File talk:Sunland Group Logo.png
This is well below the threshold of originality even in Australia[edit]
From Commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Common law countries:
If the logo is extremely simple (e.g. in a standard font), it will not be eligible for copyright even in Common law countries.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- How can you tell? File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is also extremely simple. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Standard font, no creative use of spacing, no creative use of colors, no creative spelling, no creative ... anything beyond the name of the company and using Font A instead of Font B. In other words, it is no more eligible for copyright than the 13-character sequence Sunland Group. See the quote from the Commons document above regarding commonwealth countries. At least that flag has creative use of color. Without the color it would just look like a focusing screen on an old-school camera eyepiece. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Does Commons:COM:CRT#Typographical copyright exist in Australia? I assume yes, since Australian law is based on British law. Does the typographical copyright require originality, or is it a related right which do not always require originality? Also, does the typographical copyright require a minimum amount of text to apply? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- While the question may be relevant to the 3-line version of the file (and this is IMHO questionable), it is completely irrelevant to the one-line version - there is simply no creativity to the layout of the two words in the image. To put it another way: If the version uploaded earlier today is copyrightable, then every two-word phrase is copyrightable in any font, and I should get out my dictionary and come up with every two-word phrase possible and create JPG images of each of those word-pairs in every known font then sue anyone in Australia who uses them without my permission, excluding of course any combination of WORD1+WORD2 in FONT3 for which there was prior art. Such a copyright regime would be cripplingly ludicrous and I don't believe the Australian people are that lacking in common sense. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Does Commons:COM:CRT#Typographical copyright exist in Australia? I assume yes, since Australian law is based on British law. Does the typographical copyright require originality, or is it a related right which do not always require originality? Also, does the typographical copyright require a minimum amount of text to apply? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Standard font, no creative use of spacing, no creative use of colors, no creative spelling, no creative ... anything beyond the name of the company and using Font A instead of Font B. In other words, it is no more eligible for copyright than the 13-character sequence Sunland Group. See the quote from the Commons document above regarding commonwealth countries. At least that flag has creative use of color. Without the color it would just look like a focusing screen on an old-school camera eyepiece. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Original source[edit]
In case anyone is wondering, the earlier version of this logo, which included the three lines:
- Sunland Group
- ESTABLISHED
- 1983
can be found at http://www.sunlandgroup.com.au/wp-content/themes/Sunland-v2/images/sunland_logo.png albeit at a lower resolution (261px x 108px, 5,452 bytes). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
