Wikipedia:Non-free content review: "
Image:50s Topps Logo.jpg
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 14:33, 1 October 2008 | ||
| Line 625: | Line 625: | ||
*'''Keep'''. The fact that this image is derivative only prevents it from being used as [[free content]]. It does not prevent its use under U.S. [[fair use]] law. (See [[Derivative work#Compared to fair use]].) The use of the image [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&oldid=242047648 here] clearly conforms to fair use law. And what is more significant for this forum, being derivative does not disqualify it under [[WP:NFCC|Wikipedia’s non-free use policy]]. The use of the image clearly conforms to that policy. —[[User:TEB728|teb728]] [[User talk:TEB728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/TEB728|c]] 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. The fact that this image is derivative only prevents it from being used as [[free content]]. It does not prevent its use under U.S. [[fair use]] law. (See [[Derivative work#Compared to fair use]].) The use of the image [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1950s_Topps&oldid=242047648 here] clearly conforms to fair use law. And what is more significant for this forum, being derivative does not disqualify it under [[WP:NFCC|Wikipedia’s non-free use policy]]. The use of the image clearly conforms to that policy. —[[User:TEB728|teb728]] [[User talk:TEB728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/TEB728|c]] 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ' | + | ||
| ' | + | *'''Delete''' This is just more in the back and forth war between these two, both of whom should be banned for wasting peoples time with this petty nonsense. As I have said before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1950s_Topps&diff=prev&oldid=237504647], I would also contend that (and this will make Libro0 scream sockpuppet yet again) that what he is claiming as the Topps logo is not the logo. I have found a piece of letterhead they used in the 1960s on a contract [http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/scripophily_2014_575674465] and would suspect that they used something similar in the previous decade. They used the same logo on that letterhead on stock certificates as late at 1978 [http://www.hrharmer.com/sales/2978/images/1282.jpg] [http://www.scripophily.com/webcart/vigs/toppschewingvig3.jpg] [http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/scripophily_2014_626927113]. It would appear that Libro0 used the text from a package of 1952 Topps baseball cards, which he assumed was the company logo. As you can see from this image [http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/public/news_images/4/45868_98522_4.jpg] they did use that text for the company name on the individual packs of cards as well as the word 'baseball' on the package. However, they used a different typeface for the company name on the box. This would provide strong evidence that Libro0's image is not in fact the company logo. If we look at packs of cards from 1960 [http://www.psacard.com/smrweb/backissues/smr0906/1960toppsbaseballwaxpack.jpg] and 1964 [http://www.psacard.com/smrweb/backissues/smr0906/1964toppsbaseballcellopack.jpg] [http://www.psacard.com/smrweb/backissues/smr0906/1964toppsfootballwaxpack.jpg] they just used the company name as stylized text. One give away should be the lack of a registered trademark symbol. It appears that by 1969, the company did put the company logo on their packs of cards [http://www.psacard.com/smrweb/backissues/smr0906/1969toppsbaseballcellopack.jpg] [http://www.psacard.com/smrweb/backissues/smr0906/1970toppsbaseballwaxpack.jpg]. Putting this up as the logo would be false information. Libro0 ignored taking action the compromise solution I suggested of posting an image of a typical product package [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1950s_Topps&diff=next&oldid=237540565] which leads me to suspect this is just another salvo in the war between him and Baseball Card Guy. These two waste people's time trying to straighten out the fallout from their battles. [[User:Your Radio Enemy|Your Radio Enemy]] ([[User talk:Your Radio Enemy|talk]]) 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | |
No comments:
Post a Comment