Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Firefox logo.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
There is already a better version: Image:Firefox.svg. Sorry. Erina 07:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note that Image:Firefox.svg is requested for deletion further down. /Lokal_Profil 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep
Delete No matter where I go, any attempt to use this image requires a argument, which is not what I intended. I uploaded this image with the intent of improving Wikimedia, and it seems to have done just the opposite. When I edit the page this image was intended to be part of, which I have done twice now, it gets reverted. I don't agree with this, I just have to accept it. I won't be uploading and PD images for a while, this has been too stressful. Hopefully, I will cool off soon. Also, hopefully the next time I upload a PD image, it actually helps the project. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused, Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)- Keep per Shardsofmetal. This is a valuable image that is in the public domain. There is no reason for its deletion. Deyyaz 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because Image:Firefox.svg is a copyvio. TZM de:T/T C 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; if Image:Firefox.svg is a copyvio, so is this. Besides, logos have no encyclopedic use and therefore fall outside Commons's scope. Angr 07:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Logos have no encyclopedic use? You mean in the same way as say state emblems and flags have no encyclopedic use. /Lokal_Profil 12:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- State emblems and flags symbolize their countries, cities, or whatever. Logos are just a form of advertising. Wikimedia isn't paid to do companies' advertising for them. Angr 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- How is a logo in an article about a company/program more advertisment then say a state emblem is advertisment for that state in it's article. If the company/program is deemed to have encyclopedic importance then the logo (if free) is just as important for identifying the company as a flag is for a country. /Lokal_Profil 16:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- States and cities are public entities, not privately owned corporations. There is still a difference between the two. Angr 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not in encyclopedic importance. Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- States and cities are public entities, not privately owned corporations. There is still a difference between the two. Angr 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- How is a logo in an article about a company/program more advertisment then say a state emblem is advertisment for that state in it's article. If the company/program is deemed to have encyclopedic importance then the logo (if free) is just as important for identifying the company as a flag is for a country. /Lokal_Profil 16:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- State emblems and flags symbolize their countries, cities, or whatever. Logos are just a form of advertising. Wikimedia isn't paid to do companies' advertising for them. Angr 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong on both accounts. This image is NOT a copyvio. It is a public domain image, and it is different enough from the original image to be considered a different image. And by the way, logos help people identify a company, piece of software, etc., making them encyclopedic. If you think that this logo should be deleted because it isn't encyclopedic, then you must believe that every logo, even the Wikimedia and Wikipedia logos, should be deleted. Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- How can Image:Firefox.svg be a copyvio without this also being a copyvio? They're practically the same image; certainly close enough for this to be considered a derivative work. As for the Wikimedia and Wikipedia logos, they can be used on pages belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation all they like, just as the Coca-Cola company can put its logo on its own web pages. But indeed the Wikimedia and Wikipedia logos shouldn't be used in encyclopedia articles about Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Angr 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Firefox.svg is copyrighted, this isn't. That is how. And by the way, the images are similar enough that you know what this image represents, but they are still quite different. This image lacks a lot of the detail that the actual Firefox logo has. Imagine an artist painted a picture of a photograph of a person they saw. The painting clearly looks like the person, but is clearly different than the photo. The photo was copyrighted. Would you tell that artist that his hand-painted picture is a copyvio? Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, for exactly the same reason that a photograph of a painting or sculpture is subject to the original copyright of that painting or sculpture. Please read Commons:Derivative works. Angr 07:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- So Andy Warhol's painting of a Campbell Soup can is a copyvio? Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 14:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- The design of the Campbell's soup can might not meet the threshold of originality needed to make it copyrightable in the first place (unlike the Firefox logo which does), but even if it does, Warhol's use of it was certainly sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use. Our use of logos here, however, isn't transformative at all, and anyway, Commons policy excludes "fair use". Angr 21:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Which is why I found a public domain image to illustrate the logo. If you really think this image is a copyvio, then maybe you should consider notifying the Open Clipart Library. If they remove the image from their site, I will change my vote. Otherwise, I'll assume that the consensus agrees that this image is not a copyvio. Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Has anyone considered that firefox might themself have released this image as PD to "Open Clipart Library" so that it can be distributed with firefox (to be used as e.g. a shortcut) for software pakages who will only distribute entirely free material. As mentioned contacting Open Clipart Library or Firefox should solve the problem.
- On a side note, Campbell's soup can is a 3-D object so Warhol might have gotten around it that way. Also I don't know how old the design is, it might be PD-old. But most likely is that he simply didn't give a damn and neither did Campbell's (why should the, free publicity) so technically it is probably a copyvio. /Lokal_Profil 03:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Which is why I found a public domain image to illustrate the logo. If you really think this image is a copyvio, then maybe you should consider notifying the Open Clipart Library. If they remove the image from their site, I will change my vote. Otherwise, I'll assume that the consensus agrees that this image is not a copyvio. Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- The design of the Campbell's soup can might not meet the threshold of originality needed to make it copyrightable in the first place (unlike the Firefox logo which does), but even if it does, Warhol's use of it was certainly sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use. Our use of logos here, however, isn't transformative at all, and anyway, Commons policy excludes "fair use". Angr 21:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- So Andy Warhol's painting of a Campbell Soup can is a copyvio? Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 14:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, for exactly the same reason that a photograph of a painting or sculpture is subject to the original copyright of that painting or sculpture. Please read Commons:Derivative works. Angr 07:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Firefox.svg is copyrighted, this isn't. That is how. And by the way, the images are similar enough that you know what this image represents, but they are still quite different. This image lacks a lot of the detail that the actual Firefox logo has. Imagine an artist painted a picture of a photograph of a person they saw. The painting clearly looks like the person, but is clearly different than the photo. The photo was copyrighted. Would you tell that artist that his hand-painted picture is a copyvio? Shardsofmetal [ Talk ] 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- How can Image:Firefox.svg be a copyvio without this also being a copyvio? They're practically the same image; certainly close enough for this to be considered a derivative work. As for the Wikimedia and Wikipedia logos, they can be used on pages belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation all they like, just as the Coca-Cola company can put its logo on its own web pages. But indeed the Wikimedia and Wikipedia logos shouldn't be used in encyclopedia articles about Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Angr 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Angr is correct; this image clearly is a derivative work, and the reduced detail doesn't change that. The Open Clipart Library has no right to release it into the public domain or under any open license.
The Mozilla Foundation has not released the image into the public domain. (See their logo usage policy.) For distribution in free software packages, they've tri-licensed the Deer Park globe (a version without the fox) under the Mozilla PL, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL. Even that isn't in the public domain. —David Levy 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well if we are sure the "Open Clipart Library" are wrong about the license of this image then the decission is easy. Delete /Lokal_Profil 10:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted because of Mozilla's usage policy, it can only be used noncommercially. --Kjetil_r 16:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
