March 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: remove from
Exploitation film. —
ξ
xplicit 02:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
File:ISpitOnYourGraveposter.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
links |
logs) – uploaded by
Andrzejbanas (
notify |
contribs |
uploads |
upload log).
Non-free poster art being used in
I Spit on Your Grave and
Exploitation film#Rape and revenge films. File has a
non-free use rationale for each usage, but only the usage in the stand-alone article about the film itself seems to satisfy
WP:NFCC. There's no sourced discussion in the "Exploitation film" section which specifically discusses the poster itself, so the
context required by
WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. The film itself is just one of several discussed in the section and its stand-alone article is wikilinked, so the non-free image can be removed without being detrimental to the reader's understanding of this particular genre. Suggest keep for the stand-alone article and remove from "Exploitation film" article. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 04:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. —
ξ
xplicit 02:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
File:Ted Cruz presidential campaign logo.png (
delete |
talk |
history |
links |
logs) – uploaded by
Calibrador (
notify |
contribs |
uploads |
upload log).
Since this is an encyclopedia that tries to utilize free content over non-free content whenever possible, I think that this file fails
WP:NFCC#1 since
File:Cruz 2k16 text.png exists.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
- Probably, as I see no reason why Rubio and Kasich's logos don't meet the threshold of originality yet somehow Cruz' does, as I'd argue they're around the same level of complexity. And even if the images were copyrighted, precedent exists that such logos are still completely fine (see the Obama/Biden example I gave) and there's no violation of NFCC as a modified logo is not the same as the original.
Satellizer
(´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- @
Satellizer: My opinion still stands about the
WP:NFCC#1 issue if this is non-free, but would you be okay if I ping a few FFD regulars I know who may have a better ability than myself to make a judgement call if this image qualifies for {{
PD-logo}}?
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah that'll be great, thanks.
Satellizer
(´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. It needs to be kept. There is no problem with it.--
ML (
talk) 18:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
- Not the OP, but I'd say that there's no NFCC violation as the file you suggested,
File:Cruz 2k16 text.png, is not a viable alternative. You can't cut off part of a image and claim it's the whole. So, if we were to use your suggested image, the image caption would have to read something along the lines of "a modified version of Ted Cruz' campaign logo with the image partially cropped" to avoid being disingenuous and misleading; in which case it's far easier to just use the current version.
Satellizer
(´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- @
Stefan2,
Finnusertop,
Marchjuly, and
Jo-Jo Eumerus: Per my discussion with
Satellizer above, in your opinion, does it look as though this image would qualify for {{
PD-logo}}? (I'm 50/50 in my opinion if it does; I mean, the logo seems to be geometric shapes only, but they are arranged in a fashion that may be unique enough to surpass the threshold of originality.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- This might be PD-textlogo, but you may want to ask for extra input on the
copyright forum on Commons. As for NFCC#1 (i.e assuming it's non-free), I dunno if a wordmark would be considered as a suitable replacement for the logo proper in terms of identification.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 10:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- There is a good chance that this is not PD-logo. WMF Legal recently concluded there is a risk that
this logo is above the threshold of originality and took it down (
c:Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Bernie Sanders Logos). They only restored it as PD-logo because the DMCA takedown request that challenged it was withdrawn. The law and court rulings on this area are inconclusive, but the threshold – which is already taken to be low – may be significantly lower than is generally thought. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 19:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Satellizer. Wordmarks aren't substitutes for logos, and the simple shapes making up Cruz's flame fall below the threshold.
MB298 (
talk) 00:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
- @
Steel1943:Yes. See the discussion I've started at
commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
MB298 (
talk) 01:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the first half of MB298's comment. I disagree with the idea that this is PD-simple, but that's not relevant to keeping: if it is, we can keep it of course, and if it isn't, it's irreplaceable because visual logos can't be replaced by mere words for the purposes of visual identification.
Nyttend (
talk) 14:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.