Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows flag.svg

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:Windows flag.svg

[edit]

Should be considered as fair use (which is prohibited in the Commons) because it is original and eligible enough for copyright. w:File:Windows logo.svg is fair use and only includes a wordmark as well as this logo. Longbyte1 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that many files on Wikipedia are tagged as fair use when they should be PD-ineligible does not prove anything, only that there is no set standard in Wikipedia of the eligibility of a logo. Longbyte1 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. BTW: Do you know COM:TOO? --Leyo 08:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. The combination of the bevels, shading, highlights and gradients significantly exceed the threshold of originality. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I  Disagree with LX. Please see local and/or global usage. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the fact that it's being used on {{User win}}, which is in turn used on 58 pages, and en:Template:Windows-stub, which is used on 142 pages, is not relevant to the originality of the work. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. The Windows logo is uncopyrightable because it consists of only a series of four colored squares forming a waving window. As such, the logo fails to comply with the U.S. threshold of originality. That image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you can't withdraw someone else's nomination on their behalf, and repeatedly restating the incorrect, oversimplified description of the logo doesn't make it true. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but this logo in Commons does not only consist of a four colored boxes; you have to consider the gradients, the wavy lines, and the sheer complexity of the work. Longbyte1 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Way too much shading for PD-textlogo PD-shape. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD-shape, not PD-textlogo --Ysangkok (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The bevels, shading and highlights are all trivial modifications and can be added automatically in editors like Inkscape. It is widely used in the exact same way. That means that it does not constitute originality. The original content in this image is the shapes of the flag itself. However, that is simple a 4-polygon with 2 straight edges and 2 bézier edges (that are identical!). This shape is mirrored and flipped. An image that can be accurately described in one sentence is not copyrightable. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much none of what you said is accurate. The shape of the flag is not original (which is why that part is not copyrighted, and which is why it's okay to create something like File:Gnome-fs-smb.png). Your one-sentence description of the image fails to mention the aspect of the image that is copyrightable, namely the bevels and shadings. The claim that these shadings could be automatically created by Inkscape is simply not true. The bevels in particular are quite advanced with multiple edges and a translucency effect (best seen in the upper right-hand corner). They certainly can't be accurately described in one sentence. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bevels and shading is not copyright by Microsoft, because the official logo looks different. Observe how:
  1. The grey background is solid, with a circular white shade. Not like this image where the shadow is a blurred block shadow, non-shaded.
  2. The blue is darker here.
The beveling isn't even visible in the resolutions that this image is being used in. Are you saying that if I removed the beveling (clearly the shading isn't copyrighted by MS, like I just showed you), it wouldn't be a violation in your opinion? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The gray drop shadow looks a little different in the particular version you link to, but there are clearly copyrighted elements that have been carried over. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has the (R) symbol in it. Doesn't that mean that mean it's a registered trademark? If this were not eligible for copyright, wouldn't Microsoft have been prohibited from registering the trademark? Ziiike (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No! {{Trademarked}} has nothing to do with copyright. You might want to read the Wikipedia articles on these topics in your preferred language. --Leyo 05:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-shape + trademark tag are more than sufficient for this file. Denniss (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Windows_flag.svg&oldid=154346651"