Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 September 11



File:Atlantic City 'Do AC' logo.svg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Kept as PD-Textlogo Trademarked. Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Atlantic City & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Trademark violation. This logo is not in the public domain as was falsely claimed by original uploader. Per the United States Patent and Trademark Office this logo is registered Serial Number 85940491 see here for full details from the USPTO. Therefore this logo should be removed from Wikipediia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The link provided doesn't work, but that's relatively unimportant. What is more important is the distinction between copyright and trademark. An image being in the public domain is a statement as to its copyright and is unaffected by its registration as a trademark. Copyright restricts a file from being used at all, save for fair use (in the US) and possibly a couple of related small exceptions. This file is in the public domain because it is too simple to attract copyright in the US, which is a conclusion I support. Trademark prevents a file from being used in relation to various uses related to the business that the person registering the trademark is in. Some of these can be quite wide, but use on Wikipedia is almost always compliant if the file is being used in accordance with out policies, such as avoiding any suggestion of endorsement. If you feel the file is being used contrary to the trademark, then you can explain why. We have a template, Trademark, which warns re-users of Wikipedia's files that their uses might not be trademark compliant and this should be added to the file page, although in any case it is re-user's responsibility to ensure that their re-use is compliant. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO a registered trademark is used to protect a mark from misuse and without permission which clearly is this case, The uploader has not gotten permission from the trademark owner to use it and certainly something that is a legally registered trademark is not and cannot be in the public domain unless it was legally released by the trademark owner. Public domain is defined as something that is not registered either as copyright or a trademark and was made for public use without restriction. Because its a registered trademark it is not public domain. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the template I mentioned is to remind users that the file might be a registered trademark. It is registered for the use of "printed and electronic periodicals in the field of tourism in and around the Atlantic City, NJ area; Printed and electronic brochures, pamphlets, maps, show displays, etc. in the field of tourism in and around the Atlantic City, NJ area; Printed and on-line business directories featuring hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and attractions in and around the Atlantic City, NJ area; Promotional merchandise; Promotional merchandise including [list folllows of typical mechandise products like T-shirts]". Its use on Wikipedia does not conflict with the trademark's use in any of those areas and consistent with its registration as we would expect given that the use here is in association with the registree itself. Our articles on MacDonalds and so forth also use registered trademarks to identify the product. I'll add the template to the file page later. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The assertion that trademarks cannot be in the public domain is not correct. The logos of Google, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola, for example, are public domain and trademarked. The concepts are separate.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Trademarks are irrelevant to us per Commons:COM:NCR. However, this is an SVG version of the logo. Per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., some SVG versions of simple logos are copyrightable as computer software. I'm not sure if the SVG source code is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable here. If that is the case, then the image is unfree as the person who wrote the source code didn't provide any licence for it, and in that case, the file violates WP:NFCC as someone else could make an alternative SVG adaptation of the same logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment doesn't the logo itself (ignoring the SVG issue) fall below WP:TOO ? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The logo itself is clearly below the threshold of originality of the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this There is an argument above that having this here is a trademark violation. That is not a valid argument; copyright is discussed here and trademark status is something different. I just tagged this image with template:PD-textlogo. It is also tagged with template:Non-free logo, and since these two tags are in conflict, someone should remove one of them. This image falls below the US's definition of WP:TOO and since the logo is in the United States, I say that it is public domain. Yes, it is trademarked, but that is not relevant. This file should also be moved to Commons as public domain material - it is not merely fair use here.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Screenshot from documentary.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Screenshot from documentary.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * File name implies this is a screen shot. Eeekster (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Diorios Logo.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Diorios Logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Logo artwork for a community, Not necessarily uploaders Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.