Commons:Deletion requests/Nvidia logos
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.
|
Nvidia logos[edit]
- File:Paranvidia.jpg
- File:NVidia Logo.jpg
- File:NVidia new Logo 2006 horiz.svg
- File:Nvidia Logo.svg
- File:NVidia-Logo.svg
- File:NVidia Riva TNT chip.jpg
- File:NVidia Riva TNT 2chip.JPG
I think that the Nvidia logos are original enough to pass the threshold. The first two files were uploaded under the false licenses (as the own work of the uploader). The files 3-5 were transferred to Commons by the bot yesterday. In the last two pictures the logos are not the only objects, but it's clearly not DM cases. --INS Pirat (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep: Nope. The nVidia logo seems too simple for me (and several users may agree), therefore, bellow the TOO in the U.S. (more complex logos has been already nominated and kept). Also, self-made SVGs may be considered as Own work (by the nature of the vector graphics, specially the hand-made ones with text-editor only). --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of indication, that the works are derivative, and of the license tags specifying why the original work is eligible for Commons, is a copyright violation (for the one of those two files it was fixed later). That's not the point of my nomination, though, but just a way to show, that the logo wasn't uploaded responsibly, with awareness of the relevant rules. --INS Pirat (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is just your opinion about the TOO in the United States. If two or more users agree that the nVidia logo is bellow the TOO (therefore, no copyvio) in the U.S., then, who is worng here?
- And, in the case of the SVGs, the copyright status is more complex, since two elements have separated copyright statuses: The Graphic and the Code (yes, the SVG code is copyrightable by itself); since SVGs can be created totally by hand using a text editor, this is enough reason to consider them Own work. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep NVIDIA logos' complexity is comparable to File:Subway restaurant.svg and File:New Orleans Saints.svg, which are showcased in TOO. — Le Loy (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- The logo of the New Orleans Saints is not so trivial by itself, but it's ineligible for copyright since the fleur-de-lis symbol is widely known and the logo doesn't add to its basic image any significant elements. The closer case, in my opinion, is that of the Best Western Hotels but I think that the NVidia logo is more complex being asymmetrical and employing curves instead of lines. Also the Copyright Office decisions could be total opposite one to another - for example, I don't understand how is old Car Credit City logo more copyrightable than the logo of Best Western. Also there is the fact that around the 20 Wikipedia sites now have NVidia logos uploaded there over the years as the non-free content. I don't think that we should imply that those uploaders were just unaware of the TOO principle. --INS Pirat (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- The first file Paranvidia.jpg (
Delete) seems to me a little bit to complex because of the background colour gradient. In my opinion all other files are below COM:TOO, in relation to a logo of a US based company ( Keep). This opinion was the reason why I transfered files 3-5 via wdwdbot to commons.--Wdwd (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- The test for the United States is whether it's significantly more complex than File:Best Western logo.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete The symbol used for the Nvidia logo is IMO almost certainly copyrightable, as it is a 'unique work' of graphic design.... it is not textual, does not appear to be based on any kind of 'prior art', and is not obvious... it is original. The Subway logo is not copyrightable because it is merely stylized text, and the Saints logo is not copyrightable because is is just a minor variation on a design (a fleur-de-lis) that has existed for hundreds of years.
- There is a PDF on Commons, linked from the file page of the Best Western logo, where the USCO discusses exactly why it fails to be copyrightable... it consists of 'names, lettering, common typographic ornamentation, and minor variations on common geometrical shapes'. None of this applies to the Nvidia 'symbol'. I suspect a deciding factor in the Best Western case is that the overall shape of the logo is quite recognizably (and was claimed to be) the outline of a house, and the other 'non typographic' element is just a diamond... neither is original, clearly, and a claim could only be based on the arrangement of those elements, which was not found to be creative.
- In the CCC case, the version that was actually registered pretty obviously 'just barely' scraped over the line of minimal creativity. The line is somewhere between it and "Best Western", but I don't think it's particularly relevant to the Nvidia logo, since there is no question of 'arrangement of elements' contributing to it being copyrightable or not... it's simply if the 'symbol' is sufficiently original, and I think it clearly is.
- I think that having to describe a work of graphic design as a 'symbol', or a 'thing', or other such nondescriptive terms is a fair indication that it's probably original. Reventtalk 00:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: the logo can not exactly be described by "simple geometric shapes " with a few words (e.g. two triangles and one circle), thererfore, and as it is also more than a simple text, it is copyrightable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)