Commons:Deletion requests/File:Demi Lovato Signature.png: Difference between revisions

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Unencyclopedic - 76.98.204.134 09:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep We're looking for the actual or real signature of Demi Lovato. --112.202.3.153 04:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The signatures are encyclopedic. --112.202.3.153 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I've heard some crap reasons for deletion requests but this one is right up there with them. Commons isn't an encyclopaedia, it's an image repository so its content isn't required to be encyclopaedic, just informational and educational. Signatures aren't copyrighted so that's no justification either in case you thought of bringing that up too. This nomination smacks of PoV and 'pointy disruption' to me. Could an admin do a speedy keep on this please as the nominator has given no worthwhile justification. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Source is here. --Norilgow (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete signatures do not qualify for "simple wording" and are unique and protected. No OTRS to verify that the signature was released by the originator. Default to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. If you believe that your assertion is the case then perhaps you should give COM:SIG a quick read. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "when that signature is considered ineligible for copyright protection both in the US and under local law" The "when" is there because it is impossible to say that a signature is always PD. "as there is no absolute rule that defines whether a signature is or is not capable of copyright protection" - this signature is complex and isn't simple cursive. The swirl over the "i" and the way of crossing the t is not standard in any way and illustrative. My rule of thumb is this - if it looks like a type of cursive font used in MS Word or other Word Processors, then it is PD. If it contains unique variations on letters, then it is not. My signature, for example, is a "doctor" variant - .e. many swirls, unique impressions, etc., that looks very little like my actual name except for a few obvious letters. Such is protected. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hence my use of "not necessarily". As usual these things are subjective and open to interpretation. I pointed it out as your comments were vey black and white with no room for grey. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked at the situation and it seemed clear to me. I put up a statement to that effect. No one else bothered to talk about the signature itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete we have (also) no sources to state that's the actual signature. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I think the signature was made by Demi Lovato, and the signature is based in the US. --Chtak Yuno (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep is only one signature equal to other images here in the Commons, signature equal to the site Seventeen.com. Truu (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment plese keep in mind Chtak Yuno, Norilgow and 112.202.3.153 are almost surely user Dragon2016, I'm gonna checking the accounts among wikis and then remove their comments. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Vituzzu (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It's in use; the only thing that can justify its deletion is legal issues. Legally Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag points out several places where the copyright office says that signatures are not legally protected. It links to a Copyright Office page that says "names, ... and mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not protected. It links to a Commons page where User:BrokenSphere says he got a email back from the Copyright Office that bluntly said "A signature is not protected by copyright".--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless of course the owner of the signature is a Brit, and the signature was created whilst in the UK. UK's measure of originality is set so low as to allow signatures to be copyrightable. This of course is irrelevant to this discussion and is here merely as an FYI. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That signature is included in her album Here We Go Again and owner of the signature is an American and was made in the US, sorry. I want to keep it.