Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bethlehem Steel logo.svg
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.
"Transferred from Wikipedia" is not a valid source. The Http:// source given goes to an invalid webpage. As this was just transferred from Wikipedia by User:Amitie 10g, it requires a source. COM:EVID. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy keept: "Transferred from Wikipedia" is not a valid source? Obviously, Wikipedia is a valid source because the file has been transfered manually from there (because transfer with CommonsHelper failed, I should be placed the information found manually). Anyway, {{PD-Textlogo}} clearly applies to the logo, and considering previous DR of raster version of this logo closed as Withdraw. And finally, if the original source is not longer available, is a reason for deletion (assuming that the original uploader did not used a 404 page as source at the moment of upload)? 
WTF? The only relevant think is that this logo is clearly bellow the Threshold of Originality in the US. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
CommentFrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_the_Commons : Do not transfer files without a clear and verifiable source. ... If the source is a website, check to see if the link is still active. If it isn't, it might be simple to reestablish a link, but if no link can be found, it might not be a good idea to transfer the file over. And then on COM:MTC Check if the image has a proper license/author/source/permission.. This file has no original date, no valid source (the link 404s), no author and should not have been transferred without all of the above. It is up to the uploader or file transfer user to provide this information, please see COM:EVID. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment — Whether or not this logo is ineligible for copyright protection due to it being below the threshold of originality may be irrelevant. I checked the source site with archive.org and it says "Copyright (c) 2009 Brian Lafond". The reason this matters is since the original file was authored in a source code format (i.e. SVG) we have to also worry about the copyright to the SVG source code (this SVG is not the product of a conversion by a Commons volunteer, but the original format). For example, a comparable issue in the U.S. is digital fonts. The U.S. considers typefaces to be ineligible for copyright protection, but the U.S. Copyright Office does permit the copyright registration of digital vector fonts in file formats like Postscript or TrueType under the theory that while the product of the font source code may be ineligible for copyright protection, the source itself is a "computer program" that can be eligible for protection. See w:Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#United_States for a bit of background. —RP88 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- RP88 This is the first time I have ever seen "copyright of SVG code" used as a rationale to delete a public domain image. This seems like the kind of image routinely identified as public domain on Commons. There are a lot of SVGs in Commons. When or where has it ever been argued that the code of the SVG, and not the image output, needs to be checked for copyright? Is SVG the only file type which is argued to have copyrightable code, or are the limitless ways to code any image file all in need of consideration? This sounds wrong to me - what I am missing? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, this has come up before several times. I did a quick search and found one bit of back and forth on both sides of the issue at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/03#SVG.27s_are_computer_software.3F, but I definitely recall seeing it elsewhere. Most of the time this is not an issue because the vast majority of the SVG logos on Commons are not SVG files taken from a source that claims a non-free license on the SVG file. Most SVG logos on Commons are creations of Commons volunteers styled after a raster image, which is fine even if the raster image is only PD by virtue of being ineligible for copyright protection due to it being below the threshold of originality. The issue with creativity and TOO with regard to SVG source code has to be considered in the context of literary works (the U.S. Copyright Office classifies "computer programs" as literally works). I'm editing from a phone right now, so I can't check the source code to this particular SVG myself at the moment. —RP88 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, i've had a chance to look at the SVG source code for this particular image and it doesn't have a lot of creative expression: the source code was generated by Adobe Illustrator, not by hand, and there are no comments, no embedded CSS, and not very many anchor points (by far the largest thing in the file is an unused Polka_Dot_Pattern object). —RP88 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, this has come up before several times. I did a quick search and found one bit of back and forth on both sides of the issue at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/03#SVG.27s_are_computer_software.3F, but I definitely recall seeing it elsewhere. Most of the time this is not an issue because the vast majority of the SVG logos on Commons are not SVG files taken from a source that claims a non-free license on the SVG file. Most SVG logos on Commons are creations of Commons volunteers styled after a raster image, which is fine even if the raster image is only PD by virtue of being ineligible for copyright protection due to it being below the threshold of originality. The issue with creativity and TOO with regard to SVG source code has to be considered in the context of literary works (the U.S. Copyright Office classifies "computer programs" as literally works). I'm editing from a phone right now, so I can't check the source code to this particular SVG myself at the moment. —RP88 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- RP88 This is the first time I have ever seen "copyright of SVG code" used as a rationale to delete a public domain image. This seems like the kind of image routinely identified as public domain on Commons. There are a lot of SVGs in Commons. When or where has it ever been argued that the code of the SVG, and not the image output, needs to be checked for copyright? Is SVG the only file type which is argued to have copyrightable code, or are the limitless ways to code any image file all in need of consideration? This sounds wrong to me - what I am missing? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry It's theoretical, but there is a ruling on a computer font that there were copyrightable aspects there beyond the (uncopyrightable) shape of the letters, specifically the control points of the vectors. Someone was convicted of copying a computer font's vector information, even though if someone made a font from scratch which visually looked almost identical that would be OK. If someone hand-edits an SVG, that could definitely qualify as a computer software copyright, for example. The copyright would be for elements unrelated to the visual image, but it doesn't mean it can't exist. Another example is making an engraving or even mezzotint of a painting -- there are copyrightable aspects of the details of making the engraving or mezzotint, even when the base painting is PD. There was a more recent case (Meshwerks; William Patry summary here) which was about a 3-D model of a car which was done in a way which was ruled to be slavish copying and therefore no additional creativity; that would seem to indicate that an SVG which was just a slavish copy of an existing logo probably does not get any additional creativity. As for COM:EVID, if the license is PD-ineligible, then the evidence should be inherent in the uploaded content, so it doesn't strictly need a source or date. We should be able to judge based on the content we see. I'd feel a bit more comfortable if the SVG-ization was done by a Commons contributor, though it does look to be a pretty slavish copy of the original logo, so I think I'd still vote Keep here either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clindberg RP88 Could you both check what I wrote at Help:SVG#Copyright? I had heard of the Meshworks case - I will think more about that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I expanded the section, let's take any further discussion of your new section at Help:SVG#Copyright to Help talk:SVG. —RP88 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clindberg RP88 Could you both check what I wrote at Help:SVG#Copyright? I had heard of the Meshworks case - I will think more about that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry It's theoretical, but there is a ruling on a computer font that there were copyrightable aspects there beyond the (uncopyrightable) shape of the letters, specifically the control points of the vectors. Someone was convicted of copying a computer font's vector information, even though if someone made a font from scratch which visually looked almost identical that would be OK. If someone hand-edits an SVG, that could definitely qualify as a computer software copyright, for example. The copyright would be for elements unrelated to the visual image, but it doesn't mean it can't exist. Another example is making an engraving or even mezzotint of a painting -- there are copyrightable aspects of the details of making the engraving or mezzotint, even when the base painting is PD. There was a more recent case (Meshwerks; William Patry summary here) which was about a 3-D model of a car which was done in a way which was ruled to be slavish copying and therefore no additional creativity; that would seem to indicate that an SVG which was just a slavish copy of an existing logo probably does not get any additional creativity. As for COM:EVID, if the license is PD-ineligible, then the evidence should be inherent in the uploaded content, so it doesn't strictly need a source or date. We should be able to judge based on the content we see. I'd feel a bit more comfortable if the SVG-ization was done by a Commons contributor, though it does look to be a pretty slavish copy of the original logo, so I think I'd still vote
- Comment Remember even if kept, the file still needs a source. Since it was not created by the person who transferred the file from en:wiki and it's an SVG, a valid source of the file is required. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, if not copyrightable, then a source is not required. It's just preferred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- What about the 17 U.S. Code § 1302? This is why Copyright Paranoia should not be allowed, specially for works explicitly not protected by the US Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hehehe. That actually is not part of "normal" copyright law... you found a weird corner which is not applicable to artistic works. For those, it's still "original works of authorship" which are protected, with case law mostly defining what those are. You can see the Copyright Compendium for the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines when it comes to what that actually means. As for the section you found... when the Copyright Act 1976 was being debated in the 1970s, it was suggested that industrial design also be protected via copyright law (as some countries do). Accordingly, the proposed sections of the law were written up, but eventually not included in the law (the U.S. continues to use design patents for that type of protection for the most part). As such, the design of utilitarian objects are not subject to U.S. copyright at all -- almost. In 1998, the U.S. Congress decided to protect vessel hulls in particular with some additional protection, and they passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. For the text of the law, they dug up the unused text from the 1970s on generic "useful articles", and then just changed the definition of "useful article" to be "vessel hull" specifically, and dumped the whole thing into the law. You can see that in section 1301(b)(2). So, the section you quote applies to vessel hull designs, and only vessel hull designs, when you read carefully. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- What about the 17 U.S. Code § 1302? This is why Copyright Paranoia should not be allowed, specially for works explicitly not protected by the US Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, if not copyrightable, then a source is not required. It's just preferred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Josve05a uploaded a new version of the SVG with different code. If nenough, the previous version may be speedied, conserving the new version. But the Threshold of originality and SVG is still a big source of discussion, with diffents opinions about the US Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- The issue of vectorization code having its own copyright may not be obvious to everyone. In particular, there are sites such as Brands of the World and seeklogo which offer vector images of logos (i.e. EPS) for free download. On Commons, it appears that there are multiple images that may well have originated from one of these two sites. Perhaps it would be useful to add Brands of the World and seeklogo to the COM:Problematic sources page along with information about vectorization copyright? --Gazebo (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think we should go that far. The Meshwerks ruling tends to indicate that many/most of those SVGs are OK. I don't think we really have enough case law to definitively state one way or the other. Because there is not much case law, it's mostly a theoretical concern. Hand-editing SVGs are probably the most likely issue (copyrighted as a computer program), but beyond that it's not as clear at all. If we've generally been allowing those others, we should probably continue unless some better information (such as a new court case) comes to light. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- The issue of vectorization code having its own copyright may not be obvious to everyone. In particular, there are sites such as Brands of the World and seeklogo which offer vector images of logos (i.e. EPS) for free download. On Commons, it appears that there are multiple images that may well have originated from one of these two sites. Perhaps it would be useful to add Brands of the World and seeklogo to the COM:Problematic sources page along with information about vectorization copyright? --Gazebo (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When moving content from Wikipedia, it's helpful to use the Commons Helper tool so that the original dates etc. are also copied over. Even if you can't use it to directly move the files, you can use it to generate the file page text including the original Wikipedia upload log, and you can copy that to the manual upload. That information is helpful, and is missing here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous DR of raster version of this logo. Besides, it is simple text, below the TOO. - Fma12 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, no reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
