The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for the desired "binding solution". –Be..anyone (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion.
The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it.
There have been a large number of upload wars over whether or not football kit images should contain logos. See, for example, File:Kit body fcbarcelona0910a.png. The disagreement at issue seems to be one pitting accuracy of the design against copyright considerations. These upload wars tend to be slow - playing out over months or years - but often involve week-long spikes of several uploads. The principle agitators were warned to stop upload warring in 2012, and while most of them did, two did not, and were later joined by new upload warriors. In an effort to resolve this matter for good, this RfC has been started to ask "Should manufacturer, club, and/or sponsor logos be allowed in football kit images?".
Currently, there are five different options that are in use. These are shown, with examples, to the right. They are:
Manufacturer, club, and sponsor logos
Manufacturer and club logos
Manufacturer logo only
Club logo only
Right now, options 3 and 5 are the most common, probably in that order. Major clubs and national teams, however, tend towards options 1 and 2, and are where the majority of the edit wars have taken place. Option 4 is very rare, and many of the images using that option are national teams (note that the logos of many national teams are just as copyrighted as club team logos).
The intention of this RfC is to reach a binding solution that would apply to all kits, as opposed to the patchwork that exists today. Images that fall outside of the consensus would have to be changed (if any option but the first achieves consensus, for example, sponsor logos would be removed). Uploading over existing files with new versions that go against the result of the RfC would result in warnings followed by blocks, as would be the case in repeat vandalism or copyvio uploads.
Addendum: Allow all variants, but apply full protection
This RFC has made the incorrect assumption that it's down to Commons to decide which variant is correct (and therefore delete all others). It's not. The only concern in this matter for Commons is copyright, and as far as I can tell, such tiny renderings of logos would never be considered copyright violations - so they can all be hosted here, given they could all be potentially useful. Which one to use is down to each individual wiki to decide. If disputes about that are manifesting here through upload warring, that's easily solved by fully protecting the images. Ultra7 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the logos have been the subject of debates over copyright status. Especially in cases where the actual logo is taken and shrunk down, as opposed to being (legibly but not perfectly) recreated as pixel-art, there is a concern that they are copyright violations. While some people say that de minimis applies (the Barca logo in the above image takes up approximately 4% of that kit's space), but others say that de minimis doesn't apply because it's an artificially created image (i.e. not a photograph where removing the logo would leave a hole), and the image works well without a logo. I would not be surprised if, should this close decisively in favor of getting rid of logos, if versions with the logos begin getting revision deleted. Sven ManguardWha? 20:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the purpose of the Rfc then? To definitively decide the copyright status, or to make an editorial decision on behalf of other projects whether or not these images should include logos? If its the former, it needs to be made clearer. If it's the latter, it's irrelevant - as that's simply not Commons role. Ultra7 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 I thought it was blurred logos that were banned because they resemble the logos while others are distorted. I realize that the idea of Sven is a good idea. --Principal adjoint (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.