Template talk:SVG-Logo

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 7. The result of the discussion was "keep".

I said this at the TfD

I said this at the TfD, but I'll include this here also just in case the template is kept:

There is a serious problem with this template. Only copyrighted images are supposed to be rendered in low-resolution. The reason is that there should be no devaluation of the copyright when used as fair use. There is no such problem with trademark fair use, which is mainly concerned with using the trademark in correct context and preventing the false appearance of endorsement by the trademark owner. If you read the Wikipedia disclaimer, you will understand that content can be free, but still subject to trademark restrictions. Therefore, if kept, this template must be changed to emphasize that it is copyright, not trademark issues, that demand that the image be in low resolution. (Unless we also start applying it to article text. Perhaps every occurence of the word "Hoover" should be in low resolution!) nadav 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nadav 05:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed and edited the template to address these issues. nadav 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point

It seems to me that the warning in this template about keeping "size of this image [...] as small as possible when used in an article" is rather missing the point. The reason why the non-free content policy requires non-free images to be of low resolutions is:

so that the amount of the original used is kept as low as possible, and also
so that the version available on Wikipedia would not compete with and could not be used as a substitute for the original.

Neither of these goals is really advanced merely by scaling down the thumbnails of SVG logos used in articles. For the latter, if someone did want to use a logo available on Wikipedia as a substitute for the original — for, say, producing counterfeit goods — they would naturally use the full-size version available from the image page, not the thumbnails from the articles. As for the former, we really have two possibilities: either the size necessary for properly displaying the logo in the article is large enough to show all the detail in the scalable version, in which case the amount of the scalable version used is all of it, and scaling up the thumbnail would not make it any more so; or it isn't, in which case the SVG version in fact contains more detail than is necessary for its use in the article, and therefore needs to be simplified (or converted to an appropriately sized raster image) in order to comply with the non-free content criteria.

So in fact, reducing the size at which an SVG logo is used in an article could, paradoxically, make the fair use case for it weaker. Actually, the same issue does apply to raster images too, and indeed to all non-free content in general: that's why we forbid orphan non-free files, and why we scale down non-free raster images that are substantially larger than the size at which they're used.

I do think the text in this template needs to be changed to reflect this, by removing the emphasis on the size as used in the article and instead focusing on the detail level of the SVG file itself. Any objections (or suggestions)? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the detail level matters more, and in fact tWP:LOGO already says this. I'll add that. nadav (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thinks the new version still needs some work, though. Consider, for example, Image:3M-Logo.svg and Image:EFF.svg — I think it's quite clear that there's no way either of those could be changed have an "amount of detail [...] less than in the original logo". Of course, one could argue that the 3M logo, at least, may not be eligible for copyright in the first place, but as long as we assume it is, it's pretty much inevitable that the minimal amount of the original work that needs to be quoted, in order to show what the logo looks like, is all of it, including all the detail there is. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's not really an issue with the template itself then. The question of SVG logos and how to ensure they comply with the non-free content criteria has been extensively debated on various pages, including the talkpages of WP:LOGO and WP:NONFREE itself. You should raise your points there, since they have merit. nadav (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion at WT:Logos

The acceptability of non-free SVG logos is being discussed again at WT:Logos. Please contribute your expertise. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New three dimensional Registered emblem

{{editprotected}} in the past few weeks i have noticed the image licencing tags' status symbols, such as the copyright symbol, registered symbol, and others taking shape, literally, they are now there dimentional as a response cloud an admin please plce File:NotCommons-emblem-registered-trademark.svg in this template in place of File:Red trademark.svg, Thanks. Koman90 (talk), Network+ 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow managed to work out what you were saying.

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from FleetCommand, 27 June 2010

{{editprotected}} Please reinstate File:NotCommons-emblem-registered-trademark.svg in place of File:Red trademark.svg again. Thank you.

If you are worried about consensus, you may consider User:Koman90's request above as a third opinion. I do not think – actually I am sure – that there is no legal or policy-based reason that prevent the use of this file instead of the uglier Red Trademark.svg. Fleet Command (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Command (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD we have had the "B" and "R" and are now on the "D" ;) You might like to ask Denelson83 to explain his/her rationale for undoing the edit. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia has a "standard copyright symbol" or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Yes. I think you are right, Martin. I'd better ask Denelson83 to join in.

Now, dear Denelson83, as Martin mentioned, what is your rationale for undoing our edit? What has instigated you to think that perhaps our new visual overhaul deserved being undone? Fleet Command (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally made File:Red trademark.svg in the style of File:Red_copyright.svg, which is very widely used on Wikipedia. Changing it to the cheap Arial style doesn't please me because of its lack of originality. -- Denelson 83 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But still you where so kind that fixed the font of NotCommons-emblem-registered-trademark.svg yourself and reinstate it. So, shall we consider this request as done? Fleet Command (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]