Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche OMS-AIEA.jpg

Nominated for speedy deletion by Rama with reason: "Not PD-textlogo for a so complicated work" Multichill (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I did not nominate this image, I resent Multichill attributing this to me. I demand a rectification, a public clarification and an appology. -- Rama (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you deleted it 3 times for this reason, so... Yann (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twice. Not three times. Three times is the number of times you have restored this image that you had uploaded yourself. And for what reason, exactly? Rama (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not Rama that made the original speedy nomination. He just deleted the file twice and reverted a removal of a speedy nomination. Multichill made a mistake when he fixed a problem and did that the involved admins should have done instead of fighting. I have there fore crossed over Ramas name above. I hope that covers it. --MGA73 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - PD-ineligible is OK for this, file doesn't contain anything copyrightable - Jcb (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• * Delete Not PD-textlogo for a so complicated work. Ludo (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep any differences with PD-versions of the rod of Asclepius would be too simple for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral - I have to say that this does look at first as if it's way over the threshold, but if the rod is PD, the nuclear symbol certainly is, I'm not sure there can really be much call that putting one on top of the other is very creative. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• no opinion. It looks like a composition of PD elements. But after the sysops here ruled that placement of rivets on a scale model is "copyrighted" (where? by whom?) because someone (who?) had choices and had decisions to make, I'm in doubt. By this logic, any placement of any common elements (rivets, letters, molecules...) becomes non-trivial and unacceptable here. NVO (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not simply a placement, it's not done randomly. It's a creation of the mind, by choice, as elements (forms and colors) are picked, it is then original and protected by copyright laws or its equivalent. In that case the authorization from the person having the right (eg: the site owner) is necessary here. Esby (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Just sent a mail to the contact person of the website asking her to contact OTRS to give permission. Esby (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This is a combination of three PD elements:

• 
  The "atomic symbol" is PD.
• 
  The "snake-needel symbol" is PD - see Rod of Asclepius.
• 
  The file we are discussing here.

And the text is PD. --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An animation moovie is a combination of geometric elements. Can I uplaod Toy Story on Commons ? Ludo (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that creating Toy Story is not harder than creating the file we are discussing here? Or are you just trying to make a joke? --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that this poster is a real work, using simple geometric shapes, as an animation movie. Ludo (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The individual elements are public domain, but in combination, it's quite possible they rise above the threshold of originality. --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete The fact that a image of the Rod is PD doesn't mean all images automatically are. Copyright is related to the rendition not the concept. By the above argument we could make almost anything PD by virtue of depicting a sufficiently old concept. /Lokal_Profil 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that everything is PD. I agree that not all images of the Rod are PD. What we are discussing here is if this Rod here is eligible for copyright making all similar Rods a copyvio. I could not find an excact match in our files but personally I find that it does not qualify for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: The shapes making up the radiation warning symbol may be simple enough not to attract copyright, but the rod of Asclepius is certainly not. As I have pointed out before in discussions about depictions of Hindu deities, just because the idea behind an artwork is old does not render a modern rendition of the idea a public domain one. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that all files are PD if they show an old idea. I think that you can gain copyright if you get a brilliant idea or if you make a "work" that is beyond simple shapes and lines etc. In this case I'm saying that the creators did get “the brilliant idea” and I do not think that this particular "drawing" of the Rod is creative enough to be eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm going to have to disagree. The snake coiled around a rod is, in my view, clearly too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. I fail to see how it can be regarded as composed of simple geometric shapes. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using this snake somewhere else could not be considered a copyright infringement. Nor would it be an infringement to show the rod in combination with the symbol for ionizing radiation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Again, I disagree. This depiction of the rod of Asclepius is not composed of simple geometric shapes, and thus using it anywhere would be a copyright infringement unless it can be shown that this particular depiction is no longer copyrighted or that the copyright holder has licensed it under a free licence. Has anyone tried contacting the creators of the poster to ask for permission? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "thus" is a non-sequitur. Copyright law is not identical to the wording of license tags on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, I cannot see how the drawing of the rod of Asclepius on the poster is simple enough not to be copyrightable. In any case, one does not need to demonstrate a high degree of creativity to create a copyrighted work. Let's say I have "File:Rod of Asclepius2.svg" in front of me. All that I have to do to create a copyrighted work is to draw a version of that image which is not identical in some significant aspect. I can make the snake twirl around the rod in a clockwise manner, or have the head of the snake point to the left, or make the rod slant slightly to the right. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant aspect in which this rod has a any degree of creative difference with some other stilized version of this ancient symbol. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The medical symbol cannot be copyrighted. It is used since ages. The nuclear symbol is too simple. The rest is just a few words. Yann (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Yes, I'm afraid depictions of rods of Asclepius can be copyrighted unless the depiction in question is identical to an old drawing that is in the public domain. Again, do not confuse the fact that the idea of a snake twined around a rod has been around for a long time with the fact that I can produce a brand-new artwork embodying this idea, and that that artwork will be subject to copyright. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S. at least, all the elements are centered, which is not a creative arrangement. Most of the elements are not PD, but you could argue for the specific drawing of the snake (obviously the general symbol is not copyrightable, but every separate depiction could have its own copyright). It would not surprise me in the least if that particular Asclepius drawing was taken from somewhere on the internet, but it is still possibly copyrighted. Secondly, this is not a U.S. work, so I'm not sure we should be applying U.S. standards -- France has different standards, and it may be an issue there. Even if it is only the 25-year "publication right". Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - PD-ineligible. I cannot imagine any court upholding copyright on this poster or any of its elements. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - PD-ineligible. Neather do I. -- Perky (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I await evidence that this particular depiction of the rod of Asclepius is in the public domain, as opposed to some generic idea of the symbol. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular depiction has nothing more than any other. It is the same very basic symbol. I don't understand what you are looking for. Yann (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This depiction of the rod of Asclepius is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It is not just a few simple lines or shapes, but a sinuous snake curled around a rod.
• Therefore, in my view there must be evidence that this exact depiction is in the public domain. If there is no such evidence, then the drawing is creative enough to be subject to copyright. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rod of Asclepius is "sinuous snake curled around a rod," by definition. What you say that doesn't make sense. Yann (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A depiction of a sinuous snake curled around a rod is, in my view, too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It is more complex than drawing a lines or a few geometric shapes (like the radiation logo), and so requires enough creativity to generate copyright. As I have said above, the idea of a symbol comprising of a snake coiled around a rod is certainly not copyrightable, but each and every depiction of such a symbol is potentially copyrightable. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal opinion. Do you have any legal backing about that? You should have a look at Threshold of originality. Yann (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is yours. We should  Delete on grounds of COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, which aspect of "Threshold of originality" do you think applies? This poster appears to be of French origin, but I don't see any part of the casebook dealing with France or any Francophone country. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to remain you that in the matter of copyright law, the proof is on the accusation. Yet, the design of this poster is not more creative than the files listed here, and than many of the files in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-ineligible or Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-textlogo. Examples: File:Quick drive takeway montigny.jpg, File:Mars Believe Bar.jpg, File:CD Svatoborice Dubnany.jpg, File:CD Praha Hodonin.jpg, File:Newprofile.jpg, File:Logo iirhb.gif, File:Logo morfeo project.png, File:Cricket bat.jpg, File:Sailinpg.png, etc., etc. Yann (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the onus is on the uploader to show that the file uploaded is properly licensed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your examples, most are plain text, which is not copyrightable. Only the cricket bat is of similar complexity to the image in question, and I have nominated that bat for deletion on grounds of not being ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]