Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion debate 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 also included in this DR:

The discussion[edit]

Per the resurrection of the local copy of the BBC logo on the English Wikipedia and the ruling which found this logo to be eligible for copyright protection. All of the BBC logos are concerned by this deletion request. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 15:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think the Edge logo has more special orientation and look than what the BBC logo has (if you notice on the Edge logo, the font itself is slanted and made it look non-standard). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Per Zscout370. --Leyo 16:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete at least some of them, e.g. File:3cr promo.jpg. Is File:BBC Germany.svg supposed to be based on COM:TOO#United Kingdom or on COM:TOO#Germany? There are also several other BBC logos which are associated with countries other than the UK. The main component is File:BBC.svg, so I assume that this discussion is meant as a discussion on whether that file is too complex or not. No idea if it is protected or not. The wording in the Edge case suggests that the Edge logo isn't the least complex type of logo which is copyrightable in the UK and I'm not sure if this is more complex or less complex than the Edge logo. Maybe it would be safer to delete per COM:PRP. See also an earlier discussion about BBC logos: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/01#BBC logos. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I agree with the above regarding files like File:3cr promo.jpg, but I think simple Gill Sans letters in geometric shapes can be kept. Serenthia 02:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Serenthia (talkcontribs) is one of the uploaders of the files that are the subject of this DR. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 00:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment might COM:L#Typographical copyright be relevant here? According to en:Logo of the BBC#1997, the logos are not yet 25 years old and there is apparently a 25-year protection for typographical arrangements. Not sure if the typographical copyright requires a whole book or if a simple logo would be enough. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is based off a logo used in the 60's, except a different font was used (and more complex). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the logo from the 1960s was typeset differently, so I'd guess that the logos would get separate typographical copyrights if they are eligible for a typographical copyright in the first place. No idea if it would be eligible for a normal (life+70 years) copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Similar to what Zscout370 has said, the Edge logo is a modified text. The BBC logo is plain and simple Gill Sans font in three boxes. To comment on the above point that logo was copyrighted by the BBC in 1996 and was a significant departure from previous logos - the only thing that has changed in the name BBC and the concept of the boxes. The logos could be deleted from the commons as they are non free, but I am unsure if this would affect the articles on, for example, Wikipedia if this occurs. The reason those articles use them is to identify a service and that article would adversely affected as a result. Rafmarham (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some projects do not use fair use, like the Spanish Wikipedia, so want to be sure all local projects have them uploaded first before we go and delete. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some projects do not have local uploads, like the Spanish Wikipedia, so they can't upload them at all. It would be nice to see more cases where logos have been ruled to be too simple or too complex. It is hard to tell if something is copyrightable or not with just one example. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Logo of the BBC. What's this? if we delete the file, then in all Wikipedias in which such use is displayed, only the will be the red filename. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Radiohörer (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid argument. However I do agree, that we should give this DR time before we go ahead and delete it, so we can notify everyone at the other wikis. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to a widely used file like this, we do let local projects know so they can keep it. Plus I am also an admin so I can restore files so local Wikis can copy it (I am also a global admin so I can visit each project personally). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Simple geometric shape. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep BBC oh look, I just infringed their copyright! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nard the Bard (talk • contribs)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Leaning towards delete for most of these based on the Edge ruling. Perhaps as a start, it would be an idea to split this deletion request into logos that are the BBC boxes followed by plain Gill Sans text, which appear to be debatable under UK law, and anything which is almost certainly original enough to cross the very low threshold required to be copyrighted under UK law (e.g. File:BBC 7.svg and File:BBC 6 Music launch logo.svg). Techtri (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete They are copyright protected under United Kingdom law ([1])Coolguy22468 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem I have with this is, not because you did anything wrong (and I appreciate you telling us this and asking the BBC) is that with a situation like this, the BBC will always say their logos will be copyrighted (copyfraud would be the term some will use) and if we can have someone within the justice system (or previous cases) stating this fact, then we will move forward from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed closure:
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep most of the logos. According to en:Eric_Gill#Typefaces Gill Sans was released about 1927–30 so even if simple fonts are protected in the UK for 25 years it is still way older than that. Therefore all logos that is based on Gill Sans should be kept.
In the cases where Gill Sans is not used we need to have an extra look. I therefore support a spilit up of the DR in 2 or more DRs.
Does anyone disagree that logos using Gill Sans are free? If yeas please explain why. --MGA73 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're to take the Edge ruling as precedent, a number of the logos display a similar or greater level of creativity. I would delete the most complex of them, such as this and this. The plain-text Gill Sans logos, however, are fine to keep. Osiris (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least part is less complex than edge logo. Nominate individually more complex ones Bulwersator (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Logos based on Gill Sans are ok to keep because Gill Sans was released about 1927–30 according to en:Eric_Gill#Typefaces (by Eric Gill and not BBC). According to Commons:L#Typographical_copyright protection period is 25 years. Logos that is more complex should be nominated and discussed individually.

Deleted: File:BBC Asian Network.svg and File:Bbcr2electricpromslogo.jpg is so complex that they are deleted based on the excisting DR. MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary note: Because of a question on my talk page I would like to add that per {{PD-font}} Commons practice it to concider a standard font as PD and therefore logos based on standard text is {{PD-textlogo}}. If the logo/text is not just a standard text we have to concider COM:TOO.
I mentioned COM:L#Typographical copyright and that apply when scanning a copyright-expired work. That is not the most important here. I just wanted to point out that even the typographical copyright should not be a problem here. In this case the simple combination of three letters into "BBC" does not meet the threshold of originality + the logo is based on a logo used in the 60's (per User:Zscout370). --MGA73 (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate 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.


The previous reason for keeping was that the BBC text was the simple Gill Sans font. However, as anyone can check against said font, it is actually custom drawn (the C is the most noticeable). 21:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This is what keeps you occupied?? Because a slightly adjusted letter-C shape somehow crosses some threshold of originality? I think you really need to have a word with yourself, IP Confused.png Cnbrb (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --xplicit 00:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]