Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ole Miss Rebels football 2009 Unsatisfied.gif: Difference between revisions

File:Ole_Miss_Rebels_football_2009_Unsatisfied.gif

Original uploader (to Flickr) selected cc-by-sa 2.0 as a license, but this is a derivative of a copyrighted work (logo) and the uploader does not obviously have relicensing authority (see Colonel Reb for reference). Nathan^T 01:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Keep They don't have a copyright on old men in red suits and as this one is much different than the Ole Miss logo one, I don't see a problem. Ole Miss' logo includes the words Ole Miss and Rebels. Colonel Reb itself is not copyrighted. And who's nomming this for deletion anyway? Nathan or Avruch? I see Nathan above but Avruch left the notice on my talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just hadn't changed my sig since my rename. The "old man in a red suit" in both images is obviously the same character, even without the context clues of "Ole Miss" and "Rebels" on the image - that makes it is a derivative work. Use of a derivative is typically governed under fair use, unless the license of the original allows modification and redistribution. I'm assuming since the original logo (on en.wp, uploaded by you?) has a fair use rationale, it wasn't published as cc-by-sa 2.0. Nathan^T 13:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As many a high school and a few colleges use the same logo, I'm not so sure the man himself without the words Ole Miss and Rebels is trademarked or copyrighted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not sure? Part of uploading images is that it is incumbent upon you to know the license. You seriously just hoped for the best? This, mixed with your history of copyright violations at en.wiki, has me very concerned. You do understand that we here at commons are trying to build a free (as in free speech, not as in free beer) source for images and media unencumbered by restrictive licensing. Your actions seem to suggest that is not why you are here. --98.248.193.79 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should try logging in before making accusations, or at least identifying yourself. I normally don't respond to smartasses but I'll make an exception here. Seeing as how any college or high school can apparently use the very same logo, It doesn't make since that it would be copyrighted or trademarked.. not without the accompanying identifying words of the school. I can think of 3 high schools here in Mississippi off the top of my head that are using the very logo right now. UNLV uses a variation of it. There's a semi-pro rugby team in Alabama that uses the logo. I'm just saying, I don't believe the old man in a red suit depicted here is copyrighted or trademarked, not when there's so much blatant and public use of it by different organizations that really have nothing to do with each other. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Pretty obvious copyvio, unless someone can research the logo and prove it's not actually copyrighted. This is a possibility, but it's absolutely not something we can assume. --Simonxag (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)