Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:W3C SVG logos

< Commons:Deletion requests
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.

Files in Category:W3C SVG logos

edit

I might be wrong here but have decided to be bold after all. On https://www.w3.org/2009/08/svg-logos.html it is stated that "For-profit use of these logos REQUIRES permission from W3C. Please send requests to [email protected]." and "For commercial uses, such as selling stickers or t-shirts, you will need the explicit permission of W3C.". This seems to be contradictory to what's stated in {{Noncommercial}}: "Under Commons licensing policy, files must be published under at least one license which permits unrestricted commercial use."

Jonteemil (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: Good point, their license also restricts the extent of derivative works which is too restrictive for commons. On the other hand, PD-textlogo would likely be applicable per COM:TOO US, especially if the SVG symbol is considered derivative of an asterisk.--17jiangz1 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@17jiangz1: The question is whether it is COM:TOO US per W3C being based in the US or COM:TOO UK per "The SVG logo is based on a design by UK artist Harvey Rayner" (from the link) that applies.Jonteemil (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: Commons:Copyright rules defines country of origin as "defined by the Berne Convention", which per w:Berne Convention#Country of origin is the location first published, and is ambiguous as to how published location is defined with works first available online. This is a complex issue with multiple interpretations: in Kernel v. Mosley, online availability was seen as simultaneous publication everywhere in the world, in which the country with the shortest term of protection is defined as the country of origin. On the other hand, w:Moberg v. 33T LLC saw country of origin as the country the website of publication was associated with, which in this case would be the US. Furthermore, the International Literary and Artistic Association as come to a conclusion seen here that online works are not technically "published", which would make the first material publication of the SVG/W3C logos likely to be in the US by the W3C.
On the other hand, since the current SVG logo is only "based on" the design by the UK artist, if it is sufficiently different to be a separate derivative copyrightable work, the country of origin would be undeniably the US, and the debate over the country of origin for online works would be moot. But looking at the original contest entry, it seems that the similarity is too close to be considered a derivative. On another point, the Valid SVG logos should be sufficiently derivative from the original submission. --17jiangz1 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Here it says "The winning logo will be distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License", which although is more relaxed than the W3C Document License, Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses is not compatible with commons either.--17jiangz1 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These derivatives, although above TOO, are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA:
  1. File:Svg-edit-logo.png
  2. File:SVG-edit logo.svg
I agree that the button images are possibly above TOO US, given the stylised border and unique arrangement of PD elements. Although it seems like being above/below TOO is not necessarily cut and clear, given images like File:I heart my marine.png, File:JeetKuneDo.svg, and File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg with substantial styling are below TOO US, indicating the buttons might be below TOO. But the AA flight symbol seems conflicting in this regard, as it was ruled above TOO due to minor shading of a PD design. If they are above TOO, PD alternatives could be easily made.
File:SVG category subtree.svg is derivative by a commons user and released under PD license anyways, so TOO is not applicable here.
Regarding the copyright of the code itself, looking at the code, there isn't anything substantially creative or novel, nor are there any comments to indicate particular elements of originality, and if other designers were to vectorise the same logo, similar SVG code would result. Also see Help:SVG#Copyright; most past discussions have closed to keep.--17jiangz1 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@17jiangz1:
I agree with you.
I see the button images falling above your three below-TOO examples and below the AA symbol.
The below TOO images: The I ♡ my marine is a take off of I ♡ NY; it overlaps the I and adds some accents, so I think it is the most original of the three, but it does not seem clever or dramatic. The Yin-Yang symbol is PD, the curved arrows are interesting, but the text adds nothing. Avenue of the Saints is a common tombstone with fleur de lis (a symbol common for New Orleans) and some text; the only thing interesting is the font, but more or less standard characters will not help. (Compare the W3C logo that just suggest a C; take away W3 and it does not look like a C. That shows creativity.)
On the other hand, the AA symbols are creative. The 1967 and 2013 logos are mostly text, but they have a minimalist figures that cleverly suggest an eagle. That took creativity. The W3C logo only suggests the character C (letters are a small set); the AA logo suggests and eagle (a larger universe).
Glrx (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@17jiangz1: Who made those? Have the author the legal right to license them under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA?Jonteemil (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: For the two files with the pencil see the link to the open-source project.--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@17jiangz1: Have they the legal right to license them under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA?Jonteemil (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvey Rayner, the artist who made the basic SVG logo, described his logo as:
    My logo in its basic form represents 8 nodes connected by 4 lines rotated about a central point. This is a simple representation of key elements used in all vector graphics.
    See http://web.archive.org/web/20070227045958/http://svglogo.com/finalists.html (cited above).
    Rayner does not describe the image as an abstract "flower-like structure"; those are words used by W3C. His description uses simple geometric shapes.
    The additional outline shadow does not add much.
    So, from the artists own words, the SVG logo is below TOO.
    I've tried looking for more information about fonts not being copyrightable, but I have not found anything clear. To the extent a font is a functional object, it is not subject to copyright. But it seems that artistic characters may be copyrighted. W3C could well have a copyright in the "C".
    Glrx (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Clearly below US TOO, PD-simple applies. -FASTILY 08:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: Can you please prove that it is COM:TOO US that applies before voting.Jonteemil (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are plenty of examples in the link you just provided. I'm sure you can use your eyes and look, yes? -FASTILY 08:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold Wait till W3C change the licence of File:SVG_logo.svg to CC-BY-SA
Hi Johannes,

Thank you. W3C will agree to change the license for that image to: CC-BY-SA.

We will update our W3C page: https://www.w3.org/2009/08/svg-logos.html when the person who owns that page has returned.

best,
Amy van der Hiel 
Media Relations Coordinator
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 12:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: please also check the not ok version:
  1. Page 3 of https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/american-airlines.pdf
  2. those two signs https://web.archive.org/web/20190102061605/http://no-solicitors-sign.com/
  3. w:en:File:Prince_logo.svg
  4. w:en:File:Disney_Junior.svg
  5. logo at the end of page1 of http://web.archive.org/web/20180305012819/https://www.ipmall.info/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf
I would count them as counterexamples
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 13:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is a trademark, so it makes sense that they want to control for-profit use of it under the trademark law. But when we are talking about copyright, this is in public domain, unless something has drastically changed in the past month or so. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday there was a license-change see: https://www.w3.org/2009/08/svg-logos.html#LogoWithoutW3C

SVG Logo alone and with "SVG" (no W3C logo)

At your option, use is governed by either:

  1. The W3C Document License with the following exceptions:
    • Logo size, foreground, and background colors of the technology name MAY be modified without permission.
    • When these logos are used on the Web, attribution is REQUIRED using any of the following techniques (possibly in combination):
      • The "alt" text of the image must be "W3C SVG Logo", or
      • For the SVG version of the logo, using the original metadata provided by W3C in the logo souce code, or
      • The logo must link to the W3C Web site using the following URI: <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/>
    • In the case of attribution without using a link, the logos MAY link anywhere, but we suggest using <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/>

or

  1. The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. Attribution of the image should be "W3C SVG Logo.
— https://www.w3.org/2009/08/svg-logos.html#LogoWithoutW3C
@Jonteemil: If you agree I would close it as  Keep? (However some license-changes on description-pages might be still necessary.)  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JoKalliauer: I'm all for it! So funny to see that my DR resulted in a license change of the logos of a big organization :). It makes me laugh.Jonteemil (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JuTa: Please could you restore the files deleted by you with {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}, because they fall obvious under [2] and NOT [3]. Habitator terrae 🌍 16:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a non-conirmed OTRS received for more than a month. The ticket number was 2020090110005135. Please ask at Commons:OTRS noticeboard was was going on with ta ticket. regards --JuTa 16:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the OTRS wasn't needed because it is explicit stated on the website, that this is CC BY-SA 4.0. Habitator terrae 🌍 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please ask the OTRS stuff. As soon I get a confirmation from their site for undeletion I will do it. --JuTa 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the OTRS isn't needed, it is a case for {{Licensereview}}. But never mind, I do so. Habitator terrae 🌍 18:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JuTa: Habitator terrae is right. This an obvious case. The OTRS staff has other things to do. Please simply restore the files. Chaddy (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Why are we wasting everybody's time here? The licence is clearly displayed on the official site. OTRS volunteers are swamped, and we are asking them to take time to review an image that can be reviewed by a licence reviewer within less than a minute. It is a trivial case! ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to restore the 2 files now, but someone else was quicker. I hope the bot will not readd the {{OTRS received}} again. I'm currently busy going through the delinker log... --JuTa 22:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and passed the licences for those files that I could, as a licence reviewer, pass. There were a few that I believe are not passable by me, and somebody else needs to look closer if they are «SVG Logos and Technology Buttons that include "W3C"» or «SVG Logo alone and with "SVG" (no W3C logo)». And some I got confused, what do we do when we have CC-BY-SA 4.0 and another CC licence, is there a way that CC bump up? Do I record that the additional creativity in the file is under a different CC licence? I am talking about: File:Svg-edit-logo.png, File:SVG-edit logo.svg, File:Preview svg under linux.png, File:Gnome-vector-cleanup.svg, File:Gnome-vector-author.svg, File:Anti-SVG-edit.svg. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Been over a month with no activity. Any apparent consensus at all? DemonDays64 (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DemonDays64: With the license change to CC-BY-SA 4.0, it seems the consensus is  Keep. --Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree  Keep--Headlock0225 (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 01:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:W3C_SVG_logos&oldid=524904745"