This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Re-creating a copyrighted logo using MS Paint cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. RedCoat 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Naturally as creater of the image, I am opposed. We have Image:Republican Party Logo.PNG, on commons. Maybe I'm confused with copyright, how substantially different does an image have to be to break the copyright? -- penubag 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is known as the threshold of originality. Since a replica of a logo cannot attract any new copyright, reproductions of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself. RedCoat 11:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I suppose there's a lot more deleting to do then...
--> vios this, 
--> this, 
--> this, or these w:image:Ninty WiFi.gif, w:Image:Met Prime.gif, maybe this one: Image:Nuvola apps mozilla-firebird.png. Those aren't particularly good examples, and there's a ton more, but I won't bother. These all violate the threshold of originality, but wikimedia generally just accepts it, I assume. -- penubag 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious reproduction (derivative work). Its purpose to play the role of the real republican logo its obviously suggested by its name. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. Derivative of a copyrighted work used mostly in a userbox template which is copyright infringement, as that is not a fair use case. -Nv8200p 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know... it's pretty far removed from the real logo. Remember Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/08#Image:Own windows logo.svg? It's been Commons policy to allow images like this and the ones penubag listed above. I almost said delete because it doesn't make sense to use a fake logo when illustrating it - fair use of the real one is preferable, however, I can see these fake logos being used on user pages and in things like article stub templates. If the community feels they are too similar maybe more alteration can solve the issue? →Rocket°°° 06:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely inputting a copyrighted image into image software and making a few changes to it is most likely not sufficient to acquire copyright for the creator of the new image. I would argue that this is akin to those persons who think that because they scan an image from a magazine into their computer, perform some image processing to improve color tones, etc., that they have somehow, magically, acquired a form of copyright that permits their (exlusive) use of the image on their webpages. — SpikeToronto 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above having been said, I cannot imagine either of the two major political parties ever objecting to a supporter using their logo on a webpage to illustrate that support! Thus, I could not imagine any litigation, let alone a cease-and-desist letter, ever being issued by either of the political parties arising from such use of their logos. — SpikeToronto 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of the image was just for userboxes, nothing more -- penubag 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as you can tell from my Comment, I actually wanted the image kept, but voted to delete because (a) it most likely is a copyright violation, and (b) the Democrat logos and the userboxes that link to them are under even greater attack for their removal. To me, fairness dictates that if use of one party's logo is a copyright violation, then so too is the use of the other party's logo. But, again, I could never imagine a political party objecting to the use of its logo by a supporter … — SpikeToronto 05:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the way, since it has been more than five days since this debate started and since the Delete obviously outnumber the Keep, shouldn’t this debate be (1) closed, and (2) the image deleted? — SpikeToronto 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I notice that the creator of this free-licence image has the elephant’s trunk in an upward position, while the non-free fair-use image has the trunk in a downward position. Would that not be enough to distinguish the image under debate from the official logo? If so, then I would like to change my delete vote to a Keep. — SpikeToronto 22:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason to delete. It is not a copyright violation, and it is in use at Wikipedia. Diligent Terrier 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reasoning behind those assertions? And being in use does not mean it conforms to the Commons licensing policy. RedCoat 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. These are clear and intentional copies of the original logos. The changes made (eg trunk in different position) are insufficient to escape infringement. MichaelMaggs 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
