Commons:Deletion requests/File:Springer images 1.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Springer images 1.jpg

[edit]

The permission only applies to the Commons photo without watermark. The rest of the things (such as the caption and Springer licence) appear to be unlicensed. Stefan4 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think neither the text-only logo nor anything from the text are coyprightable, because all that is below the threshold of originality (COM:TO). --Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would appear to have fewer reasons to delete it than Commons:Deletion requests/File:WP on Getty images with watermark.jpg (which is unclosed after 4½ months)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It is the proof of the abuse of a cc-by-sa picture. There isn't any reason to delete it. --Joergens.mi (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral It's really where I'd like some sort of fair use for internal documents. I can see where a competitor copying that format and text could get sued. Reader's Digest Association, Inc. v. Conservative Digest, Inc. seems to say that such a thing would be copyrighable. On the other hand, it'd probably be stretching it to technically call it de minimis, but I can't see any way of using that image that would be copyright infringement unless you did some serious extraction of copyrighted elements, and whatever you did would also get libel or trade dress charges included.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I can see where a competitor copying that format and text could get sued.": That's not a problem of copyright, but one of trademarks and Geschmacksmuster (an industrial design right in Germany). We normally ignore those non-copyright restrictions, perhaps tagging them with some warning sticker. --Rosenzweig τ 07:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not trademark. And if you read the court case I cited, they awarded damages for copyright infringement of the Reader's Digest cover, and if you're familiar with the magazine and what stays the same on the covers (title, fonts, general layout), that comes pretty close to a trade dress copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trade dress is an aspect of trademark law, not copyright -- no such thing as a "trade dress copyright". There is a selection and arrangement copyright, and yes that court decided that the number of different fonts, their colors, and the placement of other elements in the Readers Digest cover all combined to create something that was copyrightable. (The defendants lost on both copyright *and* trademark grounds in that case; all the references to the Lanham act refer to trademark and related rights.) Not sure the the arrangement bit exists here... many fewer elements/fonts than that case. That is probably the only argument for copyrightability that I see though. While not impossible.... the arrangement here is basically stock; it is a very common web page menu style. And there's really only a couple of colors involved. The Readers Digest layout involves many more elements than this, and that is what the the selection copyrights rests on -- usually only 2-3 elements will not support a copyright. The text is another faint possibility, but that seems pretty standard as well. I guess I'm neutral too -- don't usually like uploading straight screen grabs -- but I can't really find an element where I truly think there's a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. Can we put this and the other image linked above in the bad image category and specify they only be used as examples of license/copyright abuse? I like the idea of a new template mentioned in the other DR as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. By Wikimedia policy, Commons can not host non-free files, and if I understand it correctly, we would need Wikimedia Foundation permission to change that. And if we were going to change that for files like this, we would need to make new categories and templates.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. After thinking on it more: I don't see enough threshold of originality in the logos or text etc. The text is common on many sites and the country of origin has a high ToR.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, of course. This image is forensic evidence of likely copyfraud by Springer Images (they claim "This image is copyrighted by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC."). Seems you aren't aware of the ongoing "Springergate" scandal[1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. See also thread at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Springer claiming copyright of Wikipedia images. --Túrelio (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at this from the NFC/en.wiki side by request, the only thing that could be claimed as a added copyright/license above/beyond the basic image is their watermark, and that logo fails any sort of originality test, meaning its not copyrightable. It would seem extremely counter to copyright and the CC license that you could add CC-BY-SA + uncopyrightable elements and come out with something you could license in a non-CC-BY manner. That is, above and beyond the fact that Springer violated CC-BY-SA in the first place, making any claim of copyright they have on this image questionable as long as the attribution part remains unresolved. --Masem (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Can me anybody explain what the hell could be copyrighted in the US? --Historiograf (talk)

Kept: FASTILY (TALK) 04:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Springer_images_1.jpg&oldid=176818438"