File talk:WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

July 2018

@Green Giant: I had a question. This heart in this logo comes from third party source. Some may argue it is below ToO, but I differ on that idea. Well FWIW, it is under BY clause which requires attribution. So if this logo was used for stickers, banners and flyers, (for advertising about the Wiki Loves Love competition) that would require attribution, right? Otherwise, isn't that violation of the licence terms?
acagastya 10:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya and Psychoslave: I have corrected the file page of this and the source file. Please review the changes I’ve made. The level of originality is debatable (I’m pretty certain I have seen the jigsaw design previously somewhere), but you, Acagastya, are correct that attribution is essential for reuse. The source at Noun Project does give some flexibility how that is done. It is necessary to attribute properly on the file page here - in fact Commons expects attribution even for public domain images. If it is used elsewhere on Wikimedia wikis, it isn’t essential to include the attribution if a reader can click on the image and is brought to this file page. However, if it is made non-clickable or it is used in print media e.g. stickers, posters or presentations, then attribution must be included physically on or near the image. For example, if you were to use it in a PowerPoint presentation to an audience, it is sufficient for you to include the attribution at the end of the presentation e.g. the last slide. You would not have to include it on each slide that uses the image because the presentation as a whole is the derivative work. Obviously if you extracted one slide with the image and presented it on its own, then you’d need attribution on that slide. I hope that answers your query. Green Giant (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: So if anyone who was told about the attribution issue and is using the file without attribution, off-wiki, the licence is void for them, right?
acagastya 15:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is technically correct but it might depend on the circumstances. Is there a specific example of this happening? Green Giant (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: actually there is. The banner stickers, and flyers which are currently being designed for this year's Wikimania -- as for now, there was no sort of attribution. I had discussed the attribution issue a few days ago with those on the "team", and one said: "I don't see anyone ever attributing authors on stickers [...] But, that would kill the feel of the logo [...] Anyone who opens WLL meta page after seeing the logo can see the authors of the logo on wiki". Since as a reviewer, I need to be very careful about licencing, and it reflects in everything I do (following WN:SG in my real life too), I would not be participating in those activities which violate the terms. And especially when I had created a free alternative in public domain dedication licence, to solve the issue about attribution.

I wonder if a group of people are using a CC BY file, and if they omit the attribution clause, the licence is void for whom? If I abstain my participating in the work unless attribution clause, will that ensure the licence is not void for me?
acagastya 18:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: If it is a physical sticker/flyer/poster using the puzzle heart, then it probably needs attribution somewhere near the logo, even if it is in tiny letters in a corner on the back of the sticker/flyer/poster. At a bare minimum it should state the authors names and the license. Does it void it for individual volunteers? No, the licenses apply individually and as a group. If a group is not using it correctly, that does not void it for individual members to reuse if they are doing it correctly. This is assuming that it is not too simple to be copyrightable. As I said earlier, I am pretty certain the jigsaw pattern has been around for a while and I cannot be certain that it is Orun's original idea. Certainly, you can’t copyright simple colours or heart shapes but out of courtesy AleXXw should still be attributed. Green Giant (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: @Acagastya: Orun Bhuiyan here: the original creator of the artwork in question, or at least the shape used. I take no issue with this being used without attribution. Placing attribution next to the logo in every instance would distract from the logo itself, so I understand where you're coming from. I'm not sure if the Noun Project's terms supersede my own wishes in this case. If so I could even create a variant of this logo for you guys that's somewhat different? Orvn (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you did not have issues with the attribution clause, you could have opted for a licence which does not ask for attribution (you can still re-licence it) But FWIW, it is the licence we need to stick to, otherwise it is void.
acagastya 02:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I saved my ass while dealing with the WN:print edition. Thanks for the clarification, Green Giant.
acagastya 02:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Potential Licence Solutions

Two options;

1. I can either redesign it for you guys with some alterations (would probably be a little better in quality anyway).
2. Alternatively, I've opened a support ticket to see if they can change the license for Creative Commons without attribution. Are you saying this wouldn't apply retroactively anyway?

• Side note: This is the support page from Noun Project that explains that if you buy an icon, it's a non-attribution licence? NounProject Orvn (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Green Giant: , just to give my own opinion on the matter. Yes, the license require attribution, and so stickers and so on should come with attributions if they use this logo, to the best of my legal knowledge. I don't feel like it would be a frankly impossible requirement here, and as far as I'm concerned, one is completely granted the right to ommit any attribution to me when using this derivative work. So only "Orun Bhuiyan & AleXXw" seems completely printable somewhere near/around a sticker, doesn't it. Now as @Acagastya: made a wonderful public domain logo, and it seems like nothing will prevent its adoption as official WLL logo, I think that close the story. Thank you everyone for your attention to legal concerns. --Psychoslave (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: @Acagastya: @Psychoslave: I think there is misinformation about some things. We purchased the license from the original designer Orun Bhuiyan (Noun Project) and we hold the license that "grants the license to use the icon royalty–free for an unlimited amount of time."--Wikilover90 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If by any chance you need another version (fully public domain, made by me and in fact ineligible for copyright (just a heart with a puzzle overlapped), you can use this: File:WLL Subtitled Logo b (transparent).svg. Please, no attribution is needed since its a very simple design. Hope it helps. Regards!--Zeroth (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The licence was not purchased before this discussion was started, and per the terms, it gives the individual customer to use it without attribution. BUT other terms mentioned in the licence needs to be followed, like mentioning the licence. AND that US$1.99 fee is for individual use, which does not permit the customer to re-licence the material. That payment was merely for reuse, and you have not purchased the transfer of authorship. It is an individual licence, and not for the entire group.
acagastya 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A simple example of why that would be wrong is: "My team consists of seven billion people. So if I buy that logo fir US$1.99, almost everyone on earth can use the logo without attributing".
103.254.128.86 05:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for the feedback. @Wikilover90: , is it possible do buy a "free for all" license, and if so, how much would that cost? We already have several PD alternatives if such a deal is impossible or unaffordable for our budget. Also, note that personally I was also fine with the idea of simply keep the attribution requirement. Basically, I see that is a situation with a lot of satisfying solutions available, let's pick one and go on. --Psychoslave (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi again everybody. I've added the subtitle to the my previous logo: File:WLL Subtitled Logo subtitled b (transparent).svg. I remind you that the logo is there for the contest to use, without fees or attribution. Regards!--Zeroth (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your remarks and suggestions. There are some things that need to be cleared up regarding the logo licensing that seemed to have created a lot of misunderstandings. Firstly, the license that i bought was available in that option only. Since, it requires me as an individual to use it freely without attribution. Secondly, we have changed the previous logo to the new logo created for WLL in PD, courtesy of @ Zeroth. So that ends this discussion once and for all. With best Regards and Love ----Wikilover90 (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wikilover90: I originally created the shape used in this logo and I'm okay with it being used without attribution. Orvn (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)