Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asd.gif
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.
It's not obvious if Heavymachinegun has actually a) made this work and b) published it under this license. The whole site is under a Creative Commons license but some of the other pictures on that site have not been explicitly released under the license, either (meaning there's no precedent). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think that we can trust this file simply because is published since 2007. I mean, there are eleven years of publication on an high-traffic website behind this image. Everyone — registered and anonymous users — have had a lot of time to raise any sort of copyright reclaim on the discussion page of the file as allowed by that MediaWiki instance — we know. Instead, as today the upstream discussion page is still empty. Anyway I think that we can solve every problem with a {{PD-shape}}, considering that we are talking about a 15x15 pixel image. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- keep. inelegible for copyright otherwise we must assume that the smile icon is copyrighted and delete the whole category:smilies--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
The wiki page this emoticon is taken from (https://nonciclopedia.org/wiki/ASD) describes the icon as originating from MSN Messenger. Belbury (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- And apologies, I didn't see the discussion above; the deletion alert box warned me that there were previous deletion discussions and showed me links to two unrelated ones that used the same filename and which resulted in delete .I didn't register the slight scrollbar to the right of them as meaning there were newer and more relevant discussions further down and out of sight.
- But I strongly disagree with the above rationale that all 15x15 pixel art, and/or all smiley faces, are automatically {{Pd-shape}} as "contains no original authorship". There is unique artistic skill on display in this small animation of a smiling face.
- That no copyright owner has complained to an Italian-langauge fake comedy encyclopedia since 2007 is not a reason for Commons to host the image, per COM:PRP. Belbury (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that. More facets:
- 1. AFAIK to be honest I remember the "File:Asd.gif" icon from phpBB that is Free/Libre and Open Source software under the GNU GPL that is compatible in Wikimedia Commons https://www.phpbb.com/downloads/license . If somebody can confirm this it would be nice to keep this awesome icon forever in Wikimedia Commons.
- 2. The fact that it "comes from MSN" is mentioned from Nonciclopedia... which I must admit I would not use as copyright source. Anyway that source also mentions "various forums" so my above assumption about phpBB may be correct.
- 3. Copyright applies on creative reproductions for the author, to have economic benefits. Let's see "File:Asd.gif". We are talking about a 15 pixel images transitioning of 1 pixel, and consisting in black and yellow and white pixels, circulating over the Internet for decades. Wikimedia Commons is rightly paying attention to potential small issues, but there is no legal basis to sustain that this could create this kind of problem, while there are strong reasons to consider this image in good faith in the public domain mark. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
- 4. Nonciclopedia was an Italian-based community. Note that Italy is in Europe. In Europe, "memes" are not protected by copyright and note that memes can be lot of more complex. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47708144
- In short, if there are no new conditions, I would not change the old community opinion, that is: this image can be hosted in Wikimedia Commons in good faith. Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- If we can confirm this came from phpBB and add it to the set in Category:PhpBB, great. (Looking at historical screenshots of PhpBB icon sets, I am not yet able to find it.)
- If we can confirm that "Heavymachinegun" created it as an original icon for Nonciclopedia in 2007 and released it as CC-Attribution, also great.
- But if we can't do either of those, I don't see that we can fall back on the ideas that whoever made it wouldn't bother or couldn't afford to sue us (COM:PRP#1), that it's common property because it's been around on the web for a long time (COM:PRP#5) or that memes are valid for "quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche" in Italy (Commons only hosts freely licenced images, not COM:FAIRUSE ones). Belbury (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Searching through Italian forums of the mid 2000s, I'm finding a lot of talk about this being a popular smiley for expressing "ASD", an analogue for the English "LOL". https://www.motoclub-tingavert.it/t228682s30s.html is a 2008 forum agreeing to adopt it as the "classico", and https://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showthread.php?t=1114928 shows it being used in 2006 on a vBulletin forum, prior to Heavymachinegun uploading the image to Nonciclopedia.
- I can't yet find any evidence of it being a vBulletin default. The fact that both forums call the file "asd.gif" (which means nothing in English) suggests that it probably wasn't bundled with vBulletin by default, and was copied manually from forum to forum, possibly just within Italy. Belbury (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep From what I understand Unicode emoji's are PD. To give one source, this Forbes article says "All Unicode emoji are in the public domain and therefore may be used for any purpose, including commercial use without the need to obtain any consent." I think this would either be one of the smiling Unicode emojis or a derivative of it. Although I can't find the exact one right now, but I still assume it's PD since either way it's not to far off from the original Unicode smiling emoji. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's no suggestion that this image corresponds to any particular Unicode emoji, it seems to be an old school Web 1.0 emoticon. I'm not sure what "All Unicode emoji are in the public domain" is saying there, but Commons doesn't host the Apple Color or Segoe UI emoji sets, and Category:Noto Color Emoji smilies are explicitly Apache licenced rather than public domain on the grounds that they represent Unicode. --Belbury (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Commons doesn't host the Apple Color or Segoe UI emoji sets." I assume that's because they are original enough and not based on Unicode. In other words, they are just emojis. Conversely, if this is a web 1.0 emoticon it's design is probably a derivative of the original Unicode smiling/laughing emoji. Although that said, it looks very similar to the KDDI emojis in this chart. Unfortunately the smiling emoji is missing, but from what I remember they were animated and it has the same design as the others. So I'm willing to change my vote to delete if someone can find the original. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- https://emojipedia.org/au-kddi/type-d-1 seems to be the full set of those KDDI emoji. There are no sideways-facing yellow smileys. Belbury (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, crap lol. Anyway, here's another article about the whole "Unicode emojis are public domain" thing. Essentially what it comes down is that the Unicode Consortium assigns a shape outline and short description to the Unicode characters corresponding emoji, which is public domain. So any emoji that is based on or close enough to their original design would be public domain since it's a a durative work. I assume in the case of the Apple Color or Segoe UI emoji sets they are different enough to qualify for copyright, but say an emoji of a basic yellow, round grinning face wouldn't be copyrighted because that's what the original outline and description was of. So I guess the question we need to answer is if this emoji is close enough to the original shape/description or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow the points in that article, but if you're asking whether (my browser default) 😁 and File:Asd.gif are so similar to each other that the second can only be a close derivative version of the first, I'd say no, these are two very different icons of little grinning faces, and I could easily believe that second had been drawn without the artist using the first as a reference. The Apple equivalent shown at https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html is closer to the browser default, and the Apple emojis seem to be regarded as copyrighted in deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- They look pretty similar to me. Both are yellow circles. Both have an open, grinning mouth with teeth showing. Both have half moon closed eyes. Really the only difference is that the Asd is slightly animated and off center. That's not enough to call it an original work though. If I were to guess the reason the Apple emojis are copyrightable or at least not hostable is because of the unique shading elements. Usually with logos that's what sends them over the line. Like it's fine for commons to host a basic single color Apple logo like File:Apple logo black.svg, but once you get into something along the lines of this one it starts becoming questionable. Same goes for a lot of other company logos BTW. Basic shape fine. Basic shape with complex or semi-complex shading, not fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interestingly on shading, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amazon-S3-Logo.svg mentions a ruling against Apple where their making the basic shape of a heart shinily three-dimensional and beating in a regular way "by itself does not elevate the design’s creativity enough to warrant copyright protection".
- As pointed out a few hours ago on COM:VPC, there is no original public domain Unicode icon. Their document defining the grinning smiley is at https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F600.pdf, which does not release the example icon grid as public domain. It merely defines these faces with the words
GRINNING FACE
orGRINNING FACE WITH SMILING EYES
. It looks like the Technical Standard only mildly recommends that emoji smilies should have a "generic, non-realistic skin tone", typically a "yellow/orange color". Belbury (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)- I'm aware of that ruling, which is why I caveated what I said with "or at least not hostable." In the meantime I've been involved in more then a few DRs having to do with logos and the shading seems to be a general rule. Of course it depends who votes and closes it since there is no bright line. That doesn't negate the fact that complex shading can lead to a logo being deleted. Anyway, as I said in COM:VPC the pdf document your linking to is just an excerpt This of the table. I'm sure the actual table contains more information. As far as if the technical Technical Standard says only "only mildly recommends that emoji smilies should have a generic, non-realistic skin tone", your leaving out the context in the sentence before that about that it applies "When a human emoji is not immediately followed by an emoji modifier character." Which if I'm being honest is just miss-leading. You can't say it recommends that emoji smilies should have a generic, non-realistic skin tone without including exactly when it applies and what it applies to. Anyway, the guy who wrote the Forbes article that says unicode Emojis are public domain, Oliver Herzfeld, is a IP/licensing lawyer. Whereas, the WIPO Magazine article was written by a Professor of Law and IP attorney. Are you going to argue that those people don't know what they are talking about? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- They look pretty similar to me. Both are yellow circles. Both have an open, grinning mouth with teeth showing. Both have half moon closed eyes. Really the only difference is that the Asd is slightly animated and off center. That's not enough to call it an original work though. If I were to guess the reason the Apple emojis are copyrightable or at least not hostable is because of the unique shading elements. Usually with logos that's what sends them over the line. Like it's fine for commons to host a basic single color Apple logo like File:Apple logo black.svg, but once you get into something along the lines of this one it starts becoming questionable. Same goes for a lot of other company logos BTW. Basic shape fine. Basic shape with complex or semi-complex shading, not fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow the points in that article, but if you're asking whether (my browser default) 😁 and File:Asd.gif are so similar to each other that the second can only be a close derivative version of the first, I'd say no, these are two very different icons of little grinning faces, and I could easily believe that second had been drawn without the artist using the first as a reference. The Apple equivalent shown at https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html is closer to the browser default, and the Apple emojis seem to be regarded as copyrighted in deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, crap lol. Anyway, here's another article about the whole "Unicode emojis are public domain" thing. Essentially what it comes down is that the Unicode Consortium assigns a shape outline and short description to the Unicode characters corresponding emoji, which is public domain. So any emoji that is based on or close enough to their original design would be public domain since it's a a durative work. I assume in the case of the Apple Color or Segoe UI emoji sets they are different enough to qualify for copyright, but say an emoji of a basic yellow, round grinning face wouldn't be copyrighted because that's what the original outline and description was of. So I guess the question we need to answer is if this emoji is close enough to the original shape/description or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- https://emojipedia.org/au-kddi/type-d-1 seems to be the full set of those KDDI emoji. There are no sideways-facing yellow smileys. Belbury (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Commons doesn't host the Apple Color or Segoe UI emoji sets." I assume that's because they are original enough and not based on Unicode. In other words, they are just emojis. Conversely, if this is a web 1.0 emoticon it's design is probably a derivative of the original Unicode smiling/laughing emoji. Although that said, it looks very similar to the KDDI emojis in this chart. Unfortunately the smiling emoji is missing, but from what I remember they were animated and it has the same design as the others. So I'm willing to change my vote to delete if someone can find the original. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's no suggestion that this image corresponds to any particular Unicode emoji, it seems to be an old school Web 1.0 emoticon. I'm not sure what "All Unicode emoji are in the public domain" is saying there, but Commons doesn't host the Apple Color or Segoe UI emoji sets, and Category:Noto Color Emoji smilies are explicitly Apache licenced rather than public domain on the grounds that they represent Unicode. --Belbury (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. COM:PRP applies. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- keep. inelegible for copyright otherwise we must assume that the smile icon is copyrighted and delete the whole category:smilies--Pierpao.lo (listening) 20:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Deleting this image would only provide a precedent for deleting other smilies which were above the Commons:Threshold of originality and where the artist had not freely licenced their work. Belbury (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion, particularly the argumenst of Belbury. I agree the gif icon is not a simple derivative from the smiling unicode icon. It is complex and will therefore be copyrighted. In addition, no evidence is provided to show the author has released this with a free license. --Ellywa (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
