Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png

< Commons:Deletion requests
First nomination 24 August 2011 − kept
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.

File:Facebook_like_thumb.png

edit

Not simple shapes. // Sertion 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:( Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No copyrighted file who is used in several pages. Béria Lima msg 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination 6 February 2012 − kept
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.
Facebook thumbs

The Facebook Like botton is copyrighted by Facebook and we cannot use it without their permission. As per their licensing statements, they grant usage rights only to specific applications, reuse for other purposes is not allowed. Also, this is not a "simple" geometric shape, as mentioned in Common's description, but an artwork. Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sez who? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The design of these icons is much beyond what could be counted as simple geometric shapes or such, they may be small, but they are artworks. It would be okay to design our own new thumbs-up / thumbs-down icons, however, copying and using the icons designed by Facebook is clearly a violation of their copyright. Actually, this is not a matter of if we like it or not (no pun intended ;-), but a matter of (international) copyright law. And a rather clear case.
Here is some information in regard to how Facebook wants their design to be used: [[1]]. Last year heise.de reported of legal actions against people who used the Facebook Like button in a context different from that allowed by Facebook, for example, as a local copy/passive link instead of Facebook's web-bug/scripted solution. (The background is that Facebook uses the Like button to track users not only when they visit Facebook, but also when they visit the third-party site. They don't need to click the icon for this, however, this doesn't work with passive links, of course.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, they seem to have a difference picture for the thumb on the page you linked above. Note the appearance of a button or something on the sleeve, near the hand, a curved thumb, and clearly defined knuckles where the fingers curl. Killiondude (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's strange. But when you look further down on that page, you'll find examples using the same icon as discussed here.--Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think, it depends on how well designed or distinguishable it is. It certainly does not depend on the size of the image, although there's a natural limit when it becomes unrecognizable. As we see, 16x16xcolor-depth is still large enough to clearly recognize it, whereas 8x8x1 would most probably be too small. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the Wikimedia logo is copyrighted, so a miniature representation of it is copyrighted as well (for as long as it is still recognizable, and your example certainly is). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But is it creative enough? Seriously, is it? — Isarra (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, yes, it is. And the WMF seems to assume the same, otherwise they wouldn't claim copyrights for the Wikimedia logo. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portions below have been moved here from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png; their fates are intertwined. Killiondude (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep This not only a very simple shaped icon, it's also not an invention by facebook. Thumbs up/down icons/symbols are known for a very long time. Just changing some shapes or using colors does not generate a new copyright. --Denniss (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's not that easy. The design of these icons is much beyond what could be counted as simple geometric shapes or such. They may be small, but they are artworks. It would be okay to design our own new thumbs-up / thumbs-down icons, however, copying and using the icons designed by Facebook is clearly a violation of their copyright. Actually, this is not a matter of if we like it or not (no pun intended ;-), but a matter of (international) copyright law. And a rather clear case.
Here is some information in regard to how Facebooks wants their design to be used: [[2]]. Last year heise.de reported of legal actions against people who used the Facebook Like button in a context different from that allowed by Facebook, for example, as a local copy/passive link instead of Facebook's web-bug/scripted solution. (The background is that Facebook uses the Like button to track users not only when they visit Facebook, but also when they visit the third-party site. They don't need to click the icon for this, however, this doesn't work with passive links, of course.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: this symbol is neither new nor original artwork by Facebook. Therefore it's not eligible for copyright protection although it may be restricted via trademark (missing tag added to one image). --Denniss (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific, please? Who used this specific icon (not some other thumb-up/down icons) before Facebook? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portions above have been moved here from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png; their fates are intertwined.

  • Delete. Why do we recognise these two specific images? Anyone who is familiar with Facebook will recognise them specifically as the thumbs-up and thumbs-down images that Facebook uses. Since they're pictures, not pieces of text (unlike other easily recognisable files, such as File:The New York Times.svg), and since we can easily recognise them specifically as the images from Facebook, they're sufficiently distinguishable from other thumbs-up and thumbs-down images. Pictures that are easily recognisable as being from a specific source are original enough for copyright protection. As well, unless I'm missing something, we're using these trademarked images in ways completely unrelated to their trademark holder. It's my guess that this kind of usage is trademark infringement, so even if these images are kept, they should be deleted and immediately uploaded under a new name (or moved without redirect) to get rid of their use in a manner not consistent with trademark law. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, but the icon in general is a common symbol, even if it is recognisable for a thingy. Aren't there a lot of common but recognisable symbols in a category of the things somewhere? I don't actually know, mind. I GO TO MY CORNER NOW. — Isarra (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "common symbol"? Something like a stop sign, a play button, a traffic light symbol, or such? While I am not personally aware of them, it is likely that someone used thumbs-up or thumbs-down symbols before Facebook. But we are not talking about some generic images, but specifically those designed and used by Facebook (and uploaded here without their permission). We are free to design our own thumbs-up/down icons, but not to use someone else's work without permission. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The image is currently sourced to fdcdn.net which is owned by Facebook, consequently the description of this icon is misleading and should, perhaps, read "Facebook thumb" rather than "Facebook like thumb" and it is clear that this was not a separate creation by anyone apart from a web designer employed by Facebook. In this case, this graphic is an element of their copyrighted interface design and is highly likely protected under their standard US based copyright statement. The precautionary principle applies here. --Fæ (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one debated the fact that it's sourced to Facebook itself. No one debated that someone from Facebook probably made it. "Copyrighted interface design" might sound eloquent but makes little actual sense. This is a thumb pointed up. Rather than pointing out red herrings, the question that needs debating, as MZMcBride succinctly summarized is "does creating a very small image of a thumbs up gesture constitute any actual creativity?" Killiondude (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would cover that point by the precautionary principle already referenced. There is enough serious doubt here for that policy to apply. The thumbs up icon is highly recognizable as Facebook webdesign and unless someone can point to a series of examples of freely released thumbs up icons that look remarkably similar, that have not be copied or re-engineered from Facebook's own website, there seems to be a far too weak rationale for keeping this icon. Checking the icon usage, this appears to be only used by people on their user pages to link to their Facebook accounts, a fact that would seem to demonstrate that the icon is highly recognizable as Facebook property. If anyone really wants to pursue the case here, perhaps they could remove doubt by checking with Facebook to see if they can clarify this particular icon's copyright status. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If someone really wants to keep these two icons, ask Facebook for permission first. However, I'm quite sure I already know their answer, given that the Like and Dislike templates use these icons in a generic way without any connection to Facebook. As I pointed out above, at least in Europe Facebook has already taken legal action against people who used their icons in ways not allowed according to their license agreement, including using the Like icon in passive links to Facebook instead of the active script variant provided by Facebook. The reason is that users visiting any pages which have Facebook's Like button script incorporated can be tracked by Facebook simply by opening the third-party page in a browser - without clicking on any buttons and without even noticing that a seemingly unrelated page like Facebook collects profiling info about them (this does not work for passive links, which require users to deliberately click the icons, and this is why Facebook does not want third-parties to use passive links). This is nothing we should take lightly, as Wikipedians certainly don't want to be tracked by Facebook when visiting Wikipedia.
My suggestion: I personally don't see why we need these Like/Dislike templates and icons at all, but if someone really want to use them, let's design our own icons unrelated to the Facebook ones and we should be on the save side. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe whoever the cartoonist of File:Angry Wikipe-tan.png is, could draw wikipedia-specific illustrations of the cartoon character giving the up / down signs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Too simple to be eligible for copyright, also a case of prior art (Facebook didn't design the thumb nor the hand). --Denniss (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Facebook thumbs (third nomination)

These three four files are a clear imitation of Facebook's 'like' thumb. It is not simply a matter of asserting "simple graphics − ineligible for copyright". First, they arent that simple, second there is also the issue of choice of colors, four (or is it five?) nuances of blue that, again, is a clear attempt to give it the "Facebook look". When I add to this the way it is implemented on several templates on the English-language Wikipedia, see e.g. w:Template:Like, the plagiarizing becomes, at least to me, ostentatious and blatant. Others may want to confirm that this practice is ubiquitous across the projects that transclude these files by following the inter-language links on that template..

I suppose it could be argued that the infringement doesn't start until the transcluding templates employ the images, adding amplifying effect to recreate the Facebook feel, but I would argue that even these images themselves, no matter how few pixels they have, are the core of the problem.

This is the third nomination of the first file, second for the second file (and first for the third file, which is a vector version of the first, + the fourth). The first nomination, in June 2011, didn't even discuss the copyright issue. In the second, in February 2012, the opinions were clearly divided, but the discussion was not as extensive as it could have been. Thus this re-nomination. __meco (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (Fourth file added to nomination. __meco (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep - The arguments for deletion two months ago were bogus, and they still are. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this appears to be an exact copy of the Facebook like thumb from the page background, e.g. https://s-static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v1/yr/r/UoiWcNiokdd.png . (As displayed on the page it has a faint blue background which is absent here, I think, due to transparent pixels) There are several spots where the line zigzags via intermediate-value pixels, and these are exactly the same in this image. I don't know what the minimum number of pixels to be copyrightable is, but this is an exact copy of a 13x12 area. With it labelled as "Facebook like thumb" and used to appropriate what might be called valuable Facebook IP, i.e. the Like function, to Wikipedia ... I think this might not be a good idea. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks ok to me. I don't want this image to be  Deleted from WMC. 189.70.92.232 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous times these images were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, the images that were nominated for deletion by Meco here on Wikimedia Commons do not even appear to be the same images nominated on Wikipedia. What gives with that? How can we have a "centralized discussion" when we are discussing two different sets of images? Procedurally, how does this "centralized discussion" work? How can a WikiCommons TfD be binding upon a different image in a separate TfD on Wikipedia? And contrary to the assertion above by the nominator, the copyright rationale has been repeatedly addressed on both Wikipedia and WikiCommons, but the nominator glosses over that fact by saying that this "rationale is a different." I am prepared to call this a "bad faith" nomination, an obvious attempt at forum shopping to achieve a different TfD result, and a violation of the previous consensus that was reaffirmed only two months ago on Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all three, as well as the derivative File:Facebook-like-button.png. Although the concept of "thumbs-up" as a sign for liking something is not copyrightable, a particular representation of that idea is. Prior discussions seem to have focused (wrongly) on the small size of the image, but I think size (resolution) is only relevant if you're considering a fair-use claim, which is out of the question here at Commons. Our question should be whether the image is suitably original to garner copyright protection (I think probably) and if so, whether these images are similar enough to the one used by Facebook to infringe (definitely). cmadler (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm. Not exactly. Size is relevant to the idea of whether something is creative enough to be copyrightable. (I can use italics, too!) I don't see "infringement" as a particularly compelling argument, otherwise we wouldn't have these (and all the rest in their respective categories). Also, lol @ "similar enough to the one used by Facebook". It's sourced to Facebook! Killiondude (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I added that one to the nomination also, no reason to leave it out of the discussion. __meco (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The rationale that these images are too small to attract copyright is not just doubtful, but raises significant doubt. Per Threshold of originality, there is no minimal pixel size defined for the threshold, these icons are immediately recognizable, they are not simple geometry, and there is no doubt that there was significant creative talent in their original production. It remains my opinion that these should be removed per precautionary principle until someone confirms the status of these images with Facebook or has more appropriate advice from a credible council that can extend our definitions under the current threshold of originality casebook. --Fæ (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we're being all pseudo-lawyerly: all of this is easily refuted with the phrase "prior art". The icons that facebook uses are not original art.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point out the priors and explain where they touched a progenitor nature? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They've tried, and failed, to trademark the whole button in several states, but I've never seen anything in a reliable source about a copyright, especially not of the thumb itself. A hand with a thumbs up is a very common image, and is widely used (YouTube uses it, for example), so I can't see how Facebook could possibly succeed in establishing an enforceable copyright over it. They don't appear to claim copyright over it anyway (their having enough trouble getting "face" and "book" copyrighted anyway), so this all seems rather unnecessary. Let's address this when there's anything more then a suspicion that there might be a problem.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of this failed copyrighting background, possibly as I don't live in the USA. Could you point to somewhere I can read about it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohms law: the concept of the thumbs-up as a symbol for liking something is not copyrightable, but a particular image to represent it is. That's why, although YouTube also uses the thumbs-up to indicate that a user likes a video, it is not the same thumbs-up image used by Facebook. We can also host any number of thumbs-up images here, as long as they are not the same as those used elsewhere. cmadler (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason(s) why YouTube chose the icon they chose is neither here nor there. And we can host any number of thumbs-up images here as long as they are free. We happen to have a lot of content used elsewhere! Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I would still like to see some evidence of Facebook attempting to copyright this image and failing, in order to help make a determination if there is significant doubt here or not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you read Ohms' post again you'll see he made no claim about attempts to copyright the image but rather trademarking it. [3] (rather old article) They're also trying to trademark uses of the word "face" and "book" (and it seems they've gotten "face"). [4] In all, trademark doesn't really matter in the context of whether it can be kept on Commons. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also support being safe rather than sorry: if we need to have a "Like" (and/or "Dislike") template around, then let's create our own thumbs-up and thumbs-down symbols and make the Like/Dislike templates a little different looking. There is nothing that I am aware of that says we have to ripoff Facebook's Like button, right down to using the exact Facebook thumbs-up image, copied from Facebook's servers.
—{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 07:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Kept no new arguments of value have been brought up. --Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Facebook_like_thumb.png&oldid=74095775"