Template talk:PD-logo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:PD-textlogo)
Jump to: navigation, search

(no header)[edit]

"Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations."[1]

Fred Chess 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hucz (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone is applying this template to trademarks, which are completely separate from trademark law (both are subsets of intellectual property). More proof that too many people on Wikipedia do not know much about the law they are applying. Trademarks can last forever, and are all about the association made with the mark and the subject it represents --the copyrightability of the mark, in this sense, does not have any bearing on the IP protection. Some examples: if someone opens a "Target Store", they would be violating the trademark of Target Corp without even using the exact typeface (the central issue is consumer confusion, not just physical similarity). If someone were to open a business using the text logo of a university, then they would be creating confusion that would harm the intellectual property rights of the university in their branded word mark and the good will associated by the educational institution. --Bobak (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This template should be applied to trademarks that are not also copyrighted, and ideally any non-copyrightable trademarks should also be moved to the Commons. The Commons only looks at the copyright status of an image to determine if the image is "free". Other IP restrictions, such as trademark, are ignored. You might want to take a look at the Commons policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, then while I feel its a bad policy, as an Admin I will follow it. However, as an American lawyer, I would be surprised if no TM holder eventually decides to assert a misuse of their IP (and, regardless of the outcome, I hope the Project is willing to pay the expenses to defend itself). But that's not the issue right now, and its a risk the higher ups at Commons decided to take --so be it. --Bobak (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction with PD-Font?[edit]

While this template says that a text-only logo is not eligible for copywrite, Template:PD-font claims this only applies if the image is raster. Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts is unclear, but the reasoning used and cited law do not back up PD-font's assertion that vectors made from rasters are illegal. The legal opinion says that the vector font file itself cannot be copied, and that another font cannot be derived from the information contained in the vector font. It does not say that outlines themselves (which is all that SVG retains) is copyrightable.

We need to straighten this out. Are we being extra careful and not allowing Wordmark SVGs to ever be considered free, as we have with image files in general? If so, we need to change Template:PD-textlogo and remove it from all SVG files that do not have a free license claim.

— trlkly 15:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Local US law[edit]

In the US typefaces can not be copyright, I'm not sure how this affects the copyright of logos originating in the US vs elsewhere. However, if a logo is copyright elsewhere, Commons may not want it, and it may affect how we use it too (and even the US status?). Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:PD-ineligible which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-textlogoTemplate:PD-logo – The nature of this template make it suitable for all logos, be it text, simple shape or both mixed. In the meantime, some people keep changing its transclusions on shape-only logos to {{PD-shape}}, a template that does not have logo-specific text and links. Hopefully, this rename would put a stop to them.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

My concern would be people applying PD-logo to any logo whether or not it meets our non-free use criteria. Perhaps "PD-simplelogo"? Powers T 01:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am not saying no to this but those people are disregarding "PD" (public domain) part; they'd easily disregard "simple". Also, this might throw us into another class of the same problem: Some people removing it because they think the PD logo is not simple. Maybe {{PD-ineligible logo}}?
Or maybe it shouldn't be just one: Rename to PD-logo and then create redirects like those we talked?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
We do already have {{PD-ineligible}} for non-logo graphics. Is there any compelling reason to have a separate template just for logos? Powers T 23:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Your arguments are strong, but are not suitable for this time and place. Requiring a compelling reason for the existence of this template is TfD material. Our problem is that right now, we do have such a template, only its name does not appropriately explain what it does.
But I don't mind having a chat about this whole state of affair; in fact, I have several similar complaints. Maybe we can come up with a plan of action. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good idea. There is no reason this template should not be used on all logos that are public domain, and the title of the template should reflect that. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm afraid Lisa missed my point here. By expanding what once was PD-textlogo to PD-logo, allowing it to be used for any PD logo regardless of content, we've removed its primary distinguishing factor with regards to PD-ineligible. Prior to this move, PD-textlogo was intended for use only with logos that are primarily textual; PD-ineligible was used for other logos and graphics. Now, that distinction has been lost, and I think there should have been a more comprehensive analysis of whether or not that's a good thing. Powers T 22:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I never found that to be the case in practice. I would very often find PD-textlogo on logos that weren't just text logos. The text of this template also seems to contradict that by saying "This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes." Rreagan007 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
True, but I think that was tossed in to include mostly-text logos that may have a few geometric shapes, like, say, File:Bausch and Lomb Logo 2010.svg. Powers T 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to be blunt but exactly at which point did you think such an arbitrary restriction is any good? Why, will the world come to an end if we use a unified tag on both logo and wordmark? No, on the contrary, the world becomes a happier place without all the license tag proliferation. So, we do get your point. We just don't agree with it. In complete possession of your point, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright (textlogo)[edit]


Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright (textlogo) has been nominated for renaming. The nomination is related to the move of this template, discussed above. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. – Wdchk (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated version[edit]

Can someone review the new logic in Template:PD-logo/sandbox, and swap the sandboxed template over for the new one?

The changes:

  • allow for a single secondary "additional" license to be added.
  • force an explicitly specfied yes/no for commons. Files without the paramater are categorised for review.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I see two problems: First, the |commons= parameter adds a vague "File is not compatible with Commons requirements" sentence. What's wrong with inserting a {{Do not move to Commons}} with a proper |reason= on a case by case basis?
Second, how is one supposed to remove the embedded {{Move to Commons}} template and replace it with {{Now Commons}}? Note that this isn't just a visual issue; it introduces significant backlog to the Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
If you can indicate a suggested way of doing the Commons param so it can accomodate the relevant templates suggestions you suggest :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Implemented some additional logic with an exists clause for |commons=, and 2 additional parameters, |reason= for adding a reason to the do-not move logic and |file= to give the filename on Commons if it exists to handle the now-commons logic. Ideally most of this logic could be split off into it's own logic and you just call THAT template with pass through paramaters?
Open to feedback as the issue you note with now-commons may exist with some other PD templates that have 'inline' Copy to Commons variants.
It would be nice to have one template that can be used for doing Commons analysis inline in other templates :)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, all I recommend is adding a |reviewed for Commons= parameter. This parameter, when absent, categorizes the file into a "need for review" category and displays a notice explaining that such files must normally either be moved to Commons or tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}. A reviewer reviews the file and sets the |reviewed for Commons=yes. This is a cheap way of not having to implement the functionalities of three additional templates at the same time, which is what you are trying to do right now.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome to implement that approach as it would be more compatible with automated tools, however, part of the update was to ensure items such as those only free in the US aren't in Category:All free media but in an the more appropriate Category: All free in US media. This is a small difference but an important one.
Ideally a |usonly= parameter could cause the additional template to be invoked automatically. (The template still needs to be called though for reasons to do with categories and tools as I understand it.).
The additional numbered params are so that things like SVG-logo and Trademarked can be added without needing an additional tag.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talkcontribs) 11:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright then. I am a little press for time today. I'll see what I can do for you tomorrow.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm disabling the editprotected request for now, since this is clearly under discussion still, with issues reported, splits proposed, and further feedback requested. This isn't quite ready for prime time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

majority.fm logo.png[edit]

I want to include an info box into the majority.fm article, best with the logo image included. Now, how do I manage that? Do I ask the folks at http://majority.fm if they agree to release the icon under one of the wikipedia acceptable terms? Starting with the ones that leave the most rights to them? If so, are there templates or howtos how to do so? Since I don't have the time to read all through all possible terms for such images and break them down into a few words short enough for them to read but still correct enough not to misrepresent the term(s)... Or is there another way to be sure that the logo falls under {{Template:PD-logo}}}? Or is there a place on :commons: where I find the folks that can best answer my question?
As I see it, the logo indeed falls under the rationale of This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. --Rava77 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rava77
Per my experiences, it is totally safe to upload this logo to Commons with {{PD-logo}} as its license. Actually, I encourage you to do so; if something wrong happened, you'll have ample time to rectify the situation.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I already did: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Majority.fm_Logo.png using PD-textlogo . Cheers, --Rava77 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)