirmation you desire is just that: a desire. That requirement is your personal preference, not policy. As Wordbuilder said, if there is a policy that applies, please provide a link for community perusal. And that is the conundrum: the problem is that there isn't a policy or guideline regarding how to determine whether or not such images are uncopyrightable (if there were, we wouldn't be having this conversation). This leaves us only with the legal perspective.

FWIW, we do follow the laws of the US and we have crafted our policies to fit within those laws. This kind of image is an example of where our policy is lacking (trademarks ineligible for copyright). Lastly, we should avoid copyright paranoia. We cannot take a "well I'm not sure, so we should treat it as non-free"-attitude. Become educated on the subject and determine for yourself whether an image is or isn't copyrightable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would still be interested in reading the policy referred to earlier. I would also be interested in reading the policy about Wikipedia being more restrictive than the law. The line has to be drawn somewhere or we would simply have to call nearly every image non-free. For instance, see the article Food. There are at least seven images where one could argue derivative work, including the tractor image (John Deere and Hawe logos), the sushi image (artwork on cup), McDonald's restaurant (McDonald's logo), and three images of packaged food (company logos and/or possibly copyrighted photos). Wordbuilder (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no indication in previous discussion that anybody has taken the simple and obvious step of asking wvu if they claim a copyright. If they say that they don't, then they don't have a copyright and there's nothing to argue about here. If they say that they do, then the issue needs to be decided here.

Certainly it looks as if they mean for it to be a trademark with the circle-R indicating that it is a registered trademark. Mere reproduction of a graphical trademark is neither infringing nor dilutionary. Since a trademark may always be used truthfully, Wikipedia logo files which merely assert "this is a graphical trademark used by $FOO to describe $BAR" is never infringing. Perhaps this logo is also copyrightable? Sometimes trademark protection is difficult to get in every involved country, requiring registration and such. A lawyer would then recommend that copyright be asserted over the graphic trademark. Since this is a logo of a U.S. corporation, it's only reasonable to apply U.S. law, which requires a certain minimum amount of creativity. In this case, rendering the first two letters of the team's name in the colors of the team hardly seems like it would meet that amount of creativity.

Consequently, my opinion is: not copyrightable. --RussNelson (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. The image is not copyrightable under current U.S. law at it clearly indicates that "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright protection" (see User:Elcobbola/Copyright). It is trademarked and should be considered PD-textlogo. There is no existing Wikipedia policy, nor consensus, to suggest it should be alternatively tagged or otherwise considered. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email to the folks at http://tls.wvu.edu/ to see what kind of information I can get. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let's make this simple. Start an RfC so we get more input than just the people on this talk page. We're obviously not going to achieve consensus here, and it is the next step in dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Let's make this simpler and try to find a solution here before going to an RfC as WP:TALK dictates. Zscout370 has sent an e-mail, so let's wait and see the results. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  You've previously strongly objected to contacting copyright holders to ask for their opinion. As to finding a solution 'here', this discussion has been going on for a long time, both here and on the prior image with no resolution. Start an RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hammer, indeed I have made similar objections, but not the way you are twisting my words. I object to it as a requirement (it isn't stated anywhere in policy or guidelines). I've also objected to the way such requests were demanded to be made ("Is this copyrighted!?!" when in fact the question should have been "Do you assert any copyright protections over this logo or just trademark protections"). You do not need to start an RfC (or demand one be started) every time you & I disagree. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  Was it me or did an RFC about the UCLA logo, touching the very same issue, pretty much went nowhere? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  I would disagree. Consensus went against my view that the "tail" was typographic ornamentation and was declared non-PD. While I disagree with the conclusion, I'm fine with a consensus outcome by which we can all cleanly abide. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  BQZ, if it is fine with you, can I forward you the email that I sent to the WVU office? I do not expect a quick reply due to the holiday season. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  That'd be fine. I don't expect a quick reply period. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, what makes the logo copyrightable is primarily the original creative decision to stack the letters in the way that they've been stacked, combined with creative choices actually chosen in making the letters stackable in that way. The letterforms themselves (shape and color) are not copyrightable for the reasons BQZip01 has cited; anyone is free to create a typeface that contained those exact W and V forms in those exact shades. The fact that the "stacking" is arguably a minimal amount of creativity is irrelevant; the threshold is any non-trivial creativity at all (a standard linear arrangement of the W and V to form a logo would be trivially creative, in my opinion, and thus not qualify for copyright protection). A semi-analogous issue in copyright law occurs with facts. Facts are not copyrightable; sweat of the brow collections of facts are not copyrightable in the US, but copyrightable in other parts of the worls. Creatively selected or arranged sets of facts are copyrightable in the US, as long as the selection or arrangement is not "simple and obvious". The stacking of the letters in that particular way is not quite "simple and obvious" either, in my opinion. Studerby (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, another logo that is made solely of typographical variation is the Enron logo. I think most casual observers would "feel" that it's a copyrightable work. While there's more creativity in the Enron logo, it's elements are all letterforms. There's a difference of amount, but not of kind, between Enron and WV. Studerby (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And on the flip side, the Virginia Commonwealth University logo is not copyrightable (and properly marked as such), because of the lack of creativity in the arrangement of the typographic elements. Studerby (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch the Enron logo because I can easily see both sides of the argument ("The letters are creatively arranged" "but they are creatively arranged to form a letter", etc. Let's stick with a simpler logo: the flying WV and caselaw. I would be remiss if I didn't bring up Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. in which the courts ruled

"[a] claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter." Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, "textual matter" is not--at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration.

So, textual material, such as this one, isn't eligible for copyright; the arrangement is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I know of so far from snooping around the WVU pages is that it is a registered trademark with the US and West Virginia authorities and the logo needs to have the trademark notice. I still see nothing about copyright and I cannot seem to find a date of creation (while, BQZ, it won't matter to you, but it does to me. Once I know the date, I can see what other reasons than just PD-text.). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ZScout, the date of creation certainly matters to me. If it is PD for another reason, it can end this discussion and provide additional reasons the logo would not be eligible for copyright protection. According to sportslogos.net, the logo was created or put into use in 1980. The color inversion shouldn't play into copyright updates (Hey! My copyright protection is about to run out. I'll make my logo green instead just to extend the copyright...doesn't work that way). While this isn't the most reliable website, it does give a ballpark figure from which to work. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The example I bring up is the Block W logo for Washington University. Yes, it is just a bolded W. However, according to official university documents, the logo has been present since 1902. Anything published by a known author before 1923 in the USA is public domain due to age. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for rehashing it, though I think we are all aware of 1923. If you are interested in other important dates with regard to PD... — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You will be surprised at what kind of stuff copyright law brings us. People are still not aware of that Cornell link you and I use on a daily basis. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm.... BQZip01, I think you misread Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. First, the court didn't rule what you quoted, they were quoting the Code of Federal Regulations, 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(b) (as they noted). And I'm 99% sure that section of the CFR was written by the copyright office; in other words, they were quoting a bit of the registration guidelines. They weren't clarifying the line between "textual matter" and "graphical illustrations", which I argue is relevant to the question before us. Instead, they had an unquestionable bit of "textual matter" in the Skyy label. Second, in the very next paragraph after the one you quoted, the court said, We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable...'. In other words, to paraphrase the court - "the party's argument that the photograph was a copyright violation because the label was copyrighted would probably fail because the label probably isn't copyrightable, but we don't have to figure that out because it was a picture of a bottle, not a picture of a label, and we already figured out that the bottle is a utilitarian object not subject to copyright"; they're dismissing the question, not deciding it. And we can all agree that the Skyy label has purely textual matter - letters lined up in one of the the conventional ways of lining up letters. And you at least saw the the other side of the argument with Enron, because the graphic elements are so strong there, even though the figurative elements were all letters. I argue that the WV logo is more like the Enron logo - both contain a creative arrangement of elements in space. It is the graphical creativity of arranging the elements in that way that is copyrightable and the court did not have a textual logo with such a graphic component before it.

To come back around to the topic of this question "Let's make this simple" - BQZip01 asked "What about this logo is copyrightable?" I answered "what makes the logo copyrightable is primarily the original creative decision to stack the letters in the way that they've been stacked, combined with creative choices actually chosen in making the letters stackable in that way". Now, is it seriously being argued that no arrangements of letters in space is copyrightable? That absolutely no ASCII art is copyrightable? That a pontillistic masterpeice would lose copyright if it were composed solely of letters? My 25 years of reading copyright cases tells me that the sine qua non of copyrightability is creativity; virtually every Supreme Court decision since the 1976 Act contains at least a passing reference to encouraging "creativity" and/or "original work(s)" as . The reason "textual material" of logos isn't copyrightable is not because it's made up of letters, but because it's not deemed sufficiently creative to lay out a short line of text. If you accept that ASCII art can be copyrighted because it's obviously creative, then the question before us is: "where is the line"? I assert that line is just about as low as it can possibly be, any creativity greater than trivial. This opinion is based on the copyright cases I've read; Feist (mentioned above) is just one such. Now, I'll grant that the creativity in the WV log is pretty minimal; I can't think of a less creative logo design consisting solely of text elements that I would argue is copyrightable. On the spectrum from "text on a line" to "full-blown ASCII art", I draw the line with "novel letter placements" on the copyrightable side. Where do you draw the line? Studerby (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• In the United States, the bar has historically been set very low, and courts err on the side of creator's rights to the work. This is not the case in all countries. For example, Germany has a considerably higher bar. More specific to this case, I see the intentional placement of the letters, the colors used to accent the visual outline of the letters, and the fact of the letter placement generating a mountainscape emblematic of their name as "Mountaineers" as creative elements above and beyond simple text, and surpassing the threshold of creativity required in the United States to grant copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The popularly termed "Flying WV" logo consists solely of the interlocked stylized letters W and V. The idea that the design represents a "moutainscape" is obscure, and has only been retroactively applied much later by a few outside the university or its constituents (the only examples of which I can find are in a Dec 2004 Sports Illustrated column by Pete McEntegart[1] or in recent discussions here on Wikipedia), and has no actual basis in the creation or history of the logo, nor is such association typically made by the university's alumni or fans.[2][3][4] It also is never described as such in the logo's filings with the US Patent & Trademark office, which officially and consistently only refers to the mark as being comprised of "the stylized letters 'WV'" in both documentation originating from the trademark office and the university itself, and additionally, is filed under mark code 5 ("words, letters, and/or numbers in stylized form").[5][6] Further, several variations of the stylized WV logo are commonly used, including (and originally) without the use of "the colors used to accent the visual outline of the letters", indicative that these are not necessary design components of the logo. Even if they were necessary components, such ornamentation of letters clearly does not qualify the W and V as meeting the threshold of protection under US copyright law, as they are merely "variations of typographic ornamentation". In addition, WVU's official policies and treatments of the logo do not suggest they ever have, or in the future intend to pursue, anything beyond typical trademark protections.[7] The logo is no different than a monogram and in no way meets the the criteria for copyright protection under existing US law/precedent. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Paco, NICE WORK!!! I think that category "filed under mark code 5 ('words, letters, and/or numbers in stylized form')" may be just the kind of black line we need for Wikipedia. I'm not saying everyone agrees to it yet, but if we can use {{PD-Code5}}, this may drastically simplify things. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also code 4: standard character mark for non-stylized lettering (e.g. when one "particular style of lettering" isn't perscribed). For these, specific image variations of standard marks aren't individually filed apart from the general code 4 filing. An example would be the specific logo image of the arched block Pitt currently in use for the University of Pittsburgh) which would fall under the code 4 filing of "PITT" here, but whose specific arched block image is only seen in the accompanying specimen submission. Code 4 isn't style specific (like the block of Texas A&M's aTm logo is and therefore filed with Code 5 [8]) and thus could be thought of as a broader filing (or not font/style specific). These code 4 logos may be trickier to track down and thus have such a system applied in Wikipedia, but it could be done I suppose.

However, for logos that are filed with the trademark office, any images incorporated into them are always described, and those images and are coded distinctly (e.g. 3=Design + words, letters and numbers). There are also individual "Design Search Codes" for specific shapes like stars, state outlines, hats & helmets, etc. (a list of design code is available here) Such marks would more likely be copyrightable. So in such circumstances, trademark search and subsequent filing codes and descriptions should provide a way to screen logo images that have been individually filed. For instance, and in contrast to the Flying WV logo, the Washington State logo, with the W S U forming a cougar head, is filed as Code 3, and includes design search codes for cats, heads of animals, stylized animals, and animals composed of letters. In addition, the image of the cougar head is also specifically described under "Description of the Mark".[9] Just to be sure, if it wasn't clear above, the Flying WV logo has nothing in the "Description of Mark" provided by the university or office describing anything but text (no mountainscape). It does not contain Design Search Codes for 06.01.04 - Mountains (landscapes); Scenery with mountains, or 27.01.04 - Letters forming objects (in contrast to this example), nor is it tagged for 25.01.25 - "Borders, ornamental; Other framework and ornamental borders" as was suggested. It has also never filed with the US Copyright office (search completed at [10]) Simply, it is just text, and not copyrightable. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC

• You do not have to file with the US Copyright Office to have copyright on your works. Copyright is automatic. You say it's text and not copyrightable. Others, including myself, say it is copyrightable. Rabbit season. Duck season. Rabbit season. Duck season. Rabbit season. Duck season. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone not aware of the fact that trademarks can be copyrighted and that copyright is automatic for things that are copyrightable? Rehashing something we all agree on isn't helpful.

Simply declaring these as "copyrightable" doesn't make them so. You have shown nothing outside of intra-WP conjecture that the logo consists of anything other than textual material. I think it is just text. Paco + others think it is just text. The owner of the mark thinks it is just text. The US government thinks it is just text. You say they are all wrong; "It is copyrightable", but no one outside of Wikipedia agrees with your assessment and nothing to back that claim up. It is not coded with anything you or anyone else claims to be copyrightable (as noted above).

1. "They look like they are kind of like mountains" CrazyPaco has shown (quite definitively) that they aren't
2. "They are more than just text" Even the University didn't file it as such. They would be hard pressed to claim copyright that it was anything other than text when they didn't even file it as such within the trademark system.

By using the trademark descriptions, we could more accurately and objectively categorize logos. Those falling under X, Y, or Z would be considered copyrightable. Those that fall under A, B, and C without falling under X, Y, or Z would not be copyrightable. By using such a system it would drastically alter how we assess logos and significantly reduce the amount of "Well I think that..." type disagreements. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• CrazyPaco is the one that raised the issue that it's not registered with the copyright office. What reason to raise it unless in defense of it supposedly being copyright free? I simply responded to what was said. But, thank you once again for calling me unhelpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I said your rehashing was not helpful. I never said you were unhelpful personally.

Thanks for once again not addressing anything I actually brought up.

In this discussion, it would be completely remiss if someone had not checked for a copyright filing by the university, since it is easy and free to do so. Of course, an owner does not have to file, no one suggested that one has to file. However, any corporations and organizations of such complexity and resources, as universities, would likely file if they seriously intend to seek such protection for such an important "work of art" for themselves, because it can be advantageous, legally, to do so... that is if such protection was actually desired (although the Flying WV would never pass the copyright office). However, as you stated, because you don't file does not mean rights are so relinquished under current law. In this particular case of the Flying WV, there is zero evidence West Virginia University previously attempted, expects, or seeks such protection for this mark, nor has the allowance for decades of the use of this mark by and in all sorts of media (of which Wikipedia can be a member), consistent with them desiring such protection (trying to enforce such restrictions is most likely in complete opposition to the media visibility they desire to achieve for the mark). If they had desired to protect such rights, they'd would have had to act to protect the copyright status, which they have not done for the almost 30 years of its existence, and all of this inaction regarding protection of its theoretical copyright would severely damage any case if the university reversed their opinion and decided to attempt to legally enforce a copyright. Not to mention, the descriptions in their legal filings to the trademark office would make it virtually impossible to argue for some sort of copyright protection. Universities and their legal councils aren't stupid, they know exactly what use and protections are fitting for their images based on design and intended use.

The thing is, anyone can "claim" a copyright over anything (which WVU has never done in this case), but that in itself does not make it valid. I can claim a copyright to "CrazyPaco", and attach a © to my signature, but even with fancy stylized letters, if those claims are ever challenged in court, they would be thrown out faster than an f-bomb rollback. In the case of the Flying WV, the university has never sought nor even claimed copyright, and legally, it is clearly not an image defensible under current U.S. copyright precedent, and their trademark filing clearly reflects that. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• You've heard from WVU then? They don't claim copyright on that logo and never have? I thought zscout sent the letter..? Your "clearly" isn't so clear to myself and others. I can just as well say it clearly DOES enjoy protections of copyright (and in fact do, as do others) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, legally, what public action WVU has taken regarding this issue essentially means we have been hearing from them on this issue for almost 30 years now. What ZSout gets back in an email response from WVU is virtually meaningless. Someone at the trademark office at WVU can claim a copyright for the school, but that would only indicate that individual responding to the email either does not understand what copyright means, or is being intentionally overaggressive in an attempt to dissuade the use of the trademark in a manner which they don't understand but can't otherwise prevent. 30 years of WVU's inaction in defending a hypothetical copyright, the fact they've made no prior claim, the descriptions in their own legal trademark filings, and the lack of such claims on their publicly accessible official logo guideline sheet speaks much louder about their desire and ability to enforce a copyright, than any email that may be received from WVU. Anyone in the world can make a copyright claim over any image currently on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean the claim is at all valid. This case is about as clear cut as it can get. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• What we get back from WVU is virtually meaningless? Ok, I have to admit, I stopped reading right there and don't plan to read further. This is absurd. None of us are IP lawyers, and we're making IP decisions that we're now going to say over rule anything WVU lawyers have to say on the matter? I'm sorry, but the bounds of credulity just got exceeded lock, stock and barrel. Done. Full stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is essentially meaningless either way. Actually, BillTunell is a lawyer, I believe with some experience in IP, and has previously stated his opinion that the Flying WV was not copyrightable (quote "I'd agree that the WV logo does nto meet hte originality threshold. It's a letter-color combination, pure and simple. The "WV" is infinitely less complex than the IBM or Coca-Cola logos. "Positioning" and "color" are simply not copyrightable elements under U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03."). Lawyer, judge or layman, it comes down to opinion. All we have is precedent, and that is clearly not on the side of there being a defensible copyright claim on the image. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to recall challenging Tunnell on his credentials, which went unanswered. One Essjay is enough. I don't have any reason to believe the (absent) credentials than Essjay's. You keep saying clearly, and I'll keep saying it clearly falls the other way. You're right. It's your opinion. I have mine. So do others. We're not reaching any agreement on this and further discussion (after a year of it now) isn't going to yield any more agreement than we already have. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct about ever yielding an agreement, however I believe the descriptions in the trademark filing is new information not presented prior, and speaks to how both the government and university view the image, both of which can be safely assumed to have substantial IP experience. If this is true, these official documents offer relatively direct evidence that contradicts claims of image incorporation or ornamentation that are being made by the Wikipedia camp suggesting the requisite level of originality are met for copyright. Regarding credentials, WP:AGF would suggest that an attack on BillTunnel's credentials does not deserve the justification of a defense, nor make any particular editor the arbiter of their validity, nor does the anonymous nature of Wikipedia editing demand it. In any case, a lawyer's opinion, in the world of Wikipedia, does not guarantee automatic deference to their opinion, as I'm sure you'd agree. However you are the one that indicated we've never heard from people with IP experience, which is something that can not necessarily be assumed. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me further clarify the problem with contacting mark owners, and it is that almost no one is ever going to publicly release their mark to the public domain (especially the person answering the emails). Even if that mark's copyright claims are completely indefensible, the vast majority of corporations and mark owners will never make public statements like that, for which the only reason to do so would be to settle some sort of cultural debate within Wikipedia....and that is not among their priorities. For one, they don't know how law will change in the future regarding these things and therefore, how such public, archived statements could come back to haunt them. Like many Wikipedia policies and categorizations, every PD-text logo comes down to a judgement call of Wikipedia editors, unless it falls into that class by age. That said, I doubt you'd even get Coke to declare their Coca-Cola script logo public domain in an email either. You either have to scrap the PD-text category entirely, or rely on judgement provided by legal precedent and things like documented evidence provided in something like a trademark filing. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• You don't need to scrap anything. What has to happen is for there to be agreement something is free. We can all agree the Coca-Cola logo is free by way of age, regardless of what the company says. It's not clear in this case that it is free. You think it's clear, but there's pretty much evenly divided opinion on that. You don't have agreement that it is free, and (BQZip's protestations about this point aside) without that agreement or a release statement from the IP holder, we're not going to consider it free. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the chances of getting a statement of release from any mark owner for any logo currently used in Wikipedia, free or not, is close to zero. On the current issue, it is very clear based on legal precedent that a copyright claim isn't defensible for the Flying WV image, and I've shown several of reasons why, the most compelling of which are the trademark filing descriptions. Ultimately in the real world, for any such debated logo, if competing litigants want to pursue the matter in spite of existing precedent, they can do so and obtain a definitive answer for their arguments in court. The worth or folly of trying to overturn existing precedent is theirs to decide, but that is all we have to judge here, unless someone challenges the protections of this specific logo in court to directly speak to our debate, which has not yet been done. Whether or not the existing legal precedent is accepted by editors on Wikipedia, such as yourself, is a completely different story, and has no basis in actual legal issues, practical or hypothetical. As in any endeavor, data is only worthwhile if it accepted by those to whom it is presented. Thus this really is a Wikipedia, not legal, issue, that obviously has yet to achieve consensus either way. I don't know who "we" is you are referring to, but I assume you mean the camp that claims the image is not PD-text, but neither camp has yet achieved consensus. I've little else to add here, and the rehashing is self-evident, so I'll be returning to normal life but will be interested in other Wikipedia editors' takes on how the trademark filing descriptions impacts the perception of the Flying WV being categorized as PD-text in Wikipedia. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As requested now numerous times, what policy/guideline requires an "agreement or a release statement from the IP holder [or else] we're not going to consider it free"? In fact, as Wordbuilder pointed out, there is none. I understand this is how you want WP to run, but it is your preference, not policy.

The way I see it, Wordbuilder, myself, RussNelson, and CrazyPaco have provided exhaustive research, detailed answers, and rationales as to why the image is a trademark ineligible for copyright protections. The response on the other side of the equation is a demand to comply with a nonexistent policy without addressing whether the image does or does not fall under the aforementioned provisions (J Milburn), a dubious statement that we don't comply with US law on Wikipedia again without actually addressing the issue (Enric Naval), and your consistent denial that anything said here makes any difference. We also have Studerby's opinions which are backed up by facts, but with no current response. The way I count this is about 4 to 2 to label as nonfree with 3 opinions on process and imaginary policies being discounted in the grand total. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Studerby, I truly appreciate a full explanation. I really do.

To answer the basics of your above question, it depends on the use of such letters. As I stated at the top, if letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium by which an artistic image is formed, such as in ASCII art or the Washington State University logo, then they are copyrightable as the letters are not "textual material" (sure, they are indeed letters, but their function is not that of simply being letters).

Also as stated above, comparable images for this logo include File:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png, File:LA_Dodgers.svg, and File:ALC-DET-Insignia.png (among others). As such. this logo is not copyrightable.

Using your standard, "...it's not deemed sufficiently creative to lay out a short line of text." The W and V are indeed laid out in a short diagonal line of text.

"And we can all agree that the Skyy label has purely textual matter - letters lined up in one of the the conventional ways of lining up letters." Well, I don't agree with that assertion completely. In that "conventional way", the SKYY label uses letters that are "smashed" together with no space (much as the WV logo here)...which isn't so conventional. Other text-only logos use that similar/identical/related methods as well ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16],WP image 1, WP image 2, etc) so putting letters in a diagonal arrangement isn't copyrightable (as it is a "simple" arrangement) or there would be lawsuits galore over copyright infringement.

"Now, is it seriously being argued that no arrangements of letters in space is copyrightable?" Not at all. See above. But "textual material", which I believe to be best described as "letters intended to be used as letters", is not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• When is the RfC going to start? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  When it is necessary. Stop rehashing your demands. Again, that isn't helpful. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  First, I asked a question, not make a demand. Second, an RfC is the next step in dispute resolution. I strongly, strongly suggest you stop attempting to relicense this image without taking the appropriate steps of dispute resolution. I'm once again reporting this to WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is PD regardless of whether you consider it text or not!

This logo was first published in 1984 and was not published with a copyright notice. Accordingly, it was "Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years" and is ineligible for copyright protections. Accordingly, I'm reverting with a different tag on the logo for PD justification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being slow, could you please explain what that page is? It notes that "This registration has been renewed.", whatever that means. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• It has to do with trademark registration, not copyright. After 1978, copyright does not need to be registered or renewed. BQZip01, you're out of line and I'm reverting. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, please expound on this? What you're saying seems to be in conflict with the template BQ applied, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, your opinion is a complete 180 from reality:

PD:

1. First published 1923 through 1977 without a copyright notice=public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities
2. First published 1978 to 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and without subsequent registration within 5 years=public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities
3. First published 1978 to 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice but with subsequent registration within 5 years=Copyrighted for 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

Welcome to absolutely black and white and copyright law. Just because I create it or put an opinion doesn't mean you should automatically oppose it. Do you need a link to that or are you just going to rely on your personal knowledge? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wordbuilder, the evidence BQZip01 submitted had to do with trademark, not copyright, and there's nothing on the citation he makes to prove it was published without copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. So, BQ has established that it was first published in 1984 but has not established that no copyright has been obtained. If the latter could be established, then the applied template would be supported. Nevertheless, I still maintain that the logo is not eligible for copyright since it is merely typographical ornamentation of a couple of letters or "The mark comprises the stylized letters 'WV'" as the linked-to page describes it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Understand that post 1978 copyright does not have to be obtained in the U.S. It's automatic for creative works. WVU did not have to register copyright on the creative work in order to enjoy the protections of copyright, nor did they have to renew such claims. The absence of claims of copyright does not mean it's free of copyright. That's routine all over the project. For example, people taking things from the web routinely claim 'well there's no copyright notice' and are told 'young grasshopper, copyright exists whether claimed or not'. :) So we need a specific indication from WVU that it was published without copyright, or copyright was subsequently released. We don't have that. --Hammersoft (talk)

• If copyright is automatic after 1978, how can something be published without copyright? I'm just trying to understand to which images the aforementioned template would apply. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, if I were a creator of creative works between 1978 and 1989, I'd have been quite upset with the law. In essence, copyright is automatic but you must affix a © to it, if possible, else you lose your rights in five years unless you attempt to rectify the situation by filing for copyright protection with the copyright office. So, the tag applies if proof can be found that a given work was published between 1978 and 1989 and did not have a © affixed to it, and the work was not subsequently registered with the copyright office within five years of publication without the © mark. Clear as mud, huh? :) The template has been used exactly once prior to its use on this image. I doubt it will be used much ever, though I expect certain scrambling to happen shortly. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Look, we have a thread title here called "Let's make this simple". I agree, we can make this simple. What BQZip01 cites is interesting, but only interesting. It's not rock solid proof this image is free of copyright. The cite he makes indicates nothing of the copyright status of the image, only its trademark status. There's no discussion whatsoever of its copyright status. If someone...be it BQZip01 or anyone else...provides concrete evidence this was published without copyright, I'll shut up forever about this and I will guarantee that most if not all the other people opposing this being tagged as free license will shut up too. But, that evidence is still lacking. Until it does, there's no proof. I have gladly given up on such issues before (a statue in Florida comes to mind). All it takes is finding the proof it was released without copyright. Keep in mind that copyright is automatic after 1978 for creative works. So, WVU must have made a declaration of it being copyright free. Find it. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• As an example of my happiness to acquiesce in such situations, look at File:Oxcart-train1947.jpg. I found it today being marked as both non-free and free. A conflict in licenses. But, the image was taken in 1947. We know that from the source, and that it was about the Partition of India which happened in 1947. We also know the image was taken in what had just become Pakistan, since the caption notes the travellers going towards (not in) India. Under Pakistani law, the image went into PD in 1997. So, I appropriately removed the conflicting non-free tag. That's how easy this is for me. Show me the proof. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just read — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have. Can you show me proof WVU released this without copyright or subsequently released their rights? If you can't, you have no proof it's free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• You keep asserting that those are the only options. Guess what: "First published 1978 to 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and without subsequent registration within 5 years=public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities". In this case, no registration=no copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The copyright act of 1976 did not require registration of rights beginning 1 January 1978. You have provided no evidence this was published without copyright notice. Provide it, and I'll shut up. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• To be clearer, we know that copyright wasn't registered for the work. But that's only half of the requirement you cite in order for it to be in the public domain. It must also have been published without copyright notice. With the copyright act of 1976, adding © affixed to the work was no longer a requirement. Everything else being the same, if this was a requirement for protection I'd agree with you. But under the 1976 law, it is not a requirement. So, we need other proof it was published without copyright notice or subsequent to publishing WVU released its rights under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, the point I was contesting, that of what "copyright notice" was defined as and the presence of © on the work; requirement being invalidated in 1978 is true and not true. A thorough reading of this shows that the © mark did in fact have to be added to published works or else the work would fall irrevocably into the public domain five years later (if not registered). Notice could exist in other forms, but reading the link I just showed indicates those other forms would most likely not apply in this case. Therefore, I concur in the assessment that West Virginia University lost copyright to this image effective 17 April 1989 since they did not, apparently, register the mark before that date. BQZip01, I still find extreme fault with your behavior in this dispute and strongly encourage you to reconsider such tactics in the future. You don't need to edit war and ignore WP:BRD, and you do need to pay attention to our dispute resolution mechanisms. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  I've provided plenty of links and, if you knew or read what I stated or actually considered the copyright laws, this wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. WP:BRD isn't policy, but let's run along that thread for a moment anyway. You reported me to ANI immediately after this and did not wait for any discussion. I re-reverted it because you didn't counter anything I said ("You're wrong" doesn't cut it). You answered your own question after learning more about it and not using your incomplete knowledge in absentia of a basis. Please WP:AGF in the future. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Hum de dum. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'm glad that you finally agree, Hammersoft, but you didn't make it easy. Why do you work so hard to defend other people's copyrights. Isn't that their job, not ours? --RussNelson (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't work to defend other's copyrights in any respect. I work to defend Wikipedia. You're right; when there's amiguity of copyright status, I won't make it easy. Neither do our policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• But what I and others were attempting to explain was that there was no ambiguity. The law is clear: there can be no copyright in colored text. Trademark yes, copyright no. Are we going to have to explain this to you every time another colored text logo is added to Wikipedia? Look, for example, at Clarkson University's logo. Are you going to claim that that's copyrighted? --RussNelson (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  You're treating me as if I'm a lone reed in the wind on this. That's far from the case, as prior discussion has shown. It's a case by case basis. This case (though some disagree) was not so clear, and opinion was pretty evenly divided. I'm not going to continue any arguments about whether this was free of copyright by way of it being just text or not. If you want to rehash that debate, feel free to do so but I won't participate because it was a point of contention made moot by the fact that it is in the public domain via other means having nothing to do with its nature vis-a-vis text. And yes, you can expect to find me in other discussions on the copyright status of images. I enjoy working in such areas. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  I reviewed the earlier discussion. You are practically the only person (you plus two others) arguing that every instance of decorated text is copyrighted. This is simply not supported by US Copyright law, and if you think it is, you should provide citations to case law and copyright law. I'm sorry to hear that you enjoy misrepresenting copyright law. Your actions make Wikipedia a worse place to contribute to. (and I'm assuming good faith but ignorance of the law which is, as we all know, no excuse.) --RussNelson (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  As I said, if you want to rehash the debate, feel free to do so but I won't participate. Thank you for your compliment that I make Wikipedia a worse place to contribute to and that I enjoy misrepresenting copyright law. I try hard. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Just trying to point out that you were wrong all along. I hope that the next time a discussion of copyrightability comes along, people are less willing to believe your assertions. --RussNelson (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Actually what you've pointed out is you've had an opinion all along, just like I've had an opinion all along. As for future debates, if past experience is any measure, I'll be standing on the right side of those debates roughly 90% of the time. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)