Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 28

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:RCA Studio II Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Talkkaris (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

An svg of the RCA Records logo is in the public domain for not meeting the threshold of originality. Since the Studio II logo consists only of the same Records logo with two generic fonts, would it meet the TOO as well? Carlinal (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense and Move to Commons: I believe that the nominator is correct, in that as the image in question consists of simple text in two fonts, one of which has already been proven to be below the threshold of originality, the image in question is below that threshold as well. As such, I recommend relicensing the image as {{PD-textlogo}}, then moving it to Commons. FHSIG13 ^TALK 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD. Whpq (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two of us sheet music.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Dig it sheet music.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These sheet music covers only contain simple text/shapes and are thus ineligible for copyright due to being below the required threshold of originality. Licenses should thus be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The Beatles are a UK band and TOO in the UK is very low. These are probably fine under US TOO however. -Fastily 00:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't these US sheet music covers? And, if so, shouldn't US law apply here, rather than UK law?

  See here for a similar case involving the Harry Potter logo. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How did you make the determination that these sheet music covers from the US? -Fastily 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed that the non-free use rationale for File:Two of us sheet music.jpg lists that the cover art copyright is believed to belong to Warner Bros..

  I think it would be better to see the full-resolution cover, so the publisher of this sheet music can be identified. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that's not good enough. We're going to need a citation from a reliable source explicitly describing these covers as *the* US covers before they're safe to upload to Commons. Heck, even the uploader isn't 100% certain here given their use of "is believed" in the attribution statement. -Fastily 06:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, a full-resolution version of these covers will likely be needed to identify the publisher of this sheet music. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does that even matter when we're uncertain about the provenance of both images? You're putting the cart before the horse. -Fastily 02:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because, it is clear that a logo is present on this sheet music cover. However, it is difficult to discern whom the logo represents (which would allow us to verify if it is of a UK or US company) at such a low resolution. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's on you to research then. I can tell you that there's no hidden "full-resolution" revisions of either image on Wikipedia -Fastily 04:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense: I concur with @Fastily, in that simple sheet music is most likely ineligible for copyright, and as such the image in question can be relicensed dually as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{PD-UK}}. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's contradictory. A file cannot be both {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{PD-UK}} at the same time. -Fastily 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fastily My apologies, I noticed the contradiction right as you pointed it out. Would a dual licensing as {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-UK}} work instead? FHSIG13 ^TALK 10:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't re-license; remain as non-free—The images are too low-res to determine whether the sheet music covers are free to use and eligible for Commons. The logo seen at the bottom may contain complex elements, despite being hard to see. George Ho (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if there were any non-free elements in the originals, they've effectively been stripped out by virtue of both images being of such low resolution -Fastily 10:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.