This template has been deprecated see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Logo-Germany. This debate has superseded the one above.
This template was nominated for deletion, but kept. Deletion debate follows.
This deletion debate 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.
REASON: The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. --- gildemax 11:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What you say is incorrect. That only refers to copyright. Images and media files with this tag can be used by anyone, for any purpose, as far as copyright is concerned. So what's the problem? We can't care about independent restrictions, else we must reject any picture which displays
- Coat of Arms. They are restricted in exactly the same way as trademarks: "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Compare this to "This image shows a logo or trademark. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Why do we keep these if we may not keep trademarks? I do not see any rational argument for this. Why can we use words like 'SONY' if trademarks are forbidden? There is no difference between a logo trademark and a word trademark.
- pictures of persons (which are nonderivative, independent from copyright)
- pictures under freedom of panorama (which are nonderivative, by independent copyright of the displayed object)
- pictures of patented objects (may not be used to reproduce the displayed object)
- pictures of objects of daily use (they are basically "fair use" only, if protected by design patents)
- nazi emblems are in fact very restricted by criminal law in many countries, yet we keep them
- I have been told that trademarks that are not central to the picture are perfectly okay. Why? Trademark-wise there is no difference.
- Below the line, there simply is no "for any purpose". See also #Category:Logos. Logos are copyright free. You can take parts from them or the general design and make your own logo (if not restricted by design patent). They are not restricted in copying and distribution and derivative work. They are only restricted as far as displaying them in public is concerned. Copyright law and trademark law are entirely different. --Rtc 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep what Rtc said was said to gildemax on Commons:Forum. I wonder why he is ignoring that.--Wiggum 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep going aline with the reasoning of Rtc. (e.g. also COAs are not useable freely, yet they are permitted here. So, where is the difference between the two?) --ALE! 17:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We need clear rules on what is acceptable and what not. Therefore we should limit ourselves to copyright here. I.e. everything that can freely be published should be fine for us. If we start considering all kinds of other restriction, that depend more on the context of the publication than on the on the mere publishing by itself, then we'll have to wipe half of all commons in the end. Rotkraut 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep - Please take a look at the wording of the GFDL. The freedom of all wikimedia-projects is in regard to copyright only. Other kinds of restrictions are of no concern for us. All of us take that intuitivly when using verbal trademarks and protected names. We write about sun and apple, with regard to astronomy and fruits as well as to hard- and software. But these words are of course trademarks: Their restrictions just don't apply to our use of them, so we use them. It should be the same with grafic trademarks, coat of arms and the like, if the are ineligible to copyright or their copyright has expired. Please don't get paranoid about coat of arms and logos. Their specific kind of protection is of no concern for our use in wikimedia-projects. That's true in all signatory states of the WIPO-treaties (USA, EU, OECD). So let's keep them. --h-stt !? 10:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Steschke 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I do not think that these are copyright-free under international or US law. While the legal argument that they are copyright-unrestricted in Germany may be valid, I do not think that applies internationally, especially for trademarks of non-German entities. Morven 09:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rtc. We are interested in copyright only, and don't care about other restrictions. TZM de:T/T C 10:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, because the legendary images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose is a idea, but, by far, not the truth. You may not even use the image of a Dodge Magnum or George W. Bush for any purpose. In this perception, commons has failed. It is not able to change the world, to make it "free". An the other site commons is a success, even with somehow unfree images -- Stahlkocher 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- kept--Shizhao 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Template on de-wikipedia
Hi, is there a similiar template on de-wikipedia? --Habakuk 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- yes de:Template:Bild-PD-Markenrecht for Template:Logo-Germany and de:Template:Logo for Template:Trademarked. TZM de:T/T C 15:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- hm, now their Template:Trademarked equivalent is named de:Template:Bild-Logo. TZM de:T/T C 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)