Commons talk:Images containing text

comments

Caption to File:Microsoft_Logo.png is a bit confusing, since it doesn't mention or discuss the notch in the first "o", which is customized graphic design (not a basic standard font). Also, an image such as File:Initial Teaching Alphabet ITA chart.svg doesn't appear to fall under any of the numbered clauses, since there were plenty of "stylistic" and substantive choices involved in making that image... AnonMoos (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The caption says it's text. That's the standard the US copyright office has set: text, handwritten or typeset, is not copyrightable except as words. A "basic standard font" is no part of US copyright law. As for File:Initial Teaching Alphabet ITA chart.svg, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up? It actually does fall under clause 3, "The text is released under a suitable free license by the author of the text."--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, missed the non-OTRS part of clause 3. AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case we're only concerned with the textual elements rather than the graphical elements (both must be free). The word "Microsoft" itself is not eligible for copyright as a literary work. This could be clarified, or maybe a better example could be found. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The proposed policy contains nothing new as compared to Commons:Licensing and therefore is not needed. I would only support it as a guideline clarifying application of Commons:Licensing to certain types of images. Ruslik (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I generally agree but some of the ideas (such as the idea that fair use can apply to text on Commons) seems to be either new or else quite difficult to infer from Commons:Licensing, which seems to say exactly the opposite. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

    In this case the licensing policy should be amended. Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)