Commons:Deletion requests/File:Swedish Rugby Union logo.svg
As my previous edit (tagging this file as a copyvio) was reverted by the uploader/admin alleging it was "inconsistent", I went on with a regular DR.
Although some elements are indeed ineligible (p.e. the goalposts), the usage of the three crowns (present in all other official Swedish insignias) are regulated by Swedish Law, Act 1970:498, which states (in section 1, translated from Swedish) that "...in business activities, state arms, state flag or other state emblem or state control or guarantee designation may not be used in a trademark or other characteristic of goods or services without proper permission.".
As a logo of a rugby union body, this emblem does not meet those requirements. - Fma12 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep still inconsistent request. Indeed, we are not using the three crowns in "a trademark or other characteristic of goods", we are reproducing a logo with simple elements. As usual a request which grounds are, at the best, vague. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Act 1970:498 is a non-copyright restriction and therefore irrelevant. --MB-one (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Despite it in an earlier DR was kept I decided to nominate it again. This is because I am fairly certain that this logo does reach the threshold of originality which is needed for a work of art to achieve copyright protection in Sweden, and I guess elsewhere as well. COM:TOO Sweden is generally considered fairly low which is why I say that this not-so-simple logo does indeed qualify for copyrighr protection, and thus needs permission to be hosted on Commons. Pinging the participants of the former DR: @Fma12, Blackcat, and MB-one: . Jonteemil (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are so many uncategorized logos -several of them in use- that do reach the threshold of originality... Why this one again? --E4024 (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's like saying to the police Man, there are unsolved murders in this time and you waste your time giving me a speeding ticket? Are you freaking serious?Jonteemil (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Well, according to the duck test, it sounds like that. Anyway, this request is inconsistent like the previous one as this logo is a non-original mix of unelegible elements thus it's not copyrightable now and never. -- Blackcat
10:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete per @Jonteemil: I still state this logo surpass the TOO, doesn't matter if this DR was closed or it's been a while since the debate. Fma12 (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: This request is inconsistent in regard to? Also, what does it sound like according to the duck test? And lastly, I'd like to point out that several elemements that don't surpass the TOO on their own, can certainly do it when put together. Each stroke that Da Vinci has put on the Mona Lisa is too simple to be copyrighted, but together the strokes make something more complex than most works of arts we have on this planet.Jonteemil (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apart that the Mona Lisa is in PD thus every debate about its originality is surpassed, rugby goal posts, a rugby ball and three Swedish Crowns put over them are not original even where the threshold of originality were the rule that "drawing a line with a ruler it's enough originality". As for what it sounds like, I was talking about the metaphor of the speed ticket. -- Blackcat 13:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apart that the Mona Lisa is in PD thus every debate about its originality is surpassed, rugby goal posts, a rugby ball and three Swedish Crowns put over them are not original even where the threshold of originality were the rule that "drawing a line with a ruler it's enough originality". As for what it sounds like, I was talking about the metaphor of the speed ticket. -- Blackcat
- @Blackcat: This request is inconsistent in regard to? Also, what does it sound like according to the duck test? And lastly, I'd like to point out that several elemements that don't surpass the TOO on their own, can certainly do it when put together. Each stroke that Da Vinci has put on the Mona Lisa is too simple to be copyrighted, but together the strokes make something more complex than most works of arts we have on this planet.Jonteemil (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's like saying to the police Man, there are unsolved murders in this time and you waste your time giving me a speeding ticket? Are you freaking serious?Jonteemil (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Det betyder att om du känner dig säker på att logotyperna inte är lika ett verk som redan existerar så kan du vara relativt trygg med att de uppnår den verkshöjd som krävs och att upphovsmannen därför har upphovsrätten till dem. = That means that if you're confident, that the logotypes don't resemble a work that already exists, you can be relatively safe that they reach the threshold of originality that is needed and that the creator therefore owns the copyright to them. Quote from a law site in Sweden where licensed lawyers answer people's quesion, link.Jonteemil (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep too little for originality -- 151.43.8.223 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. The examples on COM:TOO Sweden which are above threshold are much more complex then this design with PD / clipart elements. So imho the image can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
