The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This is a former logo which is no longer used in the infobox for KTSC-FM, and is no longer being used pursuant to the use rationale provided. ~TPW 15:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Crown copyright expired no later than 1988 (as the badge was approved in 1937). Replaced with File:No. 12 Squadron RAF badge.png on Commons and no longer used. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons this uses a different colouration pattern -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Resolved, original author has uploaded a new version with a amended license: File:Depths of wikipedia logo.png -FASTILY 05:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could be easily replaced by a new file, using one of these crown emojis found here commons:Category:U+1F451 and the WIkipedia logo. Bedivere (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We use logos in articles for identification purposes and it is considered a valid NFCC justification. We should not be creating our own free versions of logos. – Pbrks(t • c) 23:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A free replacement could be done. Of course it fails NFCC. Bedivere (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not the same. The logo of social media account "Depths of Wikipedia" is just a construction of the Wikipedia logo, available already on Commons, and a free crown emoji. I think that in fact, this very actual image you've uploaded is free to upload to Commons as emojis are not inherently copyrighted. Of course a reconstruction using the same emoji would be free to use on Commons. Bedivere (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The crown emoji is not free. Emojis are intellectual properties. – Pbrks(t • c) 02:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The crown emoji is that of Apple devices, which are copyrighted, yes. I don't think this use of the Wikipedia logo is authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation. We could be actually getting in some trouble by reproducing it. Bedivere (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no authorization needed to use the Wikipedia logo. Anyone is allowed to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. It is up to Apple if they would like to send a cease-and-desist letter to Depths of Wikipedia. – Pbrks(t • c) 20:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. Please refer to The foundation's visual identity guidelines. Additionally, "Use of the Wikimedia logos and trademarks is subject to the Wikimedia trademark policy and visual identity guidelines, and may require permission." Rauwerda's just gone away with it. Bedivere (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bedivere! This is Annie. I knew that this would catch up to me at some point! I've been meaning to check with someone about logo stuff for ages! Yeah, I used the Apple emoji and Wikipedia logo for a profile picture a couple years ago and have been hoping it wouldn't rustle any feathers — should have been more proactive and responsible. I've been meaning to ask if you'd like me to upload a higher-quality file with an explicit CC license? (I don't *have* a higher quality image at the moment, but it wouldn't take more than a few minutes to make). I got written permission from CRoslof (WMF) to use the Wikipedia globe and am happy to use a different crown — thanks for the suggestion. I hope you'll forgive my negligence here! I'm not terribly confident about all the nuances of the remixing/transforming rules! Annierau (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input @Annierau. For sure, a CC compliant version would be much welcome, specially if it comes from the actual owner of the social media pages, and would solve this discussion for the good. Unfortunately the Apple emoji is not free to use and cannot be CC licensed, so if you use any of the free alternatives found here commons:Category:U+1F451 there should be no future issues. Thanks again! Bedivere (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, oops, we were making free alternatives at the same time! Here's mine on Commons (main difference is no "WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia" text). Let me know if I need to chance any of the license stuff. Like I said, I'm not particularly familiar with the copyright policies for derivative works. Thanks! Annierau (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed up the licensing but it should be fine now. Bedivere (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Wikipedia logo is CC-BY-SA-3.0, so therefore this derivative work must be as well. The crown emoji does not appear eligible for copyright to me. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three-dimensional emoji does seem sufficiently complex to me not to fall obviously under the threshold of originality. I would have thought that unlike heraldry, which is defined by a description rather than a visual, a logo cannot as easily be replaced by replacing the individual parts with free alternatives. So I would tend to support it remaining as is (i. e. as a non-free logo). Felix QW (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My vision is that a free replacement, very close to the actual "logo" (which is actually nothing but an unauthorized use of the Wikipedia logo), could be recreated and this illegal logo could be deleted. Bedivere (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that since DoW has used the Wikipedia logo, their derivative work must be licensed under a compatible CC license. However, the crown, which IMO falls above the TOO in the US, is owned by Apple, so we cannot change the license to CC. – Pbrks(t • c) 20:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! This is Annie Rauwerda and I created that Depths of Wikipedia logo a few years ago (after an entire two seconds of prior thought). I haven't put a license on it because I wasn't sure about emoji licensing. Let me know if you'd like anything from me and thank you so much for the thoughtful discussion! I'm just sorry I didn't reach out to someone sooner. Annierau (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to note that "viral" licenses are not automatic. If someone makes a derivative work of a copylefted work but does not release the derivative work under the same license, then it would violate the copyright of the original work's creator. However, this would not automatically put the derivative work under said license. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the main premise of the essay, though. If a CC-BY-SA work is republished without making mention of the license, it is still a CC-BY-SA work and cannot be recopyrighted by the person who didn't use the license, as they didn't comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. This would apply to the logo in question, but only if it didn't contain new copyrighted elements, which it does (the Apple (C) emoji), making it incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license. Had the creator of the derivative logo used a free, or CC-BY-SA compatible logo, instead of the Apple emoji, and even if they had not mentioned the license, it would have been eligible for inclusion in Commons. Happily both @Annierau and me have uploaded free alternatives to the actual upload we're discussing here and it should be deleted. Bedivere (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
