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.

Files in Category:Logos of Eurovision that uses the Eurovision heart

At four different times in the past (Feb 2012, Aug 2012, Sep 2012, Oct 2012), with the reasoning that the logos are most likely copyrighted in the country of origin, which has been determined to be Switzerland, as this is where the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the organizers of the Eurovision Song Contest, are based. All four deletion requests ended in delete and where concluded by different administrators.

Following the deletion request in Feb 2012, a discussion also took place on the Village pump. That caused a large portion of the files to be nominated for deletion (the one Aug 2012) per COM:PCP, however the hearts "on their own ones were excluded from [the] nomination as their copyright status should probably be assessed separately".

With this deletion request I would like to invite people for such an assesment. My own opinion is that these logos should be deleted on the same reasons as all the previous deletion requests has been concluded: That they are copyrighted in the source country (of the original if the case being that these are derivatives) and thus doesn't meet the requirements of Commons:Licensing, so they should be deleted.

I am aware that they have a very large amount of usage, so I suggest that we create a place holder, asks for a bot to do a file-name substitution of all inclusions to the place holder before or shortly after an eventual deletion. --heb [T C E] 14:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

heb [T C E] 14:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell a five-year old "paint a heart with three colors in it", it will not look very different. The whole design is so unoriginal that it seems unlikely that this crap could be copyrighted anywhere. Hence keep. But since it also isn't very useful information anyway, I don't care a lot. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing copyrightable here, the four DRs linked are regarding more complicated lohgos for the individual song contests rather than just the heart+flag part. Moreover, it's an oversimplification to say that these originate in Switzerland, since when a country is granted the Eurovision Song Contest hosting rights, their come up with their own logo including the heart with their flag. For those reasons  Keep Fry1989 eh? 17:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you decide to delete these files? These files are used in many articles and use the proper license. Because on my page have warned about the potential disposal, I would like to specifically protect my image (USSR Heart logo). The file was created by me, has never been used by the European Broadcasting Union and the Eurovision Song Contest and has a free license, installed by me. This file is used to illustrate the article and its removal is not acceptable. As for other files that can not be prohibited, since they were made ​​by the users, and contain simple geometric shapes and flags under free license. Their removal is also not acceptable, files are serving to illustrate articles and do not violate any rule of Wikimedia Commons.  Keep Alex Great talk 06:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: I don't think they are unequivocal "more complicated". The first one to be deleted (Feb 2012), was the heart with the Armenian flag and some text (a version of it can be seen here). In the next deletion request (Aug 2012) there were some of the same kind: File:142151-esc2008logo-RESIZE-s925-s450-fit.jpg was the same as this file, File:Esc logo 2006.png was the same as this file, File:Esc logo 2007.jpg was the same as this file, File:Eurovision Song Contest 2004 logo.jpg was the same as this file and File:Isotipo de Eurovisión 2013.svg was the same as this file. I only checked a few but it seem to be more or less the same all around. I honestly don't know enough about Eurovision hosting rights and why rights they are given in terms of usage of the heart logo.
@Alex Great: No files have been deleted. They have been nominated to do an assessment with the widest possible amount of participants on wither or not they should be deleted, mainly under discussion wither or not 1) Switzerland should be considered source country and 2) they are copyrightable in Switzerland (as I don't think it is otherwise an issue). Should they end up with being kept, the outcome would probably also result in that a number of the previously deleted files should be nominated for undeletion. --heb [T C E] 13:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is found that the heart is copyrighted, it's irrelevant what users put in the heart as it would be a derivative work, making it a potential copyright violation even if the work as a whole is original. However, on the English Wikipedia only US copyright law strictly applies per policy there (unlike Commons which must also apply the law of the country of origin), and given the examples at Threshold of originality#United States, it is probably below the US threshold. Similar files deleted from Commons have already been re-uploaded locally on such grounds, such as w:File:Eurovision Song Contest logo 2013.svg. CT Cooper · talk 20:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page at eurovision.tv has a link named "Logo" that goes to a download page at jmenternational.com where anyone can download the full logotype+heart logos for every country after completing a form.
The description of their site pages is as follows: "London UK based design and communications company specialising in music industry and award show projects".
This page lists their work with the EBU. The 2004 entry specifically states that JME created the logo.
So the country of origin is actually the United Kingdom, which I assume helps us in making a decision more easily. Does anyone have any idea what the UK laws say about the threshold of originality? — Andreyyshore (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. all except File:Wiki Eurovision Heart.svg possibly. We would need to know that the background map is sourced to a free license but it would be easy to replace it with one. The rest are the same as File:Anything but Conservative maple leaf.png or File:Precrtana zastava libijskih pobunjenika.png. A country may try to claim copyright on a simple shape with a free license flag background but there is no way that copyright claim would stand up in court. There is no harm in continuing to host them until the WMF is contacted by anyone trying to claim copyright. That would be a big waste of Florida court time to decide eventually that they are far below any threshold of originality.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - The heart of the problem with the logos was always the heart itself, which originated from the European Broadcasting Union, which is based in Switzerland, where the threshold of originality is not well understood. It has always been presumed that country flags were PD and until relatively recently it was presumed the heart would be as well, given that it was so simple. However, a very low threshold of originality has been found in other countries so it is a real possibility that it could also be very low in Switzerland. Therefore, the precautionary principle appears to mandate deletion. The "keep them until contacted" argument does hold appeal, but it does rather contradict policy. CT Cooper · talk 20:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:PCP doesn't apply here because it is public domain. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meandros flag.svg. A country can try and claim copyright on the PD heart but commons normally ignores such claims until the WMF is contacted. A normal DCMA takedown will resolve that if it happens and not cost us a dime. Until the WMF is contacted then we should continue to host the files.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would PCP not apply here? "Because it is public domain" is a circular argument: it must be kept because it is public domain because PCP does not apply because it is public domain. darkweasel94 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PCP only applies to copyrighted works. The heart image commons should accept as PD and not copyrighted because it is too simple in any country to copyright. It is also an image that has been around for centuries. See: w:Heart (symbol), origin section. It would be the same as trying to copyright File:Гхани.png which is a variation that has been around for 2000+ years.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether that particular stylized (calligraphy-like) heart icon is too simple, is exactly what we're discussing here. darkweasel94 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PCP applies if it is unclear if a work is copyrighted or not, as in this case. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright is held by the commons user that created the images. What closing admin should decide is whether a slight variation to a symbol that has been around since circa 460 A.D. has enough TOO to be copyrighted in Florida where the servers are.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons policy, it must also be below the threshold of originality of the source country, which appears to be either the UK or Switzerland. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The original source country is the region in w:Georgian alphabet. The source country of these files is where the commons user created them. Commons doesn't acknowledge copyright for very minor changes to an image that has been around for millennia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source country to the Eurovision heart is the one where the Eurovision heart was first published, whichever country that was. Compare with the EDGE logo: the letters E, D and G were created in the Roman Empire, but the modified letters in the EDGE logo were made and first published in the United Kingdom, so the United Kingdom is the source country to the EDGE logo. Never mind that the original E, D and G letters as drawn in the Roman Empire are in the public domain in the United Kingdom as the ancient Romans died more than 70 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the problem. This is a pan-European organisation. There is no one source country. Fry1989 eh? 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is a pan-European organization it is still based "somewhere" more precise; in this case in Switzerland (Geneva to be specific). I have actually found an interesting document: The Eurovison Song Contest brand guidelines. What strikes me in this document is that section 2.1 states: "All uses of the Eurovision Song Contest logo or any other element of the brand identity are subject to an approval process" and the final page states: "For any queries about the present brand guidelines and for approval, please contact: T.E.A.M. Marketing AG" (a Swiss based marketing/advertising company with a very simplistic homepage). Though I haven't been able to confirm it, I think it is fair to assume that since said marketing company is managing the brand, they are most likely also authors of the designs. I have been trying to google the author of the heart logo in a number of ways, but my google-skills are apparently to low, to come up with something substantial :( [correction: One of User:Andreyyshore's links was in fact to eurovision.tv - that is as solid as it gets. Being authored in UK doesn't change much though (with reference to the EDGE logo case] --heb [T C E] 13:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep
looking into the guidelines you linked here, I find the following text:
At the “heart” of the brand identity is a simple graphic device which is the basis for the whole brand application, the “flag-heart”.
... and ...
As the heart is such a ubiquitous graphic element, use of the symbol should only ever be used in combination with a flag.
This should settle the discussion: The organization which presumably holds the right on the whole ETC logo says that the "heart" is a simple graphic device and an ubiquitous graphic element. Whatever the Switzerland law may be, there is no reasonable doubt to the conclusion that the ETC allows using these files, and has the right to do so.
Case closed.
-- 93.220.64.160 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is simple, doesn't mean it can't be copyright protected in certain jurisdictions. There are several examples of such given below. --heb [T C E] 08:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These images weren't authored in the UK though. They were authored by the commons user that created them. The source country of the original image dates back to 460 A.D. If commons wants to accept copyright on it then we would need to delete all the files in Category:Hearts with transparent background--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you may find some form or shape of a heart in the Georgian letter ღ (which I suppose is the one you refer to as the heart symbol), I doubt you can find this heart logo back then and the stretch from the Georgian letter is quite far. This logo (per the brand guidelines I linked to above), specifically "symbolises, the emotions experienced by the fans and enthusiasts of the show and the flag waving behaviour which is unique to the Eurovision Song Contest." As such a certain amount of thought process has (supposedly) gone into creating it, rather than just basic re-use of a 1,500 year old letter or an icon in a 700 year old manuscript. Again - as Stefan4 writes above: Compare with the EDGE logo: the letters E, D and G were created in the Roman Empire, but the modified letters in the EDGE logo were made and first published in the United Kingdom and deemed copyrightable in UK. --heb [T C E] 09:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Edge logo was a UK case about a custom font. This is a case about a 2000 year old symbol. If we at commons decide that very minor variations to PD works can have copyright then we would end up with many deletions. Closing admin should take this in account. There is no harm in continuing to host these images until WMF is possibly contacted in the future. Their legal team at that point may decide whether or not they are PD and may wish to actually spend money on a court case rather than a no-cost DCMA removal at the request of the copyright holders. We will probably never know the country of origin because Eurovision may have used free clipart from the net so save artist costs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No the Edge logo was a case about "stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E"". Not a custom font (then it would simply have been {{PD-textlogo}}). Stating that "[t]here is no harm in continuing to host these images until WMF is possibly contacted in the future" looks to me, very much like a "we can get away with it"-argument. Just because something is a "minor variation" to something PD, doesn't mean it can't be protected under certain legislations; the same could to some extent go for the aboriginal flag, which is "just"a red and a black rectangle with a yellow circle (yet deleted from Commons) or the Ellen Macarthur Foundation Logo which is "just" three circles and some text (but also deleted from Commons). In this case it is specifically about a trademarked logo developed by a UK agency (sourced by User:Andreyyshore in the comment of 11:39, 14 September 2013), to symbolise "the emotions experienced by the fans and enthusiasts of the show and the flag waving behaviour which is unique to the Eurovision Song Contest" (my comment of 09:25, 16 September 2013). A deletion closing on this request, will only affect those that fit UK created and logo of which some already has been moved. At the very most I only see it affect a fraction of the 336 files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom, some of which are in fact authored outside of UK such as File:Lidl.svg and some of which are purely a use of the typeface "in the ordinary course of typing, composing text, typesetting or printing" (not protected in UK so {{PD-textlogo}} here). --heb [T C E] 06:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of 'we can get away with it'. It is a matter of commons consensus that we don't accept copyright claims on minor variations to a PD work. We can keep repeating ourselves or let the closing admin decide whether the country of origin is 'unknown Europe', a 2000 year old alphabet, or the uploader's hard drive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a commons consensus that we don't accept copyright claims on minor variations, but should that be the case it of course put things into a different light. That said I completely agree that it's very much a discussion of source and that we have reached a state, where it should be up to a third party (closing admin) to decide; though I would like to note that I find your "list of options" to be biased somewhat. To me (but this is probably also biased) Switzerland (as commissioning country), UK (as home to the company that created this logo), a symbol from a 2000 year old alphabet, a 700 year old icon or the uploader are a more correct list based on the discussions above. --heb [T C E] 08:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh  Keep,  Keep,  Keep,  Keep,  Keep,  Keep,  Keep,  Keep, etc. (one per item; mass-keep, for a mass nom.). it's a basic heart-shape with a flag in it. i'm sick-to-death of these pettifogging debates over the copyrightability & "threshold of originality" on TRIVIAL modifications of PD designs. every time we do this, it strengthens the arguement for SIMPLIFICATION of common's copyright rules, to only require clearance in our "host country" (i.e.: u.s.a.).
there's nothing that i can see in any of these designs, that meets any reasonable "threshold of originality" to qualify. trademark yes, copyright no.
i'm also really NOT a fan of doing these as mass-deletes (nor of mass-deletes in general). if we're going to have a "general discussion", it would be better to do that as an rfc & maybe hash out some policy on it; with the whole community engaged. rather than relying on "quasi-jurisprudence", via cases here.
& if we are going to do this here, it would be better to go case-by-case, rather than have one lumpen mass... that doesn't allow for proper consideration of each item, & the specifics that apply to each.
Lx 121 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - if the sheer amount of work is what is keeping an admin from closing this, I would (as the creator) like to volunteer myself to loyally "clean up" after the request; wither it be to keep or delete (I am an admin, but due to my participation I would rather not close it, as I don't feel the discussion has changed my view and I don't think that would be as un-partial as it could be...), as long as it is done before first coming Wednesday (after which I will be on Wiki-break for a month). --heb [T C E] 11:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No clear agreement to delete anything. Files that exceed the threshold of originality should be nominated for deletion on an individual basis. -FASTILY 08:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]