| Revision as of 09:16, 27 December 2009 editBuffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,492 edits add← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:39, 27 December 2009 edit undoBuffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,492 edits respNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| ::You have no right to unilaterally declare that I am wrong and shut down any form of discussion. '''NO ONE''' has provided any evidence. | ::You have no right to unilaterally declare that I am wrong and shut down any form of discussion. '''NO ONE''' has provided any evidence. | ||
| ::Again. If everyone has shown me where I am wrong, it should be easy for you to find a single, simple quote to show me where (mind you these opinions should be based in policy, guideline, or law; otherwise, I am really not interested in hearing them as they are likely more uninformed opinions). However, if I have committed a logical fallacy, I want to hear about it (obviously, that wouldn't be law or ]) | ::Again. If everyone has shown me where I am wrong, it should be easy for you to find a single, simple quote to show me where (mind you these opinions should be based in policy, guideline, or law; otherwise, I am really not interested in hearing them as they are likely more uninformed opinions). However, if I have committed a logical fallacy, I want to hear about it (obviously, that wouldn't be law or ]) | ||
| ::I find your insults completely inappropriate for an administrator of this site (or any Wikipedian) and your approach is completely inappropriate (intimidating those with whom you disagree). <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 09:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | ::I find your insults completely inappropriate for an administrator of this site (or any Wikipedian) and your approach is completely inappropriate (intimidating those with whom you disagree and cutting off any/all discussion). <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 09:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Let's make this simple== | ==Let's make this simple== | ||
| What about this logo is copyrightable? All I see is a "W" and a "V" with serifs on each, standard ornamentation for letters. As such, they aren't copyrightable (as explained ad nauseum). What am I missing here? <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 09: |
What about this logo is copyrightable? All I see is a "W" and a "V" with serifs on each, standard ornamentation for letters. As such, they aren't copyrightable (as explained ad nauseum). What am I missing here? | ||
| "You are wrong", "It's been explained before", etc. are not valid answers because they explain NOTHING. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 09:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:39, 27 December 2009
This image simply isn't copyrightable.
- References: Eltra Corp. v. Ringer: " typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)" and a "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text."
This logo consists of two letters: a "W" and a "V" with serifs at the top of each. Comparable images include File:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png, File:LA_Dodgers.svg, and File:ALC-DET-Insignia.png (among others). As such. this logo is not copyrightable.
By contrastASCII art or the Washington State University logo are letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium by which an artistic image is formed. Accordingly, I'm fixing the licensing as this image is not copyrigthable.
If you are going to change this licensing to anything else, please explain what is incorrect about the above assertions. — BQZip01 — 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I copied everything from the PNG file to the SVG file, so that all of the information is saved and no new rationales had to be written. User:Zscout370 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, but the older file had problems with their rationales as they were unnecessary. I deleted them according to the above. — BQZip01 — 02:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- If I can be honest, I give up when it comes to the text logos. I still won't quit drawing them in SVG, or at least getting SVG quality, but I have been tied up in IRL messes and Commons backlogs. User:Zscout370 05:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't do anything wrong, I was just explaining what I'd done and then clarifying since it appears you had some comments/questions. Keep up the good work and, if you need any help, don't hesitate to drop me a line. :-) — BQZip01 — 06:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- If I can be honest, I give up when it comes to the text logos. I still won't quit drawing them in SVG, or at least getting SVG quality, but I have been tied up in IRL messes and Commons backlogs. User:Zscout370 05:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, but the older file had problems with their rationales as they were unnecessary. I deleted them according to the above. — BQZip01 — 02:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The standing conclusion of the prior discussion is there is no consensus this is free. As such, I have, yet again, reverted BQZip01's attempts to declare this free. I request, yet again, that BQZip01 or any other interested party start an RfC in order to evaluate if consensus has changed to an agreement that this image is free. BQZip, you need to stop edit warring in an attempt to get your way. It doesn't work that way, and you know it. You edit warred on the prior image, and now you've carried forward this edit war to this new image. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is there anywhere you will not follow me? This is a new image. There was NO consensus in another image's prior RfC. That doesn't mean the "default" is "we do whatever Hammersoft wants since he the the most cautious and wants to have a completely 💕 with NO nonfree images". The RfC never even addressed ANY of the concerns mentioned above. Furthermore, you have the uncanny knack of sidetracking any discussion into irrelevancies and your personal beliefs as to how Misplaced Pages should be run. You have answered nothing I've addressed above and refuse to discuss ANYTHING unless you have a bigger platform (i.e. an RfC). If you won't discuss any points here, why would I trust you to discuss any points there? Why can't you address them here and now like WP:TALK dictates we should do (not that I expect you to answer any of these questions or attempt to build a consensus)? — BQZip01 — 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You know full well that the prior discussion resulted in no consensus that this image was free. You know full well that this image is essentially identical to the prior image except the colors are reversed. For a year now you have been trying to force your way onto this image by editing to declare it to be free. Myself and others have contested this declaration yet you still insist on edit warring in an attempt to force your personal decision that this is free. The next step in dispute resolution is an RfC. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but tough. Edit warring is NOT the answer. Get consensus. You don't have it in support of your opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is there anywhere you will not follow me? This is a new image. There was NO consensus in another image's prior RfC. That doesn't mean the "default" is "we do whatever Hammersoft wants since he the the most cautious and wants to have a completely 💕 with NO nonfree images". The RfC never even addressed ANY of the concerns mentioned above. Furthermore, you have the uncanny knack of sidetracking any discussion into irrelevancies and your personal beliefs as to how Misplaced Pages should be run. You have answered nothing I've addressed above and refuse to discuss ANYTHING unless you have a bigger platform (i.e. an RfC). If you won't discuss any points here, why would I trust you to discuss any points there? Why can't you address them here and now like WP:TALK dictates we should do (not that I expect you to answer any of these questions or attempt to build a consensus)? — BQZip01 — 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please see relevant ANI thread. -FASTILY 16:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
links for convenience:
--Enric Naval (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Good Lord, will no one actually read what I wrote?!?! Where the **** am I wrong in the above assertions!?!? Everyone is just saying, "no, you're wrong" without addressing anything I have brought up. Why not address the issues? That is what a talk page is for. I guess HS just wants a bigger stage from which to shout his edicts? — BQZip01 — 15:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ummmmm. Yes, I did read what you wrote up above. The community and HC have generated more than enough evidence which couldn't have done a better job proving you dead wrong. Frankly, I can't even begin to comprehend why that is so difficult for you to understand. Perhaps you should try educating yourself first by reading up on some relevant policies before making egregious claims regarding Misplaced Pages image policy: WP:NFC, WP:IUP, WP:NFCC, WP:LOGO. That being said, please stop your trolling. I'm going to close this discussion now as nothing meaningful has come out of it. -FASTILY 19:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- You have no right to unilaterally declare that I am wrong and shut down any form of discussion. NO ONE has provided any evidence.
- Again. If everyone has shown me where I am wrong, it should be easy for you to find a single, simple quote to show me where (mind you these opinions should be based in policy, guideline, or law; otherwise, I am really not interested in hearing them as they are likely more uninformed opinions). However, if I have committed a logical fallacy, I want to hear about it (obviously, that wouldn't be law or WP:PG)
- I find your insults completely inappropriate for an administrator of this site (or any Wikipedian) and your approach is completely inappropriate (intimidating those with whom you disagree and cutting off any/all discussion). — BQZip01 — 09:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's make this simple
What about this logo is copyrightable? All I see is a "W" and a "V" with serifs on each, standard ornamentation for letters. As such, they aren't copyrightable (as explained ad nauseum). What am I missing here?
"You are wrong", "It's been explained before", etc. are not valid answers because they explain NOTHING. — BQZip01 — 09:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
