I find it hypocritical that User:Save Us 229 has removed a logo on the basis of copyright violation, and then proceeded to add Image:Zoso.svg in the image link space instead, then blanked all other links The users edits on this issue makes little sense.
Megan
On 12/31/07, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hypocritical that User:Save Us 229 has removed a logo on the basis of copyright violation, and then proceeded to add Image:Zoso.svg in the image link space instead, then blanked all other links The users edits on this issue makes little sense.
Zoso.svg was created by Freakofnurture (former admin) who uploaded it to Commons as public domain. The validity of this license was disputed in April of last year, but it appears that the image was kept [1] on the basis that the four symbols themselves are older than dirt, that the sequence in which they are arranged lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrightable (amounts to no more than the sum of its parts), and that the image depicts only the glyphs of the album title and not the copyrighted cover art, so there was nothing to prevent him from releasing it into the public domain.
What is the "logo" image you are referring to, and where did 229 remove it from? A user-box by any chance? :-P
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Zoso.svg
—C.W.
So if you believe that to be true, you would have to explain the glyphs representing Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. According to biographies of the band, they themselves designed both glyphs. If so the images date to 1971, meaning they would still be in copyright.
Meg
On 03/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/31/07, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hypocritical that User:Save Us 229 has removed a logo on the basis of copyright violation, and then proceeded to add Image:Zoso.svg in the image link space instead, then blanked all other links The users edits on this issue makes little sense.
Zoso.svg was created by Freakofnurture (former admin) who uploaded it to Commons as public domain. The validity of this license was disputed in April of last year, but it appears that the image was kept [1] on the basis that the four symbols themselves are older than dirt, that the sequence in which they are arranged lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrightable (amounts to no more than the sum of its parts), and that the image depicts only the glyphs of the album title and not the copyrighted cover art, so there was nothing to prevent him from releasing it into the public domain.
What is the "logo" image you are referring to, and where did 229 remove it from? A user-box by any chance? :-P
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Zoso.svg
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 2, 2008 3:23 PM, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
So if you believe that to be true, you would have to explain the glyphs representing Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. According to biographies of the band, they themselves designed both glyphs. If so the images date to 1971, meaning they would still be in copyright.
As is explained e.g. here:
http://www.inthelight.co.nz/ledzep/zososymbol.htm
All the symbols are not new and not created by the band or its members, although they were chosen by them. It shows an image of a book from the sixteenth century with the 'Zoso' symbol in it, pretty much exactly as used by the band.
No, the copyrightability question is whether combining four long-existing symbols is sufficient for copyright in the United States; the argument that it is not is compelling.
-Matt
I think that the deletion debate established that, contrary to the Band's assertions you're relying on, the actual glyphs are ancient and not subject to current copyright.
That they may have reinvented them and chosen to use them to identify themselves doesn't mean that they are in fact original and subject to copyright.
You can't copyright old public-domain stuff, even if you came up with it again. Re-writing or re-drawing it, in knowledge of what came before or ignorance, doesn't render it original in the legal sense.
On Jan 2, 2008 3:23 PM, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
So if you believe that to be true, you would have to explain the glyphs representing Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. According to biographies of the band, they themselves designed both glyphs. If so the images date to 1971, meaning they would still be in copyright.
Meg
On 03/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/31/07, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hypocritical that User:Save Us 229 has removed a logo on the basis of copyright violation, and then proceeded to add Image:Zoso.svg in the image link space instead, then blanked all other links The users edits on this issue makes little sense.
Zoso.svg was created by Freakofnurture (former admin) who uploaded it to Commons as public domain. The validity of this license was disputed in April of last year, but it appears that the image was kept [1] on the basis that the four symbols themselves are older than dirt, that the sequence in which they are arranged lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrightable (amounts to no more than the sum of its parts), and that the image depicts only the glyphs of the album title and not the copyrighted cover art, so there was nothing to prevent him from releasing it into the public domain.
What is the "logo" image you are referring to, and where did 229 remove it from? A user-box by any chance? :-P
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Zoso.svg
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://www.myspace.com/meg99
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So if Wikipedia doesn't believe it is subject to copyright, what would be the objection to using it on templates?
On 03/01/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the deletion debate established that, contrary to the Band's assertions you're relying on, the actual glyphs are ancient and not subject to current copyright.
That they may have reinvented them and chosen to use them to identify themselves doesn't mean that they are in fact original and subject to copyright.
You can't copyright old public-domain stuff, even if you came up with it again. Re-writing or re-drawing it, in knowledge of what came before or ignorance, doesn't render it original in the legal sense.
On Jan 2, 2008 3:23 PM, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
So if you believe that to be true, you would have to explain the glyphs representing Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. According to biographies of the band, they themselves designed both glyphs. If so the images date to 1971, meaning they would still be in copyright.
Meg
On 03/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/31/07, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hypocritical that User:Save Us 229 has removed a logo on the basis of copyright violation, and then proceeded to add Image:Zoso.svg in the image link space instead, then blanked all other links The users edits on this issue makes little sense.
Zoso.svg was created by Freakofnurture (former admin) who uploaded it to Commons as public domain. The validity of this license was disputed in April of last year, but it appears that the image was kept [1] on the basis that the four symbols themselves are older than dirt, that the sequence in which they are arranged lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrightable (amounts to no more than the sum of its parts), and that the image depicts only the glyphs of the album title and not the copyrighted cover art, so there was nothing to prevent him from releasing it into the public domain.
What is the "logo" image you are referring to, and where did 229 remove it from? A user-box by any chance? :-P
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Zoso.svg
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://www.myspace.com/meg99
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 2, 2008 3:45 PM, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
So if Wikipedia doesn't believe it is subject to copyright, what would be the objection to using it on templates?
On 03/01/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the deletion debate established that, contrary to the Band's assertions you're relying on, the actual glyphs are ancient and not subject to current copyright.
That they may have reinvented them and chosen to use them to identify themselves doesn't mean that they are in fact original and subject to copyright.
Wait a sec. The individual glyphs aren't copyrightable, no. Neither are the letters A, B, C, and D. But if I put together stylized forms of A, B, C, and D, creating a logo, then it's an original piece of art. Certainly trademarkable, I'd think.
On Jan 2, 2008 3:57 PM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Wait a sec. The individual glyphs aren't copyrightable, no. Neither are the letters A, B, C, and D. But if I put together stylized forms of A, B, C, and D, creating a logo, then it's an original piece of art. Certainly trademarkable, I'd think.
Trademarkable, yes - but probably not copyrightable in the United States. Two different sets of laws. I have no doubt that a trademark suit against someone abusing that logo would have a chance.
I'm also not sure it applies here, though since Meg Ireland hasn't given us the context, it's hard to tell for sure.
-Matt