User talk:StsmedleyRWBTFC

Bassett Town logo
Did you intend to licence the logo under a creative commons licence? By doing so you are permitting anyone to use the logo for any purpose anywhere - including making commercial use of it. So for example if someone wants to market replica shirts and stick the logo on them, you've lost any rights to try and charge them for doing so. Nthep (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well if you weren't being so difficult and deleting the copy of the logo that was being shown for months without issue then that wouldn't have happened!!! I take it that action can't be revoked! StsmedleyRWBTFC (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * which logo? If you mean File:Royal Wootton Bassett Town FC logo.png then that presumably had the same issue. Sticking with File:Royal Wootton Bassett Town F.C. logo.png which someone uploaded only under free-use and therefore very limited re-use was done deliberately to protect the club's commercial interests.  It's possibly not too late to rectify things as you've tagged your own upload as non-free which will probably get it deleted. Nthep (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And you can't link from Wikipedia to an externally hosted image, even on your own website. If you want the club logo in the article then the only way is via the fair-use image that was uploaded earlier today.  Nthep (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What suddenly made the version that was on the site a few days ago suddenly unacceptable? The previous image, which now appears to have been deleted, was added by the Club's press officer so it is ridiculous that it is now really difficult to get a high quality version of the logo on wikipedia. Any chance you can outline what the correct process is for granting permission for the SVG version of the logo to be used? StsmedleyRWBTFC (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have added a new high quality svg version here: File:Royal Wootton Bassett Town F.C. logo.svg. It is now in the club's infobox on its article. It is hosted locally on Wikipedia using a license that protect's the club's intellectual property. The old version on Wikimedia Commons was deleted as Commons cannot host non-free media. Wikipedia can host non-free media locally under a fair use license, so there is no need to release the logo under a creative commons licence.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also to note, the correct procedure for uploading non-free media is to use the forms at WP:Upload and select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use", rather than using Wikimedia Commons. Cheers,  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * To answer the question "What suddenly made the version that was on the site a few days ago suddenly unacceptable?", nothing made it suddenly unacceptable but simply no-one noticed it until a few day ago. Nthep (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It had been there for over a year and was uploaded by a representative of the club the day the new logo was unveiled so it never really was unacceptable use. Thankfully a high quality image that does the club justice is now there and will hopefully stay.StsmedleyRWBTFC (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)