Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Twitter bird logo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Twitter bird is (c). The Pictofigo icon seems to be OK, included in this DR for good measure.

Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

per earlier DRs. Non-free logo.

(tJosve05a (c) 01:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DIdn't see that, bt I want to raise it again, yes,since it is too similar to the 2010 logo (link) not to be classified as a non-free deriviative work. (tJosve05a (c) 13:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. In my opinion these birds really different. Iniquity (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the argument of Iniquity, the bird of this logo is quite different from the original, in addition, is being used in several Wikinews for Publish templates that were quite discontinued with the classic «T». At least I'm against this. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: either cpvio or private artwork. --JuTa 17:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Per above DRs

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following files:

I want to drew your attention to the fact, that in summary of each file I have left link to the original Twitter Brand Guidelines. According to it, you can freely use Bird logo, if:

  • you have left 150% clear space around original bird
  • you used original colours both of the bird and background (bird — only white "HEX #FFFFFF" or blue "HEX #1DA1F2"; background — blue, white or transparent)
  • you do not transform original bird (add special effects, elements or anatomy; skew, rotate, stretch or change orientation ect.)

How you can see, mentioned files do not break rules from Twitter Brand Guidness, furthermore they were extracted from page with recommended social icons (p.6). Ігор Пєтков (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines are about Trademark and not copyright. Also, they have non-derivative clauses, as you specify above.  Delete all logos which is not COM:DM, such a File:Twitter's San Francisco Headquarters.jpg which should be  kept. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jonatan Svensson Glad, sorry, but i do not fully understand the purpose of deleting. Actually all these icons are trademarks of Twitter itself and I have mentioned this in Licensing paragraph. Brand Guidness gives recommendation how to use twitter social icon. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ігор Пєтков: unfortunately, the conditions under which Twitter allow reusing its logo are not acceptable for Commons. On Commons are allowed only absolutely free images, without any non-derivative or non-commercial clauses or restrictions. --XXN, 16:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@XXN: but almost all of the Trademark files saved on Commons have such non-derivative clauses, for example Facebook Trand Guidness. In both cases these clauses are usually related to the file itself. It just obvious, that you can not transform original logo, because it is a trademark. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this clear for all. COmmons does not care about trademarks rules, or guidelines. We only care about copyright. There' a difference. In case of facebook, it is only using letters, so it is not copyrightable, but is still protected for trademark (they have rights against impersenation etc.), but in the case of Twitter, they too have trademark protection but they also hold copyright to the logo, isnce it is not just text, but is creative enough to be copyrighted under copyright law, which normal text does not. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:F icon.svg,File:New youtube logo.png,File:Apple logo black.svg all these files and a lot more are not allowed on the commons, because they content shapes, but not text (in case of facebook you can not put "F" into not rounded square or hexagon ect.), and there is special Guidness, that recommends you how to use. Anyway, Twitter Brand Guidness says, that you can freely use their logo, if you follow recommendation, that are similar for every company's logo saved on Commons Ігор Пєтков (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if the modification of the bird is not permitted in per the brand guidelines:

These four files should be  Deleted since SA is not permitted. Additionally, the subject of this photo, File:Impact Hub Birmingham - The Walker Building - Coventry Street, Digbeth (25284371706).jpg is also copyrighted and hence, it should be deleted as well.--Canopus Grandiflora 13:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating one more time, all these files you can find in Twitter Brand Guidelines, social icons (p.6), they are not modified. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Files on Commons must allow modification --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This:

<svg height="100" viewBox="0 0 100 100" width="100" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<circle cx="50" cy="50"  fill="#fff"    r="100"/>
<circle cx="35" cy="33"  fill="#1da1f3" r="56"/>
<circle cx="07" cy="29"  fill="#fff"    r="51"/>
<circle cx="35" cy="53"  fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="23" cy="39"  fill="#fff"    r="20"/>
<circle cx="27" cy="40"  fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="18" cy="23"  fill="#fff"    r="19"/>
<circle cx="27" cy="24"  fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="53" cy="39"  fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="52" cy="-17" fill="#fff"    r="51"/>
<circle cx="84" cy="14"  fill="#1da1f3" r="17"/>
<circle cx="91" cy="05"  fill="#fff"    r="19"/>
<circle cx="80" cy="07"  fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="73" cy="-32" fill="#fff"    r="51"/>
<circle cx="72" cy="31"  fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
</svg>

draws the Twitter logo in SVG. Is that data really copyrightable? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: all but the one, per discussion. The Twitter permission does not allow modifications, so is not acceptable. To anwer the question about the svg code -- the code itself has a copyright and, if it describes a copyrighted icon, then it is also a derivative work of the icon and infringes on the icon's copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Per previous category discussions, this precise bird logo design is copyrighted.

Belbury (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Licensed under Apache License, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twitter-logo.svg. --Rosenzweig τ 07:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination, I didn't notice that this had changed, or that there were a couple of valid licences here amid the "own work" CC. Belbury (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]