Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German logos

misleading template, see discussion on Village pump h-stt !? 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC) To be eligible for Commons, any image must be free of copyright in both the country of origin and the USA - or it has a free license. This template covers only German law, and both relevant jurisdictions are very different, so there is only a very small number of images, where this template applies and they are ok by US-standards. On the other hand, to the little informed commons user this template looks like it is sufficient as license, but it is not. A file that is labelled whit this template would always need another template explaining why it is in the PD in the USA as well. As this is not intuitive to grasp, I consider the template to be misleading and suggest to delete it. --h-stt !? 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Commons is schizophrenic about local law vs US law. But even if one wants to apply US law to foreign logos, the misleading part is Dcoetzee's addition. The PD-1923 wording should be {{PD-US-no notice}}, as logos are typically published with ™ or ® symbols. Also the {{Textlogo}} is misleading, and causes many silly deletions; as Threshold of originality#United States shows, the Copyright Office is much more restrictive about granting copyright protection to logos than the deletionist Commons admins are lead to believe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per my comment at the aforementioned village pump discussion. This has no place on the Commons. Hekerui (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. That the template requires an additional US-related statement, is perfectly standard on commons and no different from e.g. {{PD-old}}. It may not be intuitive to grasp but it is also not intuitive to grasp why public domain images should be deleted to avoid confusion. (That part of the nomination certainly confuses me. Have you thought about how many license templates are in risk of deletion if that argument is considered valid?) And as Pieter says, since logos are frequently published without copyright notices, this covers a very real set of images. 188.178.233.110 09:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather iroinc that the template itself states that it is not a sufficient licences thus fils uplaoded eith this template alone have to be deleted anyway. So what is the point of the template? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That part is an addition by Coetzee. It should be removed. But if Commons wants to disregard the laws of other countries than the US (as it does with its {{PD-Art}}), so by all means, go ahead, and apply Threshold of originality#United States also to logos from France etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a misunderstanding! We must regard both the non-U.S. and the U.S. laws, which makes the threshold of the U.S. the critical question in most cases. Hekerui (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is inaccurate, to say it politely. Many established European logos would be {{PD-US-no notice}}, yet Commons admins would say that they are even less than 70 years old. And while I cannot quite judge the merits of claims like these, we know that the BOUML guy is arguing for French copyright for his software name in a common font; admins might delete foreign logos because of the paranoia principle. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said most cases - the case of the logo where an uploader would know of {{PD-US-no notice}}, makes the effort and actually manages to prove it was published in the U.S. from 1923 and 1977, always without a copyright notice, is so unlikely it pales compared to the invitation to upload copyrighted material from the German Wiki to the Commons - which is why H-stt nominated the template for deletion in the first place. Hekerui (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignorant: it is sufficient to show that a work had a single authorized US publication without copyright notice before 1978. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if it was first published with a copyright notice and later without one the copyright becomes invalid in your scenario? Please stop calling names, too. Hekerui (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: but this is not sufficient as a license template, that's why I tagged them {{No license}}. Given the threshold of originality in the country of origin, I would suggest to tag them {{PD-textlogo}}, but I leave that decision to somebody else Jcb (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]