Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facebook like thumb.png
First nomination 24 August 2011 − kept |
---|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not simple shapes. // Sertion 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No copyrighted file who is used in several pages. Béria Lima msg 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
Second nomination 6 February 2012 − kept |
---|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The Facebook Like botton is copyrighted by Facebook and we cannot use it without their permission. As per their licensing statements, they grant usage rights only to specific applications, reuse for other purposes is not allowed. Also, this is not a "simple" geometric shape, as mentioned in Common's description, but an artwork. Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Portions below have been moved here from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png; their fates are intertwined. Killiondude (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Portions above have been moved here from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png; their fates are intertwined.
Kept: Too simple to be eligible for copyright, also a case of prior art (Facebook didn't design the thumb nor the hand). --Denniss (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Facebook thumbs (third nomination)
- File:Facebook_like_thumb.png
- File:Not facebook not like thumbs down.png
- File:Botón Me gusta.svg
- File:Facebook-like-button.png
These three four files are a clear imitation of Facebook's 'like' thumb. It is not simply a matter of asserting "simple graphics − ineligible for copyright". First, they arent that simple, second there is also the issue of choice of colors, four (or is it five?) nuances of blue that, again, is a clear attempt to give it the "Facebook look". When I add to this the way it is implemented on several templates on the English-language Wikipedia, see e.g. w:Template:Like, the plagiarizing becomes, at least to me, ostentatious and blatant. Others may want to confirm that this practice is ubiquitous across the projects that transclude these files by following the inter-language links on that template..
I suppose it could be argued that the infringement doesn't start until the transcluding templates employ the images, adding amplifying effect to recreate the Facebook feel, but I would argue that even these images themselves, no matter how few pixels they have, are the core of the problem.
This is the third nomination of the first file, second for the second file (and first for the third file, which is a vector version of the first, + the fourth). The first nomination, in June 2011, didn't even discuss the copyright issue. In the second, in February 2012, the opinions were clearly divided, but the discussion was not as extensive as it could have been. Thus this re-nomination. __meco (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (Fourth file added to nomination. __meco (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC))
- Keep - The arguments for deletion two months ago were bogus, and they still are. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - this appears to be an exact copy of the Facebook like thumb from the page background, e.g. https://s-static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v1/yr/r/UoiWcNiokdd.png . (As displayed on the page it has a faint blue background which is absent here, I think, due to transparent pixels) There are several spots where the line zigzags via intermediate-value pixels, and these are exactly the same in this image. I don't know what the minimum number of pixels to be copyrightable is, but this is an exact copy of a 13x12 area. With it labelled as "Facebook like thumb" and used to appropriate what might be called valuable Facebook IP, i.e. the Like function, to Wikipedia ... I think this might not be a good idea. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks ok to me. I don't want this image to be Deleted from WMC. 189.70.92.232 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous times these images were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, the images that were nominated for deletion by Meco here on Wikimedia Commons do not even appear to be the same images nominated on Wikipedia. What gives with that? How can we have a "centralized discussion" when we are discussing two different sets of images? Procedurally, how does this "centralized discussion" work? How can a WikiCommons TfD be binding upon a different image in a separate TfD on Wikipedia? And contrary to the assertion above by the nominator, the copyright rationale has been repeatedly addressed on both Wikipedia and WikiCommons, but the nominator glosses over that fact by saying that this "rationale is a different." I am prepared to call this a "bad faith" nomination, an obvious attempt at forum shopping to achieve a different TfD result, and a violation of the previous consensus that was reaffirmed only two months ago on
WikipediaWikimedia Commons TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all three, as well as the derivative File:Facebook-like-button.png. Although the concept of "thumbs-up" as a sign for liking something is not copyrightable, a particular representation of that idea is. Prior discussions seem to have focused (wrongly) on the small size of the image, but I think size (resolution) is only relevant if you're considering a fair-use claim, which is out of the question here at Commons. Our question should be whether the image is suitably original to garner copyright protection (I think probably) and if so, whether these images are similar enough to the one used by Facebook to infringe (definitely). cmadler (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm. Not exactly. Size is relevant to the idea of whether something is creative enough to be copyrightable. (I can use italics, too!) I don't see "infringement" as a particularly compelling argument, otherwise we wouldn't have these (and all the rest in their respective categories). Also, lol @ "similar enough to the one used by Facebook". It's sourced to Facebook! Killiondude (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I added that one to the nomination also, no reason to leave it out of the discussion. __meco (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The rationale that these images are too small to attract copyright is not just doubtful, but raises significant doubt. Per Threshold of originality, there is no minimal pixel size defined for the threshold, these icons are immediately recognizable, they are not simple geometry, and there is no doubt that there was significant creative talent in their original production. It remains my opinion that these should be removed per precautionary principle until someone confirms the status of these images with Facebook or has more appropriate advice from a credible council that can extend our definitions under the current threshold of originality casebook. --Fæ (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since we're being all pseudo-lawyerly: all of this is easily refuted with the phrase "prior art". The icons that facebook uses are not original art.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)- Could you point out the priors and explain where they touched a progenitor nature? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- They've tried, and failed, to trademark the whole button in several states, but I've never seen anything in a reliable source about a copyright, especially not of the thumb itself. A hand with a thumbs up is a very common image, and is widely used (YouTube uses it, for example), so I can't see how Facebook could possibly succeed in establishing an enforceable copyright over it. They don't appear to claim copyright over it anyway (their having enough trouble getting "face" and "book" copyrighted anyway), so this all seems rather unnecessary. Let's address this when there's anything more then a suspicion that there might be a problem.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)- I'm not aware of this failed copyrighting background, possibly as I don't live in the USA. Could you point to somewhere I can read about it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ohms law: the concept of the thumbs-up as a symbol for liking something is not copyrightable, but a particular image to represent it is. That's why, although YouTube also uses the thumbs-up to indicate that a user likes a video, it is not the same thumbs-up image used by Facebook. We can also host any number of thumbs-up images here, as long as they are not the same as those used elsewhere. cmadler (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think the reason(s) why YouTube chose the icon they chose is neither here nor there. And we can host any number of thumbs-up images here as long as they are free. We happen to have a lot of content used elsewhere! Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I would still like to see some evidence of Facebook attempting to copyright this image and failing, in order to help make a determination if there is significant doubt here or not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think if you read Ohms' post again you'll see he made no claim about attempts to copyright the image but rather trademarking it. [3] (rather old article) They're also trying to trademark uses of the word "face" and "book" (and it seems they've gotten "face"). [4] In all, trademark doesn't really matter in the context of whether it can be kept on Commons. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- They've tried, and failed, to trademark the whole button in several states, but I've never seen anything in a reliable source about a copyright, especially not of the thumb itself. A hand with a thumbs up is a very common image, and is widely used (YouTube uses it, for example), so I can't see how Facebook could possibly succeed in establishing an enforceable copyright over it. They don't appear to claim copyright over it anyway (their having enough trouble getting "face" and "book" copyrighted anyway), so this all seems rather unnecessary. Let's address this when there's anything more then a suspicion that there might be a problem.
- Could you point out the priors and explain where they touched a progenitor nature? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since we're being all pseudo-lawyerly: all of this is easily refuted with the phrase "prior art". The icons that facebook uses are not original art.
- Keep I find User:Killiondude and User:MZMcBride's arguments from the previous deletion request compelling. 28bytes (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - unless someone can show that Facebook successfully registered this at the Copyright Office. But I believe that registration would be denied as not sufficiently original. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - For the same reasons that Peter Kuiper mentioned. --Varnent (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - For the reasons I did in the last two discussions above. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:TOO Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Per the preceding five votes. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Sorry, but I don't get this stuff about the icon not being original enough. The particular thumbs-up icon that Facebook uses for their Like button is distinctively recognizable as the Facebook Like icon to probably anyone who knows what the Facebook Like button looks like, and with Facebook being so common these days, that probably means a lot of people. The thumbs-up sign may be a generic concept, but I don't see why different representations of it (such as different thumbs-up icons on the Internet, including the Facebook one) could not be copyrighted. I strongly second what Matthiaspaul and Nyttend said in the closed second nomination.
- I also support being safe rather than sorry: if we need to have a "Like" (and/or "Dislike") template around, then let's create our own thumbs-up and thumbs-down symbols and make the Like/Dislike templates a little different looking. There is nothing that I am aware of that says we have to ripoff Facebook's Like button, right down to using the exact Facebook thumbs-up image, copied from Facebook's servers.
- Keep per the above keep votes. benzband (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept no new arguments of value have been brought up. --Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)