Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:BP logos
Files in Category:BP logos[edit]
Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#BP logo
Legal thinks it exceeds the TOO.
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Does "legal" think that, or does Joe Sutherland think that? And if either of them think that, why didn't they delete the files or nominate them for deletion? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Legal team thinks that. I'm just a messenger.
I don't think we have ever directly deleted a file on Commons without a valid DMCA takedown request (with the exception of correcting Foundation uploads or whatever). It's not something we have traditionally been authorised or willing to do. The Commons community is more than capable of making this decision. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- On a related note, @JSutherland (WMF): if you would be so kind to humor my interest: Does the WMFs safe harbor really extend to files they now know are above TOO and being kept on their website (without fair use rationales) regardless of DMCA notices. A DMCA notice is to bring attention from the owner to a file that is used without permission; now we know of other versions used without permission which the legal team (or at least the T&S) has been made aware of. Wouldn’t that serve the same purpose under safe harbor provisions as a formal DMCA notice for each individual file? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- There could be cases where we have actual knowledge of an infringement without getting a DMCA notice, like the time a few years ago when we had to remove the text of the diary of Anne Frank and we were all very sad about it. In this case though, the only thing BP asked us to remove is the logo with the BP at 9 o'clock. I do think the BP Helios logo is creative enough for copyright protection (not by a lot, but just enough), but the one with the BP at 1 o'clock isn't violating copyright law for various reasons including both fair use and permission. It might be violating Commons policy though and I don't think it qualifies as a free culture work, which is why it's up to you all whether you want to have it on Commons or not. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- On a related note, @JSutherland (WMF): if you would be so kind to humor my interest: Does the WMFs safe harbor really extend to files they now know are above TOO and being kept on their website (without fair use rationales) regardless of DMCA notices. A DMCA notice is to bring attention from the owner to a file that is used without permission; now we know of other versions used without permission which the legal team (or at least the T&S) has been made aware of. Wouldn’t that serve the same purpose under safe harbor provisions as a formal DMCA notice for each individual file? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Legal team thinks that. I'm just a messenger.
Deleted: Legal hath speaketh. They believe the helix logo is above COM:TOO. The only reason they haven’t deleted the above versions is that they could be used under fair use (and trademark permission). We can only keep files which are either explicitly freely licensed, or in the public domain (which legal has determined that they are not). I will close this as speedy as variation of F1 and F2 due to a G9. The DMCA has determined the logos to be above COM:TOO, therefore, despite this being a community deletion, I will impose a "harsh trout" against un-deletion without going through a DMCA counter notice if the helix logo is to be deemed below PD. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:BP logos[edit]
per previous DR above
.jpg){kind=link}
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and legal's statement. --Ahmadtalk 17:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)