Commons:Deletion requests/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel.png

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:Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel.png

Thi imge hs copyrighted logos, such as the snapchat logo. De miniimis ≠ small percentage of the image as a whole, but weiter or not they were included intentionally and f the image can be properly and fully represented even if the copyrighted elements are removed - making this image not de minims.
Imagine a newspaper having a whole page of text and image, but a small image at a corner of the page, even if that image is just a small part, and the rest of the page might be pulic domain images and text, hat image whould still be intentionally placed and framed there, and therefore not be de minimis. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a:

Can you say more about which elements of this image establish eligibility for copyright?

that image would still be intentionally placed and framed there, and therefore not be de minimis We have images throughout Commons showing the twitter bird, company logos, the avatars of people on social media, watermarks, and advertisments in the background. At Category:Screenshots of Twitter many of these things are visible. Do you feel that when these things appear in media then that is analogous to the newspaper putting a small image, like a logo, in the corner of the page? Website publishers always place all the visible elements like logos and avatars there intentionally, right? Is it usual on Commons to delete images which contain small copyrighted like logos and avatars?

if the image can be properly and fully represented even if the copyrighted elements are removed Can you confirm that the copyrighted elements you recognize are the logo art? I disagree that the copyrighted logos are necessary to fully represent this image. I can blur images like the twitter bird. The overall advertisement here can be fully represented without the copyrighted logo images, because most of the logos (of 33, all but 4-8) do not contain copyrighted art. (The copyrighted ones are the twitter bird, the snapchat ghost, maybe the clouds, and the airplane). Suppose that I blurred the logos - what more do you see in the image which could make it eligible for copyright?

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the copyright of this at the village pump. Over there here were the comments which people shared:

I would say that logos are de minimis and the layout and short text are below the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those logos are not copyrightable, and I think the overall presentation would support a credible de minimis argument for any that are copyrightable. Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De miniimis ≠ small percentage of the image as a whole, but weiter or not they were included intentionally and f the image can be prperly and fully represented even if the copyrighted elements are removed - making this image not de minims. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

~~{{Vd}} as a copyvio, COM:DM does not apply.~~ — Jeff G. ツ 20:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G. Can you comment on which part of the image is a copyvio? There are 33 logos here and 4-8 of them are copyrighted art, like the twitter bird. If the twitter bird and similar where blacked out, then are there other elements still remaining which establish this entire image as copyrighted? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Copyrighted logos I recognize: Phone, Skype, Apple iMessage, Video, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Pinterest, YouTube, Netflix, Google Play Music, GMail, Yahoo!, Google Drive, Amazon, and Apple iCloud. It is probable that some of them are not below COM:TOO, the burden of proof that they all are is on you, the uploader, per COM:EVID. — Jeff G. ツ 15:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G. Here are some of those logos, already on Commons and already reviewed as ineligible for copyright.

YouTube
Skype
Tumblr
Google Drive
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Gmail
Amazon.com
Google Play Music
Yahoo!
Netflix
Pinterest

I confirm that the Wiki community recognizes copyright for some of these, like the twitter bird and snapchat ghost. However, whereas you see ~20 copyrighted logos, I see 4-8. I would like to keep this image in some form. I could black out some logos because I think the image is effective even without logos like the twitter bird, because almost all of the logos can remain. However, if the image can have blacked out logos, that might be a de minimis rationale that if parts can be blacked out anyway, then maybe they can remain. If I am going to black out logos then I would like to get some confirmation first of which ones to black out. I would like to be on the same page that at least logos on Commons are not subject to copyright. 5 of these are very like Category:Cloud icons and 2 are like Category:SVG handset icons, and although they are different, I feel like one cloud or phone is very much like any other, and I would want to get some opinions on whether what I see as slight variations on that concept need to be cut. Besides all of this there could be a claim of copyright due to layout, or saying that that a list of major social media platforms is a copyrighted concept, or any other thing. I can do the image editing but before I do, I would like to be aligned with someone else about what parts of this image are copyrighted. Do you still feel that all the logos you listed are under copyright? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

Jeff G. You said, "the burden of proof that they all are is on you, the uploader" and you are correct. I should provide all the evidence which will be necessary to include on the file page. Here are all the images with links to wiki and notes about copyright:

Messaging
1. WhatsApp
2. Skype
3. Viber
4. Hangouts
5. iMessage
6. Facetime
Social
1. Facebook
2. Instagram
3. Twitter
4. Snapchat
5. Facebook Messenger
6. Tumblr
7. LinkedIn
8. Pinterest
Video
1. YouTube
2. Netflix
3. Periscope
4. Twitch.tv
Music
1. Spotify
2. TuneIn
3. Google Play Music
4. Soundcloud
Email and Cloud
1. Gmail
2. Yahoo! Mail
3. frog from SAPO
4. Google Drive
5. One Drive
6. Amazon Cloud (Amazon logo without cloud) ?
7. iCloud
Meo
1. Meo Music
2. Meo Cloud
3. Meo Go
4. Meo Drive

Again, Twitter and Snapchat are the most likely candidates for copyright. Others could be the airplane as #3 under email and that car as #4 under Meo. In Commons there are already logos of clouds and phones which are similar to these, so that is a few more. Not all of these logos are in Commons but I could sort this more. update - sorted, more identified and linked I hesitate because I want comments on what about this image establishes copyright. I appreciate what you have said so far; now that I have demonstrated that most of the images are public domain, does that change any part of your answer? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Thanks for commenting at the iMessage thread in the undeletion forum. For context, I am reviewing the logos of many of the top web based businesses here in this larger image. As you suggested, I would like to connect this conversation to a consensus on simple geometric but trademarked logos from the big companies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded more logos I requested copyright review at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Review_requested_-_company_logos. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be OK if you replace Twitter & Snapchat. — Jeff G. ツ 20:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: They are removed. Any other guidance? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry:

Keep, thanks. @Josve05a: , are you satisfied? — Jeff G. ツ 16:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I think currently ...Some of the logos are below TOO (hence already uploaded on Commons), but the composition in this image of having them all next to eachother, grouped by categories, makes me want to say that it is a "new" work which have copyright (I haven't looked in to that possibility in the source country as of yet; letters by themselfs aren't copyrighttable, butput them next to other letters, and you've written a book. But, I'm currently absatining from !voting. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3

So it seems we have 1 Keep, 1 Abstain, and three posters whose postings could be read as keeps, but don't include that word. Clarification from @Bluerasberry, Ruslik0, and Kaldari, please. — Jeff G. ツ 22:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would go with Keep at this point. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just would like to add that keeping "count" of !votes is not a productive way to determine copyright status, but a way to keep track of consensus, or majority viewpoints. There's a reason we call them !votes, and not votes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking posters to phrase their posts as !votes, lest the closing Admin get lost in the sea of text. — Jeff G. ツ 01:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bluerasberry: What about blurring MEO logos? --Ruthven (msg) 08:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Thanks for asking. I know that I have not organized this discussion to make it easy.

I uploaded all of the other logos not already on Commons. After that, I presented them on the copyright village pump at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/11#Review_requested_-_company_logos. Normally the village pump for copyright has people who speak up with objections, but no one spoke out with objections in these cases. I think that everything except the snapchat ghost and twitter bird have supporting evidence of being cleared by Commons reviewers.

If you wish to raise an objection about any of these images then I would appreciate a deletion nomination on any of them. I would blur any that are controversial. Thank you a lot for talking this through. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: until other logos are evaluated as not free. Only deleted the unblurred version. Ruthven (msg) 13:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel.png

Contents