Wikimore

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.

File:Logo +Sport 360.png

This file was initially tagged by Tisourcier as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo protégé par copyright|source=https://www.canalplus.com/mentions-legales/ Converted to DR. Maybe below COM:TOO France? Tvpuppy (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Also same case for:

(Missed these logos from the same batch of speedy delete - added at 16:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC))

These logos are also from the same batch of speedy delete, but are likely above COM:TOO France, still converted to DR just in case.

Edit: Adding more images to this nomination

Suggested by Huñvreüs at 10:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC):

File:Canal News logo.png

Suggested by Tisourcier at 16:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC):

Tvpuppy (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Immediate deletion. All these logos files are under copyrights and protected trademark in France, because they have been created by the well known artist Étienne Robial. More, these creation are using copyrighted fonts specially created by the same author. The only way to publish them is to import in fr.wikimedia.org wich is admissible (eg. another Canal+ logo there) -> note the clear warnings not to export to Commons :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Canal%2B_HD_France.svg An another one : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Canal_(2016).svg Regards Tisourcier (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment, additional discussion relating to these logos can be found at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04#Copyvio (logos and graphic creations). Tvpuppy (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment Normally I would have argued that the copyright of a font typically protects the font software or the design of the typeface, but not the individual letters or words created with it. For example, you can use a font to write a book, and the book is your copyright, not the font designer's. Similarly, for a logo, the logo's copyright would be based on its design, not just the font used. But, I haven't looked at specific logos above to make a comment regarding COM:TOO France. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment @Tisourcier: Please note that trademark law does not apply to the hosting of brand icons on Wikimedia Commons, so please limit your arguments to any possible copyright protection. --Gnom (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep COM:TOO France is low but not that low ; most of these files are very simple (the fact that the font is copyrighted or trademark is irrelevant here). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll mostly repeat information I posted at the Village Pump discussion. Agreed that the trademark is not relevant -- our usage of "public domain" is strictly related to the copyright; trademark must be respected but simply making a copy to host here should not infringe that. Trademark is a non-copyright restriction, and is not a deletion reason -- such files should be marked with {{Trademarked}} but that is about it.

As for copyright, the font itself does seem to be copyrighted in France. There have been multiple cases, including a recent one, where a typeface was ruled copyrightable. France is one of the few signatories to the 1970s Vienna Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces (text ; not in force as not nearly enough countries have signed it). However, I'm not sure that typeface designer can sue over a normal usage of the typeface being an infringement. The UK is another signatory (though no ratification); their law on the matter says:

It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work consisting of the design of a typeface—

(a)to use the typeface in the ordinary course of typing, composing text, typesetting or printing,

(b)to possess an article for the purpose of such use, or

(c)to do anything in relation to material produced by such use;

and this is so notwithstanding that an article is used which is an infringing copy of the work.

Rather, the protection seems to be more against other typefaces infringing on it. The aforementioned treaty seems similar:

(I) Protection of type faces shall confer upon the owner thereof the right to prohibit:

(i) the making, without his consent, of any reproduction, whether identical or slightly modified, intended to provide means for composing texts by any graphic technique, irrespective of the technical means or material used;

(ii) the commercial distribution or importation of such reproductions without his consent.

[...]

(4) The making of elements of type faces, by a person acquiring type faces, during the ordinary course of the composition of texts, shall not be considered a reproduction within the meaning of paragraph (1) (i).

You need a license to use the typeface of course, but if used legally, the resulting usage does not seem to be part of the scope of that copyright. The book analogy seems apt to me -- if a literary copyright of a book expires before that of the typeface, is it really copyright infringement of the typeface to make a photocopy of the book? A typeface designer gets the same rights over the printed version that the author of the text gets, and you need further licenses from them? The aforementioned court case in France was strictly against another typeface being too similar (and the ruling was that it was not infringing). I'm sure Canal has licensed the typeface and the usage in their logo is legal. I'm not aware of any cases of a typeface copyright being applicable against copying a legal usage, only against other typefaces.

The logos are certainly fine (PD-ineligible) in the U.S., and I'm not sure what (other than the font) could be above the threshold of originality in France. The UK has an extremely low threshold of originality due to their historical interpretation of the word original, and some logo rulings were based on that, though that threshold was later modified by the EU definition in their directives (which I think was pretty much taken from French law). I don't know enough about French threshold decisions, or all of their typeface cases, to say for sure here but I think there should be some evidence presented that the French scope of typeface protection is greater than the UK's or the treaty mentioned above. And that protection would seem to be specific to France, if so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. According to french INPI database (industrial property) : each of these logos are trademarked and protected :

https://data.inpi.fr/search?advancedSearch=%257B%257D&displayStyle=List&filter=%257B%257D&nbResultsPerPage=20&order=asc&page=1&q=Canal%2B&sort=relevance&type=brands Again, there is a very simple solution for these files : publishing them as trademarked logos in fr.wikipedia.org, wich is legally compliant. Tisourcier (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Warning in fr.wikipedia.org not to upload those files in Commons :

Tisourcier (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The Canal+ company is attentive to the ownership of its logos and brands:

https://www.doctrine.fr/d/TGI/Paris/2011/FRA1DEAC7B94C23D2E73CB Tisourcier (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that these logos are trademarked is not relevant for Wikimedia Commons purposes. As per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, Commons is concerned only with copyright law, not trademark law. Hosting a logo here does not imply the right to use it freely for commercial purposes — it simply means that under copyright law, the file is either public domain or freely licensed.

Furthermore, the presence of a warning on fr.wikipedia.org about Commons compatibility is not binding. It reflects the opinion of the local French-language Wikipedia community, not a legal ruling. Whether these logos meet the copyright threshold (particularly COM:TOO France) is what this discussion is about.

To summarize:

Trademark status ≠ copyright protection.
Only copyright law matters for Commons hosting decisions.
Local project warnings do not override Commons policies.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The trademark is obviously valid -- nothing here should imply that it is not, or that the logo's presence here affects that at all. If those files do not have the {{Trademarked}} template on them, it should be added. We host many fully trademarked works -- we should be able host them here just the same as fr-wiki can, and be just as compliant. The term "free" though is specifically related to copyright (not trademark and not patents), so this is strictly a copyright question when it comes to deletion. If there is a French-specific copyright (or the economic right portion of droit d'auteur) reason for deletion, and that we have not taken into account, that is what needs to be argued. So far the typeface copyright is the only one that seems to have been argued when it comes to copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello@Clindberg,

Your analysis is interesting. If the " ™ " data is provided here, it could be a solution. The last point to question is about the "author's rights" (for french law, "moral" rights, in fact) wich is specific and different from US copyright "patrimonial complete rights" : the author (Etienne Robial) must have given is agreement for publishing those in Commons, or only the "fair use" principle could be used here ? Thank's. Tisourcier (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Here there is an important confirmation :

"For the anecdote, when Vincent Bolloré arrived at the head of Canal+, he decided to review the group's visual identity. According to him, this "all black" logo is too "austere", and he imagines that it is possible to change the logo into "yellow, red, green... " ! What a heresy for Étienne. Vincent obviously didn't understand the architecture of the brand. Changing the Canal+ logo to red or yellow would considerably reduce the impact of your brand. So Étienne refuses. "Just change your logo... but my design won't be altered without my permission." Thanks for the copyright!"

If we were looking for proof of this copyright (especially moral rights), it is clearly established. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

For solving the problem, someone could ask for a OTRS ticket to Robial himself ? Here is the email of his company : contact@on-off-productions.com. Tisourcier (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Moral rights are also considered non-copyright restriction -- see Commons:Non-copyright restriction#Authors' moral rights, which does not affect the determination of "free". We just need to follow those here. In many jurisdictions, moral rights are not transferrable, i.e. they can't be licensed. Also in some places, they are perpetual. So they can exist, much like trademark, and we just need to make sure that the usages here don't infringe on those rights. Thus, the "free" question (and deletion question) is limited to the economic right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I will say that File:Docu canal + logo.jpg and File:Enaparté logo canal +.jpg are far more dubious to me -- those might be above the U.S. threshold too, particularly the Enaparté one. I could see deletion of those two. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Here, anorther source wich proofs the copyrighted credits by Etienne Robial : . See the credits under the logos pictures. Tisourcier (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- People can put copyright notices on anything they want -- they may believe they have a copyright, but it's more court decisions we look to when looking at deciding lines. I really don't have a great feel for France, but that claimed copyright would not exist in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  - Note : for French and European Community's laws, logotypes are protected by author's and patrimonial rights (copyrights) : « Le logo finalisé ainsi que ses versions intermédiaires sont protégés par le droit d’auteur s’ils sont « originaux ». Il s’agit en effet d’une œuvre protégée au sens de l’article L. 112-2 – 8° du Code la propriété intellectuelle (CPI) : « Sont considérés notamment comme œuvres de l’esprit au sens du présent code : (…) 8° Les œuvres graphiques et typographiques ». Eg. According to these laws, for Canal+ logos (created in 1983-1984), theses files could be Public Domain in 2055. In 1984, the Canal+ logos and fonts where considered as very original and they can't be evaluated today, forty years after, by present criteria.
  Tisourcier (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  According to Commons rules, because these files are "copyrighted" in France, they can't be published in Commons, unless under "fair use" restrictions . Tisourcier (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  We are discussing here is there really are copyrighted in France or not. I'm not seeing any real reason that they are, more than that they "claim it" to be so (the font might be copyrighted, but the result of using the font as in these logos, probably not). I can claim to be a king of France, doesn't mean that the law supports my claim. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  Obviously, I have to translate the French quote : "The finalized logo and its intermediate versions are protected by copyright if they are “original”. This is in fact a protected work within the meaning of Article L. 112-2 – 8° of the Intellectual Property Code (CPI): “The following are considered in particular as works of the mind within the meaning of this code: (…) 8° Graphic and typographic works”. Tisourcier (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  I don't think anyone is contesting that the font is copyrighted. Just the scope of that copyright -- you can't use that expression when making another font (or in the process for that), but simply copying an existing usage of the font (say a photocopy of a book page, or copying a logo which licensed it) generally seems to be outside the scope of the typographic copyright, by the court cases we see. The question is if the rest of the logo (if say replaced by a non-copyrighted font) would still be "original", or "the author's own intellectual creation" in the wording of the EU copyright directives. Logos certainly can be copyrightable, and many are, but the question is what elements of these in particular cause it to exceed that threshold. A black rectangle does not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  Beyond the font topic, the originality of the Canal+ logos created in 1983-1984 is clealy notorious, according to several sources about Etienne Robial's works : Eg, these sources , , , , about special exhibition and retrospective highlighting the "avant-garde" and modernity of his creations.
  
  So, this work is not as simple as a "black rectangle" but an elaborated conceptual work and very special graphic design . Comparing to anonymous works, these logos must be considered as piece of art or at least, creative work under copyright. And if Commons precautionary principle rules applies, these files has to be only uploaded on fr.wikipedia.org. Tisourcier (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  And in fact, yes, a "black rectagle" can be a piece of art and copyrighted (Malevich) : . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisourcier (talk • contribs) 09:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment I suggest that File:Canal News logo.png should also be included in this discussion. Huñvreüs (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank's to @Huñvreüs,

There is also other files to be included in this discussion :

(File list moved to top by Tvpuppy (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC))

Regards. Tisourcier (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Je me pose vraiment la question sur la motivation de s’attaquer à supprimer les logos du groupe de Canal+ sur Commons. Alors que la plupart des logos de chaînes sont sur ce site. Mais bon… --Sakida0 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Le principe est que ces logos de marques déposées peuvent directement être importés dans fr.wikipedia.org comme les logos de ces chaîines sont déjà sauvegardés et exploités à cet emplacement. Cordialement. Tisourcier (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

And again, Commons precautionary principle rules applies, these files has to be deleted in Commons and only uploaded on fr.wikipedia.org. Tisourcier (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You've said this a few time now, you are however incorrect on what can and can't be copyrightable. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests in France/deleted Category:Logo related deletion requests/deleted Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests in France/kept Category:Logo related deletion requests/kept

Kept: all but two. There is consensus here that most of these logos are not complex enough to meet France's threshold of originality. ✗plicit 00:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikimore

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo +Sport 360.png

File:Logo +Sport 360.png