Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opel logo 2011.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion 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.
Too sophisticated for PD-German-logo? If yes, we need permission. RE rillke questions? 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opel logo 2009 .png -- RE rillke questions? 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Per my comments at C:DR/File:Opel logo 2009.png. Also, this has to be mergeed there since it is basically the same logo. Tbhotch (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opel logo 2009 .png RE rillke questions? 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
Does not meet the threshold of originality? You're kidding me. False license. Woodcutterty (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Striked out the nomination for now, might get back on it later. Image does not qualify for use on nl-wiki though. Woodcutterty (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn --Denniss (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
Bo jak jest logo, to nie powinno być napisu Wir leben Autos. 77.254.61.186 14:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It has been suggested in earlier deletion discussions that this logo is not copyrighted, because it's just a combination of a circle and a blitz and therefore does not meet the threshold of originality. This is obviously false: not only is it not just a combination of a circle and a blitz (it's a circle, a blitz, the words 'opel' and the slogan 'Wir Leben Autos' in a chrome design), it is generally accepted (at least in European jurisprudence) that even though the individual elements of a work might not be eligible for copyright protection, the combination of these elements may constitute a work of art. I believe that is the case here, so I propose to delete it, taking into account the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a German logo, where the threshold is not as high as the UK or East European countries. This has been renominated ad nauseum (this logo and other similars) that frankly there is no valid reason for users to nominate it over and over again; the only valid reason to nominate it is because an Adam Opel AG legal representant makes a complain, and that would be through WMF legal department, not here. Tbhotch™ 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The threshold of originality is the same across the European Union and has been at least since the Court of Justice determined in 2009 that it's been harmonized; COM:TOO is outdated to the point of being preposterous. (2) The fact that it is a German logo does not mean German law dictates the threshold of originality. That is to say, if it doesn't meet the threshold in Germany (which it does), that doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world. Anyone with a basic understanding of international private law will tell you that. Waiting for the copyright holder to complain is obviously contrary to the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating the same logo for 5 years in a row is obviously disruptive for the project. From Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany: Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the TOO for applied art; see this English summary for details." This logo was published way before the 2013 ruling, whichever this is, and this logo is clearly not "applied art". Whichever the ruling is now for Germany, the ruling at the time of the creation was that simple logos were not copyrighted, ergo, this is not grandfathered to copyright by default. Also, "doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world" is irrelevant. Commons allows to host logos that are in the public domain/free licensed in both, the country of origin and the US ("Wikimedia Commons only accepts media {...} that are explicitly freely licensed, or {...} that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.") And finally, the precautionary principle states, and I cite: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." You haven't provided minimal evidence that there is "significant doubt about the freedom" of German laws at the time of the publication (a 1968 emblem) of the Opel bolt logo (or all the Opel-logos that where nominated by the same IP editor). Tbhotch™ 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't know that a finding by a court that the threshold of originality is lower than was previously assumed works retroactively, then there's really no point in explaining anything to you. Whether or not a creation is eligible for copyright protection is not solely determined by the standards at the time of creation. Woodcutterty (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating the same logo for 5 years in a row is obviously disruptive for the project. From Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany: Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the TOO for applied art; see this English summary for details." This logo was published way before the 2013 ruling, whichever this is, and this logo is clearly not "applied art". Whichever the ruling is now for Germany, the ruling at the time of the creation was that simple logos were not copyrighted, ergo, this is not grandfathered to copyright by default. Also, "doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world" is irrelevant. Commons allows to host logos that are in the public domain/free licensed in both, the country of origin and the US ("Wikimedia Commons only accepts media {...} that are explicitly freely licensed, or {...} that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.") And finally, the precautionary principle states, and I cite: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." You haven't provided minimal evidence that there is "significant doubt about the freedom" of German laws at the time of the publication (a 1968 emblem) of the Opel bolt logo (or all the Opel-logos that where nominated by the same IP editor). Tbhotch™ 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The threshold of originality is the same across the European Union and has been at least since the Court of Justice determined in 2009 that it's been harmonized; COM:TOO is outdated to the point of being preposterous. (2) The fact that it is a German logo does not mean German law dictates the threshold of originality. That is to say, if it doesn't meet the threshold in Germany (which it does), that doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world. Anyone with a basic understanding of international private law will tell you that. Waiting for the copyright holder to complain is obviously contrary to the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a German logo, where the threshold is not as high as the UK or East European countries. This has been renominated ad nauseum (this logo and other similars) that frankly there is no valid reason for users to nominate it over and over again; the only valid reason to nominate it is because an Adam Opel AG legal representant makes a complain, and that would be through WMF legal department, not here. Tbhotch™ 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
_pic2_Logo-only.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, per before, before, before, my comment above, and that the reason for being nominated (translated from Polish) is not a valid delete reason. Tbhotch™ 16:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: As per others. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
Bo pod logiem nie powinno być napisu Wir leben Autos. 87.105.137.253 18:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Bo pod logiem jest niepotrzebny napis Wir leben Autos. 87.105.137.253 18:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason – his reason translated into English is "Because under the logo there is unnecessary phrase Wir leben Autos". Also this and other nominations of this guy look like vandalism to me so I've already reverted them. --jdx Re: 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
Bo pod logiem jest niepotrzebny napis Wir leben Autos. 78.10.135.248 12:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Vandalism – no valid reason. --jdx Re: 12:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 16:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
