Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Teknoraver

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 uploaded by Teknoraver (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I question pd-textlogo for these, which was the (now removed) tag when this discussion was raised - a red fedora is not just a 'simple geometric' shape imo, but a creative element of a trademarked logo.

  • https://static.redhat.com/legacy/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf says "The only way to obtain permission to use Red Hat’s trademark is by entering into a written license agreement with Red Hat, Inc., signed by both Red Hat and the licensee or by qualifying under or complying with the ‘‘Trademark Permissions’’ set forth in these Guidelines. Absolutely no exceptions." I see nothing in the rest of that document suitable for Commons licensing. "Trademark permissions" does mention non-profit organisations, but only in the context of using the logo to accompany software distribution.

Begoon 14:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment There are a few misconceptions here. First, Commons requires copyrighted content be allowed for all end-users, not just non-profits. Second, trademark is not; we allow trademarked content (Commons:Non-copyright restrictions).
Nonetheless, with this in mind, I agree these are not PD-textlogo and should be deleted unless they are released under a free license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am, of course, perfectly aware that we allow trademarked content. The quote from RedHat is merely to demonstrate that they specifically do not permit use of the material collectively described by them using the noun trademarks with any suitable license. I mentioned "non-profit" merely because it was there, in case anyone might say "Aha!" and cite it as a loophole. Your reason it does not apply is a better one to mention than mine, since it obviously never could. No misconceptions here - but thanks for your concern. -- Begoon 01:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that these are problematic copyright-wise. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]