Template talk:PD-textlogo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

U.S. law quote[edit]

"Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations."[1]

Fred Chess 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Term of design patent?[edit]

From the template:

Logos can be registered as design patents for a copyright-like protection.

Should it be noted that design patents generally expire much sooner than copyrights? --Damian Yerrick () 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with "design patents" (vs. regular physical patents) but I think the trademark status is more important because it can be just as restrictive and never expire. - Rocket000 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Text logos[edit]

Is there any obligation of creating an svg version of Google, Flickr and such..? Yuval Y § Chat § 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Flickr should be fine, but Google's letters are too stylized to be ineligible. - Rocket000 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Stylized text logos[edit]

This templete is accepted for a stylized text logos? Some from they may be crafty to detect, for exemple if a logo based on non-latin alphabet (Greek, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic etc.) -- Sergey kudryavtsev 12:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If "stylized" means "artistically changed in a manner which allows full scope for individual creativity on the part of the person who devised the logo", then the answer is apparently not... AnonMoos 13:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PD-text[edit]

I'm thinking about creating a new template for simple text that isn't a logo. It would categorize into Category:PD text a subcategory of Category:PD ineligible. I would also have {{PD-textlogo}} categorize into that also (or create another category). This would greatly help organize Category:PD ineligible. Examples: A-circumflex.svg Additive time signature.svg Algeria1.svg Copyright.svg Cyrillic Y.png

So is this a good idea? Rocket000 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable... AnonMoos 22:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
But why the ellipsis? :) I see Lokal Profil just made Category:PD ancient script. Rocket000 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ellipsis? I created Category:PD ancient script because this template already existed and was a combination of PD-ineligible for the actual script and PD-self for the realisation of it. So I figured better with an own cat which can then be a subcat of both. PD-text would be quite usefull, would it also cover images like Image:A-5Spain.png? /Lokal_Profil 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to AnonMoos' "..." like he wasn't sure if it was good idea or something. I wasn't aware there was a template for ancient scripts already. And I wondered why you put it in PD-self. Rocket000 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant that it sounds like a good idea, assuming that there aren't any relevant legal difficulties (for example, in some cases, the arrangement and concatenation of uncopyrightable font character shapes can result in a copyrightable whole, and I don't feel personally too confident about knowing the exact point when the uncopyrightable transitions into the copyrightable...). AnonMoos 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Removed disclaimer[edit]

I've removed a questionable disclaimer added without edit summary, discussion or statutory/adjudicated support. The disclaimer asserted applicability of this template only to "off-the-shelf" fonts (typefaces) - an assertion seeming patently false and unsupported by Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer, among others; verbiage of "off-the-shelf", further, is imprecise and undefined as to be unworkable. While there may be instances when typographic ornamentation is so extreme as to surpass the utilitarian aspects of the typeface and render this template inappropriate, those cases, if any, may be dealt with on a case by case basis at their respective talk pages or a deletion discussion. A blanket assertion, however, that would preclude this template's use on non "off-the-shelf" typefaces, again, does not appear supported. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by "off-the-shelf" is that someone could put a corporate logo into a custom corporate logo font, but such a process of fontification would not somehow magically remove copyright from the corporate logo. If you quibble with the wording of the warning, then please discuss the matter here, but it -- or something very much like it -- is absolutely necessary, since previously people were claiming that such things as the E-bay logo (in all its multicolor overlapping glory) or the McDonald's arches fell under this template... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the assertion. It is false and not supported by copyright law. We can work out an alternative disclaimer, but we shouldn't leave up information that is simply untrue. The disclaimer was added without the support of consensus, statutes or adjudicated decisions. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude, if you have specific concrete ideas for improving or replacing the warning, then by all means bring them forth where they can be discussed -- but please DON'T simply delete the warning without offering any substitute or practical ideas for improvement -- since some form of strongly-worded warrning is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THIS PAGE (since this template seems to be naturally strongly liable to misuse...). AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
How very mature of you. I'll bring this up at the admin notice board. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how a strong worded warning is (-allcaps) absolutely necessary for this page. It is fairly clear, per elcobbla, the relevant laws, and the template, that there isn't a restriction on font that you say there is. There was no reason to add a replacement when removing that warning. giggy (:O) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but some such strong warning is in fact necessary, since this template is especially liable to constant misuse. It would help matters if Elcobbola would play a constructive role in offereing suggestions for the improvement of the warning -- instead of the purely negativistic and destructive role which he has pursued on this page so far... AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No part of the warning is true. How can I be expected to offer an alternative when your interpretation is entirely false? Posting misinformation is not constructive; removing it is. Your disclaimer (no community consensus to add it) has already caused collateral damage. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever -- if it's not true that abstract font glyph shapes are uncopyrightable in the United States of America insofar as they are functional or "utilitarian" (i.e. used for their textual value, rather than as purely decorative or symbolic shapes), then I'm way off base. If it is true, then I'm basically correct (though there could always be further clarifications and improvements). You haven't shown that it's not true in any specific or comprehensible manner. Let's just reduce the matter to one very specific question: Has any court ruling or subsequently passed law overturned the following classic statement of legislative intent? --
  • A "typeface" can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters. The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work" within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in section 101. -- H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Congress, 2d Session at 55.
If this interpretation of the law has been overturned, please provide specific documentation of it. If this interpretation of the law has not been overturned, then I see very little problem with the warning at the top of this page (though no doubt its wording could be improved in details). AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Two issues here. 1.) A warning isn't "absolutely necessary". Even if everyone misused this template it still wouldn't be necessary, but probably a good idea. Still, "being a good idea" is an opinion so treat it one. 2.) This is a talk page; everyone's entitled to their opinion. Don't remove other people comments, but also don't put comments out of chronological order (i.e. putting it at the top) or make them appear to be representative of the community. If some type of warning should go on the template page, doc page, or in the template itself, then do it, but agree first. (Personally I oppose any kind of warning. I think the template speaks for itself.) Rocket000 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the brief warning, a check-list of what conditions have to be met to use the template, or two lists of examples of what can and can not be covered by this template should be put on this and many other license pages. I also do not think this template speaks for itself. It does not mention which country of origin the image has to be from, and I assume not all countries have such laws. It should also mention and link to specific articles related to fonts and shapes, so we can read it by ourselves. I do not think template should be mentioning wikipedia pages which could be changing but such link should be listed in the warning/discussion below the template.--Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
License templates are not to educate you about how/when to use the template, but how/when to use the image. Rocket000 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Flowcharts[edit]

Hi, Would flowcharts meet the threshold to be copyrighted? Or would they be from copyright so that they can be included on wikimedia commons? OpinionPerson (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the flowchart. Copyright doesn't care what it is, but how original it is. If it's only a couple of basic shapes with plain text and arrows it should be ok. The correct template would be {{PD-ineligible}}, not this one. Remember that facts and ideas are not copyrighted only the expressions of them are. Sometimes it's hard to tell (and actually depends a lot on what country you're in) but if you're looking for an example, I would consider something like this ineligible, but not something like this. Rocket000 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it is only basic shapes with plain text and arrows. It is part of a PDF file which itself is copyrighted. The PDF file can be found here:

http://emofree.com/downloadeftmanual.asp . It is on the very last page of the PDF file. OpinionPerson (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Logos, public domain, move to commons[edit]

I would like to nominate the following logos to be moved to commons as they aren't unique, they are just geometric shapes and text:

Forgive me also, these are all on Wikipedia and I don't know how to make them link here in Commons. I'm sure there are a lot more logos, but rather than go excessive I wanted to list these examples first, then proceed from there. Username on Wikipedia is ejfetters. 74.204.40.46 06:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the links. In general, yes, to me those appear to be ineligible for copyright. They can be uploaded here manually, though changing the licenses on en-wiki (en:Template:PD-textlogo) would be a good first step. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What license should they have? 74.204.40.46 03:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-textlogo}}, but it seems someone over there is a little revert happy. I would just upload here first and then tag the ones on Wikipedia with {{ncd}} Rocket000 (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You (User:Daniel Case) are uploading PNG images to Commons under a .svg filename... please upload the actual SVG source ;-) I fixed a couple. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion on logos[edit]

Hi guys, I would like to use a number of transit logos on the article en:Comparison of rapid transit systems, however it war recently brought to my attention that some of them are copyrighted. After having looked at many that are marked with this template, I think it also applies to others. Since I have no experience with this, can you guys give me a second opinion. Thanks!

Cheers, sligocki (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure those would all be fine in the U.S, which does not allow copyright on letters (even customized, stylized versions). A simple gradient is not enough either. I don't see any pictorial elements in any of the above images. However, some (most?) of those are from non-U.S. countries, and I have no clue about the practices there (which can be very very different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's one I can't believe is covered by this:

Can someone in the know give an informed opinion on where this ends? The metallic "R" is, it seems to me, far beyond "simple geometric shapes and text". Right? Amalthea (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some clarifiation I did.[edit]

This template's text looked like it needed some clarification, so I clarified it a bit. Go see for yourself. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on en.wikipedia -- Commons people's input needed[edit]

There's a spirited discussion currently going on at en.wiki, at en:Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_46#Considering_Threshold_of_Originality_-_defining_a_tighter_line, as to

  • whether to define a more narrow, more strict bright-line test to allow as free under {{PD-textlogo}} only a narrowly-definable subset of images which it is absolutely certain are PD, and on a precautionary basis to mark everything else as non-free, even if it might be free; and
  • whether or not it is worth trying to seek expert legal opinion as to where any such line should be drawn.

Input from Commons people would be welcome, as it would be pretty much essential to have en-wiki and Commons aligned on this. Jheald (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Textlogos[edit]

What about automatically categorizing logos with {{PD-textlogo}} in Category:Textlogos? --Leyo 18:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Using a template to add a topic category is bad practice. Multichill (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
In principle I agree. However, in this case I wouldn't call the category a real “topic category”. What about adding Category:Textlogos to all tagged files by bot? --Leyo 14:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on Eurovision logos requested[edit]

Previously the English Wikipedia has treated logos for the Eurovision Song Contest as copyrighted and have only uploaded them locally as non-free content, see for example w:File:ESC 2011 Germany.svg. However, recently users have started uploading Eurovision logos to Commons using this template. Since there are many such Eurovision logos that could potentially be uploaded here for every year of the content, I would appreciate confirmation that they are appropriate for Commons. Are these Eurovision logo uploads at File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg and File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg simple enough to not meet the threshold of originality? CT Cooper · talk 12:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Only thing for the U.S. I think is maybe the hand-drawn heart, but that is a stretch -- just a minor variation on a common symbol. The rest is centered letters. Germany actually has a much, much higher threshold when it comes to trademarked logos (see Threshold of originality#Germany), so I don't think it's an issue there either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think they will be okay as well. Thanks for your feedback. CT Cooper · talk 22:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-US law[edit]

Is the use of simple figures and text allowed in non-US jurisdictions? Remember commons is also used for other language versions than English (and even the English speaking world is wider than the US alone). SpeakFree (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

German speaking countries: yes. --Leyo 16:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the Japanese Copyright Law, yes. A well-known judicial precedent. Takabeg (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the Turkish Copyright Law, no. There is no legal basis. Takabeg (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

internationalization[edit]

I just noticed that most of the language sub-templates do not use {{PD-textlogo/layout}}, so changes to layout are not reflected. This should be fixed. --Jarekt (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What about PD-font?[edit]

How does this line up with template:PD-font, which says that SVG versions that contain just text are nonfree? I see quite a few SVGs tagged with this that are just text. And, in fact, I was considering uploading such an SVG myself.

(Personally, I think the case law is being misapplied, as it only applied to actual fonts and not to images, and only applies because the exact points were copied verbatim, which does not happen in SVG. But the point is that you have two inconsistent templates.)

Trlkly (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

PD-font is about bitmap font representations, which have some pretty solid case law as not being copyrighted. The law specifies "typeface as typeface" is not copyrightable; Congress has always been fairly definite about not granting copyright to typeface design (it was considered and explicitly rejected; there was even a failed international convention on the matter). That "typeface as typeface" phrase is a bit odd and not quite defined; however, modern computer fonts are considered computer programs and protected that way, since the 1980s sometime. The Copyright Office still maintained that kerning, hinting, and other non-outline materials in the font were the elements that elevated it to a program, and there were some court cases where fonts were converted from one format to another and renamed, which resulted in derivative works judgements. There is one court case however where someone took only the outline data from a font and used it to make a new one, and the judge ruled that not OK -- slightly at odds with the computer program vs typeface logic, but the judge felt that was too much out of bounds. However, generating a bitmap, then using that bitmap to trace vectors from, has been ruled OK I think (this is in the U.S.). So, courts do seem to allow typeface as software, or something like that, but definitely not bitmaps. It does seem clear that any *use* of a font, i.e. to be read as words or at least letters (say in a logo) should not be a problem, even vector ones. It does however get dicier when you are dealing with font example sheets, particularly ones which contain every glyph in the font, as that could be seen as a vehicle to be used to make a copy of a font -- bitmaps are on fairly safe ground, but vectors like SVGs are a lot more of a gray area. UK law is more explicit and I think similar, except I don't think they have the bitmap loophole -- if you use the elements of one font to create another, even going through bitmaps, that may be an issue. However, any usage of a font is fine; they are not infringing on the font. The UK sections of law are here and here.
In short, to me PD-textlogo is mainly for logos and other uses of fonts for their intended purpose (i.e. things where the letters mean something); PD-font is more for specially trading on the U.S. bitmap rulings when it comes to letters (and could also cover font example sheets, which are not really uses of the font). SVG font example sheets are something more of a gray area, I think, though still possibly OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, cool. That's actually what I thought. But I think that means that PD-font should be rewritten somewhat to be more clear. I also see it attached to files that should be either PD-textlogo or PD-text. In fact, such a case is the reason I brought it up in the first place: A JPEG file I am replacing uses PD-font when it's clearly a logo.
Thanks again for the information. I just hope we can figure out how to make that more clear to uploaders. Trlkly (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is probably some overlap ;-) A bitmap logo of nothing but letters from a font probably could use either tag, though PD-textlogo is probably better. They both come from different aspects of the same part of the law, I guess, so not too surprising. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I know about PD-textlogo and PD-font. Thanks :) and Thank you.:-)--182.12.49.180 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Usage issue[edit]

Should we make this edit? s/This image/The text or logo in this image/ The usage of this template at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coca-Cola_Glas_mit_Eis.jpg doesn't quite work. Other ideas? Make it context-sensitive? --Elvey (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)