Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipedia logo Trump.png

File:Wikipedia logo Trump.png

License violation by not adhering to the Registered Trademark restrictions. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Visual_identity_guidelines#toc-donot and https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#policy-misrepresentation prohibit elements being added to the globe as well as misrepresenting an association with Trump. Both are prohibited as part of the licensing terms of the trademark. Since it's past 4/1 and this image is now live, it appears that WMF is supporting this use of their logo. If that is the case, permission will be needed. DHeyward (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Delete As Nominator. Violates WMF restrictions of trademarked images. It can be fixed but the current version is a violation of the terms of use set by the Registered template. --DHeyward (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep: The visual identity guidelines also prohibit many variations on the globe already found here, like the original gold globe we used as a template, and trademark law contains parody exceptions. The Wikimedia Trademark policy allows for their use to "Create artistic, literary, and political works" and specifically mentions "You may use the marks in satire or jokes." Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you may use the images, unedited, with the Registered restriction notice. read the rest of that section: "To avoid confusing users that your work is affiliated with the Wikimedia sites..." Your work is ON the wikimedia sites and affiliated with Wikipedia. How did you think the one sentence below it allows you to violate the restriction on association with Wikipedia (especially with no "satire" tag - this is satire, not parody)? Section 5.3 (the Prohibited section: When you use a Wikimedia mark under this policy, please use it to represent only the project for which it stands. "Please do not create the impression that your use is in any way endorsed, sponsored by, or is part of the Wikimedia Foundation" but you think Signpost creation and use doesn't violate it? How did you thing it lets you violate the Visual Identity Guidelines that if you deviate, you need a license (not going to happen since your creation is for signpost by Wikipedians hosted by WMF). Section 18: "Do not: Added elements Do not add shapes to the accepted mark" and they provided this nice picture where a shape was put over the mark. The big "10" over the globe. The big red line means "Don't put stuff over the globe." You could probably sufficiently repair it by moving the black box with "Trump" off the globe (out of the "Clear space" zone and putting the word "satire" and as finally "Not affiliated or representative of Trump or WMF." So fix it. Stop saying everything is always "okay" when it's clearly not. Registered trademarks are vigorously policed because failing to police them is an argument in courts. It's the only images with restrictions from WMF and ignoring the rules harms the project. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In Category:Wikipedia_logo_variants, there are many examples of "violations" which obstruct or alter the globe. They are clearly acceptable to Commons. Gamaliel (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep: Did you noticied that the Wikipedia logo is licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and the reason why exists {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}. Trademark restrictions does not matter, only Copyright does. As the CC-BY-SA license (Copyright) allows modifications, no copyvio in anyway, then, no valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed. It is problematic for WMF to host a Trademark violation and then try to defend trademarks in outside WMF. Leaving it opens the door for anyone to add a block box with text to the globe trademark. It's a trademark violation that Commons should be smart enough to recognize. --DHeyward (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, Trademark violation doees not matter, and the WMF will never request the deletion of this file even with a DMCA Takedown, since there is no Copyvio. The Wikipedia logo has been released under a free license, and nobody (even the WMF) can revoke the license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You think they made all that trademark stuff up for shits and giggles? Why do you think "R" template is carried with every WMF logo? It is not "free" in that sense. It has been released under a license with attribution restrictions as a CC-by-SA work which include reserved "publicity or trademak" rights. Read the terms of the license[1] . And no, they will just delete it as a WMF office action. It's stupid, though, for Wikipedia or Commons to let it get that far as it's a clear violation. --DHeyward (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep: Clear modification, for satire or parody purposes, well within the rules, modfications are allowed generally, and if anyone feels more material needs to be added to the licensing statements to clarify this, go for it. Montanabw (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are WMF rules for trademarked images. Move the black rectangle off the globe and outside the Clear space zone. Add "Satire" tag and disclaimer that it's not endorsed by either Trump or WMF. Not hard. --DHeyward (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

See above. Trademark != Copyright. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

See above. CC-by-SA != Public Domain --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, April Fools Day was several days ago. CC-BY-SA is met:

• Attribution: The Wikipedia logo is attributed to the WMF
• Share Alike: The logo is licensed under the same license as the original work.

So, I don't understand why you mentioned Publlic domain if the file meets the CC-BY-SA, therefore, there is no Copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Delete It was an unfunny April Fool joke at the best of times, and project space should not be used for this type of thing. It also has BLP issues, as it attempts to imply some sort of link between Jimmy Wales, Donald Trump and the Wikimedia Foundation. If you want to do this sort of thing, do it on your own web space. Wikipedia and Commons are not 9GAG or 4chan.--Ianmacm (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Commons is not 9GAG or 4chan, but the file is currently used in dozens of pages, therefore, it meets the Project Scope. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep. The file is in use on a Wikimedia project, and this specific use is covered by the "satire and jokes" clause in the WMF trademark policy. Andreas JN466 15:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Read above. It would be okay if it complied with the text box location and disclaimed affiliation with WMF and had "Satire" written on it. The rest of the policy applies too. --DHeyward (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I've read the trademark policy; if I thought it bore you out, I'd say so. This is a joke – one of many derived from the CC-BY-SA globe logo and hosted on Commons – not an extension of the WMF brand's corporate visual identity. If you are fundamentally concerned about derivatives of the CC-BY-SA globe logo that include graphic elements obscuring parts of the globe on visual identity grounds – and it's not my impression that you are – then you have much more work to do. Andreas JN466 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can anyone please point to the Commons rule about hosting content which could potentially be used in violation of trademark laws? Here is what I found.

• Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks
• Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#Trademark_law

I expect that everyone is in agreement that the copyright release is in order for this image. The typical Commons deletion discussion is about copyright, and as I understand, this deletion proposal is based on a rationale of trademark rather than copyright. How does Commons respond when someone says content in Commons can be used to infringe trademark law? Are there other reasons to delete? I might also be seeing these arguments -

• out of scope
• libelous / violation of English Wikipedia "biographies of living persons" rules
• there are special in-wiki rules for respecting WMF trademarks

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My only thought is how quickly this file would be deleted if instead of Trump, it said 'NAMBLA Makes America Great Again instead. Would that be accepted as satire? I'm no fan of Donald Trump but I think the fact that he is an arrogant buffoon is coloring some of the comments here. There could easily be an association that tarnishes the image of WMF that would unquestioningly be deleted and I wonder if giving this image a pass is setting a precedent that will be invoked for less savory associations. 50.242.28.67 20:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial fork. The image is a simple fork of "File:Wikipedia_logo_gold.png" which could be displayed instead with overlay text as, "TRUMP /wales" (etc.) to avoid storing a trivial fork image. Unless an image changes the non-text graphic content, or stores the data in JPEG format to improve the contrast resolution for general devices, it should be deleted as a trivial fork image. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: For what it's worth, I was the person who added the silliness -- Gamiel uploaded it for his April Fool's article in the WP:SIGNPOST. It was used on wikipedia as part of an April Fool's issue. Clear satire, and my read of policy was that it was to "Create artistic, literary, and political works" and used on-site (3.1: "You may use and remix the Wikimedia marks on the Wikimedia sites as you please.") Also, 3.6.3: "You may use the marks in satire or jokes. To avoid confusing users that your work is affiliated with the Wikimedia sites, it may be helpful to mark your work as "satire" or "parody."" (but not required) Finally, "To make it really easy to share knowledge, this trademark policy embraces all free-speech protections built into trademark law to the broadest extent possible." Satire is well-recognized as free speech. Montanabw (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Satire is actually meant to be funny. Don't give up the day job on the basis of this image. There is a long history of unfunny April 1 jokes on Wikipedia and this image is part of the proud tradition.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reply: Satire is usually funny only to those who understand it and agree with the general sentiment expressed. The subjects of satire generally don't find it humorous, and are often, in fact, outraged; that's another part of why it's funny. I am proud that WMF volunteers stand in the same tradition as the Boston Globe (archived). Montanabw (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Reply: I am British and have no views on who should win the 2016 US Presidential Election. I would be interested to know why a Wikipedia globe with the words Trump/Wales on it is funny though.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• You kind of have to be here, I'm afraid. But let's just say that we have two individuals noted to have very strong egos and go from there. I'll let others explain it to you. Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• In that case, I'm off to play http://stumptrump2016.com/ where you can kill Donald Trump (but not Jimmy Wales) by dropping a tree stump on him.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The concern isn't he use of the mark, it's the modification of the mark. Use of the marke is fine as long as it is unaltered. That's CC-by-SA supported. I can use the mark and say "Gamaliel is a Wikipedia Dick" as satire as long as it's not over the globe or implying that WMF supports it. This use violates the CC-by-SA license by placing text over the registered trademark. If it's not deleted, there is no restriction on implying Gamaliel is a complete douche-bag whether or not WMF approves that use. It's a "WMF approves this message" issue. Expect these images if this is okay. --DHeyward (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)