Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 29



File:3FM 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: keep as is. — ξ xplicit  01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:3FM logo.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:NPO 3FM logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This logo is currently tagged as "PD-simple" but that scripture doesn't look like a generic font and more like something custom made/artistic, which would not be "simple" for the scope of copyright and one could claim copyright on it. Pinging seeing as they noted in WP:REFUND that the logo is not simple and  for being the requester of undeletion in that venue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added File:NPO 3FM logo.png, which has all the same problems. —Cryptic 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think these are too complex to be public domain for simplicity. But there is a very slim chance that the uploader owns copyright and can release. Without a response from the uploader, I think we have to regard these as non-free.  A FUR can be made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe one of these might be the same as File:3FM old.jpg that was deleted by back in July 2015. I think a valid non-free rationale could be written for the one used in the infobox as the primary means of identification, but not about the other. The two files are almost the same except for the additional NPO logo in one, so the same encyclopedic purpose can be served by using only one per WP:NFCC. The usage of the former logo would also need to satisfy WP:NFCC and any sourced discussion about it could probably also be probably be understoofd by seeing the NPO logo in the infobox, which means the former logo could be omitted without be detrimental to the reader's understanding. The difference between the two could be adequately explained in words, so seeing the former logo is not needed in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

For the same reasons, the Office cannot register a claim that is based solely on calligraphy because calligraphy is a stylized form of handwriting that is a mere variation of typographic ornamentation. Although calligraphy in itself is not copyrightable, a literary work, a pictorial work, or a graphic work that contains a sufficient amount of original authorship may be registered notwithstanding the fact that it is executed in calligraphic form.
 * If calligraphy isn't copyrighted, then I fail to see how this can be copyrighted. There seems to be a general rule in the United States that lettering is not copyrightable. This doesn't only seem to have to do with originality as also 'original' lettering seems to be ineligible for copyright protection.
 * The situation may be different in other countries. A good example of this is File:Aalborg Broncestøberi skrifttype A, B og D.png: a Danish court decided that two typefaces were above the threshold of originality while three other typefaces were below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These files are free contents in the United States but non-free or potentially non-free in its home country, the Netherlands, because the policy on copyrights of Commons is extraordinarily more restrictive. These files would most likely be deleted there. Wikimedia Commons only accepts files that are public domain or freely licensed in both the country of origin and the United States. In order for Commons to host a file, it must be free in its home country and in the United States. Some countries, particularly other countries based on common law, have a lower threshold of originality than the United States. It seems that these logos are in graffiti styles. I have verified each of these 2 files and I'm afraid we disagree on the complexity of these logos. They are all tagged under a free license. Cordially, XPanettaa (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Poster12x18 ds430 final.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 discussion was: convert to fair use. — ξ xplicit  01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Poster12x18 ds430 final.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a poster of a film. While the edit history (and block history) of the uploader gives credence to the "own work" claim, it may also be a editor working on the copyright holder's behalf who isn't the copyright holder. In short, this would need proof. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 29 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Poster3.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Poster3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a poster (with a bad filename) of a film, it seems like. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 29 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Two files

 * 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: delete. — ξ xplicit  01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Belouis Some.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Belouis Some2016.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Sourced to somewebsite without evidence that the website's contents are freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the summary on the file pages they come from http://belouissome.com/ which says "© 2015 Belouis Some | All Rights Reserved".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 29 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.