Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CVU2.PNG, Image:CVU2.svg, and Image:Counter Vandalism Unit.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CVU2.PNG, Image:CVU2.svg, and Image:Counter Vandalism Unit.png

[edit]

All flagrantly violate [1], and are thus copyvio. --Phil Sandifer (On en)

Please see the discussion of this matter on Wikipedia John254 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Images have had the permission of the board and were created before the identity guidelines. had been put forward. Please take it to the board and if they find it to be a copyvio. They can delete it themselves. I'd like to point out they were asked about the issue twice so far and they had no objections before. --Cool out 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue - they don't have permission of the board. They have a "Well we have no policy, so it's not not OK..." from the board, which, lacking an explicit exception to the rules (Which you do lack) is superceded by the creation of a policy. Phil Sandifer 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not talk behalf of the board and instead go talk to the board. I showed the images to the board twice they werent bothered by them. --Cool out 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're getting this so very wrong, but Angela's comment - the one linked from the image description - was not permission. It was, very explicitly, "We have no policy against this, and nobody has said 'don't do it'". Since then, an official policy has been put into force that CLEARLY states all usage must get permission, and that sets image ugidelines that this ignored. Absent a specific exemption from the board, which nobody has presented, the images are clear copyvio. Phil Sandifer 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment In the meantime the images have been deleted by AlisonW. NielsF 23:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm I'd request an imidate undelete since image description pages are gone which held the difs for the permissions (a key element of this deletion request). --Cool out 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment User:AlisonW is the head of Wikimedia UK. But she's not part of the Board, from what I can tell. How she became a sysop here is indeed a mystery as there is no record of it in the logs. Um... obviously there's more behind this debate than mere policy and copyvio concerns. Given that they have existed for some time, I'm not sure what the urgent concern to have them deleted yesterday actually is. Why doesn't someone just create nice logos that don't use the WM/WP logo in any form? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I already started exploring that option. Images may be kept regardless though (assuming trademark comitee agrees). --Cool out 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For information, subsequent to the above. The derivative images concerned were not explicitly authorised and were deleted as copyright violations. The fact they have been in existence for some time is a pity, but they - and all other unauthorised logos derived from foundation-copyright logos - are now being deleted as we find them in order to protect the Foundation logos. Editors are welcome to create logos which are not derivative, of course, and I would hope that they do. --AlisonW 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was brought up again after the CVU pages themselves were deleted on English Wikipedia. I do not know if the CVU exists even outside ofg English Wikipedia, so probably until we get the mess sorted out there, let's keep the image out of the Commons for now. Once it is settled, then we will procede further. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reviewed the entier issue and came up with this set of conclusions. Disagree if you will but at least hear me out.
  1. The CVU images were created before the visual identitiy guidelines.
    • This only means that the creator (me) had no way of knowing these guidelines.
    • This in no way should mean the images are expempt from the visual image guidelines. However in the light of this fact, no action should be taken until the board and/or the Trademarks committee hears and decides on the matter. I feel this is the least chaotic and most civil way to resolve the issue.
  2. The board did not object to the images nor give permission for them even though they had been prompted at least three times by my count
    • I have mistaken that as a clear cut permission and for that I can be shot
    • This should simply mean the board neither approves or disaproves the images at this point.
    • The board members I talked to (Angela and Anthere) want the issue to be resolved through the Trademarks committee (from my understanding, correct me if I am wrong). The only problem is that none of the members of the Trademarks committee are avalible at least for a week.
--Cool out 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged my comment here.

Image:Counter_Vandalism_Unit.png, Image:CVU2.5.PNG, Image:CVU2.PNG, Image:CVU2.svg.

  • Although there is no official decission yet wether these images will be authorized by the foundation (Cool Cat request a foundation statement, see [2] and thread below [3]) some Wikimedians felt unhappy with them and they thus were speedy deleted by User:AlisonW with the reason that they are unauthorized.
  • I thatfor restored them, did overwrite them with a cross and made them write protected (so that it can't be used in a way the Foundation potentially does not like, as it is still linked a lot on many pages) and transformed them into a normal deletion request. That way we can come to a more general solution on that matter in Commons for the future (I don't want to have that debate again and again) and everyone interested can have a look in order to be able making an own decission. As well that speedy deleted images are still used a lot and people would have probably uploaded them (or very similar images) locally without knowing that there is a debate going on and so matter would have come up again locally. With the help of the CommonsTicker local people will hopefully be alerted on the matter as well that there are certain things that need to be respected and can give feedback (Note: I never did participate in the w:en:Wikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit and never did care about it). Arnomane 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If theses images has deleted because the "visual guidelines", lots of anothers in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia may need to be deleted too. 555 20:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A copyright violation is a copyright violation, no matter how much it might get discussed, and WMF logogs are no different from any other copyvio in that respect. And yes, there are - sadly - lots of other unauthorised derivative logos in use on the different projects and they too will need to be deleted. The CVU just happens to have been first in that respect. I take no opinion on the CVU itself; this is about the mis-use of the copyrighted logos. --AlisonW 23:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously recomend waiting to hear from the board/trademark comitee rather than going delete-happy. --Cool out 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the outcome of this discussion? Can we keep these images or do we have to delete them. Please someone decide quickly. --ALE! ¿…? 12:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unauthorized unfree material... The Wikimedia logo is here at the discretion of the Wikimedia Foundation; all the while it is not free content, and shouldn't be regarded as such. / Fred Chess 12:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:CVU2.PNG,_Image:CVU2.svg,_and_Image:Counter_Vandalism_Unit.png&oldid=12286659"