File talk:Coca-Cola logo.svg

This file has been marked for a fair use speedy deletion. If you look at the image description, you will find two good reasons why this logo is public domain and not fair use. This file has been undeleted once already. I cannot remove the speedy delete template because I saved the file, if someone could do it, thank you. --Hautala 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT standard typeface! What font is this? Althepal 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Spencerian script, just like it says on the image description. --Hautala 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PD-textlogo?

How does having an additional public domain rationale ({{PD-textlogo}}) in any way detract from the 1923 rationale? ~ Paul^C/_T+ 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because there are quite a lot of dubious "PD-textlogo" claims out there on Commons. Frankly, if we have a rock-solid alternative PD rationale, then it is by far the best thing to do to avoid the whole morass of "PD-textlogo"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is using the rationale on this image dubious? I get your point that the 1923 rationale is "rock-solid", but that template explicitly mentions the need for an additional copyright template (although it is not applicable in this case). Having both would provide a stronger case that just one. Neither template invalidates the other and it is helpful for consistency to apply PD-textlogo on every logo where it applies. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 19:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That clause only applies where "the work is not a U.S. work", which is not the case here. Furthermore, the application of PD-textlogo to this file is kind of dubious, since this is custom calligraphy, not a mechanical combination of standard glyph shapes -- and PD-textlogo does not have a good reputation on Commons, since so many invocations of it are dubious. From my point of view, PD-textlogo is not particularly wanted or needed for this file... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that clause is not applicable here, I pointed it out above too. My point there was to provide a (hypothetical) example where having a second PD rationale would be obviously appropriate. You mention that PD-textlogo has a poor reputation on commons but that does not invalidate whether it would apply to this logo. It might be custom calligraphy, but it is a "standard" script as described above and on the file page.

Essentially there are three issues here: 1) whether there could ever be a need for a second public domain rationale for an image, 2) whether one public domain rationale could detract from another, and 3) whether the PD-textlogo rationale applies.

• I believe there could be a need for a second public domain rationale: mainly for consistency between images that share common rationales, but there could also be other reasons.
• I do not believe the PD-textlogo detracts from the 1923 rationale in any way.
• I believe the PD-textlogo applies to this image and therefore should be present.

If all three of these arguments prove to be correct I can't see any reason not to include the second PD rationale on this image. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 05:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If an image already has an ironclad rationale for being PD, then there's no practical need to fortify the ironclad rationale by dragging in other rationales. And since the PD-textlogo template has dubious applicability to this image (which is custom calligraphy, NOT produced by the mere mechanical juxtaposition of pre-existing font glyph shapes) and PD-textlogo is applied in a very dubious way to many other images on Commons, therefore adding PD-textlogo to this file's image description page is more likely to taint this image's perceived free copyright status than fortify it. Anyway, there are some people who feel that multiple rationales conflict with each other (rather than fortifying PD status), such as the guy who removed the PD-self tag from page File:Bolo-glyph bolo'bolo P M.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Calligraphy is not copyrightable in the United States.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's still no reason to taint this image's ironclad PD-US status by dragging in the whole muddy morass of PD-textlogo... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the above spat when I added the license. What I was aware of is that this image is used as an EXAMPLE on en of a text logo that's in the public domain (partly) BECAUSE it "contains only characters from the Spencerian Script". Would a different logo be better, since Spencerian Script is not a 'typeface'? Anyway, it looks like dictator Denniss agrees multiple valid PD licenses is good thing. You insist there's "no reason to [supplement] this image's ironclad PD-US status" but I see several above. --Elvey (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yayan550, please revert back to 23:43, 11 September 2023

Yayan550, can you please revert this file back to 23:43, 11 September 2023 and comment "Vandalism"? 207.241.245.200 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Forget it, how about Achim55 wil revert this file back to 23:43, 11 September 2023? 165.155.129.23 20:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 完成. --Achim55 (留言) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Minorax, please remove 2 errors to make the SVG valid!

Minorax, can you please remove 2 errors from the SVG to make it valid? 165.155.139.117 20:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)