Template talk:PD-textlogo

message: "Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations."
Fred Chess 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone is applying this template to trademarks, which are completely separate from trademark law (both are subsets of intellectual property).  More proof that too many people on Wikipedia do not know much about the law they are applying.  Trademarks can last forever, and are all about the association made with the mark and the subject it represents --the copyrightability of the mark, in this sense, does not have any bearing on the IP protection.  Some examples: if someone opens a "Target Store", they would be violating the trademark of Target Corp without even using the exact typeface (the central issue is consumer confusion, not just physical similarity).  If someone were to open a business using the text logo of a university, then they would be creating confusion that would harm the intellectual property rights of the university in their branded word mark and the good will associated by the educational institution. --Bobak (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This template should be applied to trademarks that are not also copyrighted, and ideally any non-copyrightable trademarks should also be moved to the Commons. The Commons only looks at the copyright status of an image to determine if the image is "free". Other IP restrictions, such as trademark, are ignored. You might want to take a look at the Commons policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, then while I feel its a bad policy, as an Admin I will follow it.  However, as an American lawyer, I would be surprised if no TM holder eventually decides to assert a misuse of their IP (and, regardless of the outcome, I hope the Project is willing to pay the expenses to defend itself). But that's not the issue right now, and its a risk the higher ups at Commons decided to take --so be it.  --Bobak (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  (no header) 

message: While this template says that a text-only logo is not eligible for copywrite, Template:PD-font claims this only applies if the image is raster. Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts is unclear, but the reasoning used and cited law do not back up PD-font's  assertion that vectors made from rasters are illegal. The legal opinion says that the vector font file itself cannot be copied, and that another font cannot be derived from the information contained in the vector font. It does not say that outlines themselves (which is all that SVG retains) is copyrightable.
We need to straighten this out. Are we being extra careful and not allowing Wordmark SVGs to ever be considered free, as we have with image files in general? If so, we need to change Template:PD-textlogo and remove it from all SVG files that do not have a free license claim.
— trlkly 15:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with PD-Font? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:PD-ineligible which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: :Category: has been nominated for . The nomination is related to the move of this template, discussed above. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. – Wdchk (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD nomination of [[:Category:{{ucfirst:Public domain images ineligible for copyright (textlogo)}}]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
:Template:PD-logo →  – The reason it was moved to  from  was that "the template is suitable for logos with geometric shapes, too" — but such logos with very few shapes are still generally called textlogos. The template's naming should also match that at commons, so naming it  makes sense for consistency. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 January 2021 

message: It would be nice if we had a "no categorization" parameter for demonstration purposes. Something like this would work:
 
 
 
We could then call it with .
weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 21:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this change in the template sandbox. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 21:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 21:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: my pleasure! Paine  00:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2022 

message: They are virtually identical. The only difference is that  says "image" where  says "image or logo". What's the point of having them both? Some usage of their backlinks? INS Pirat (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-textlogo and [[Template:PD-simple|PD-simple]] 

message: Please sync with Template:PD-textlogo/sandbox, which adds a blank alt param to the files per MOS:BLANKALT. It also uses the modern  instead of the depcrecated , and moves  inside of the file other template so it is clear that it only applies in the file namespace. Thanks! HouseBlastertalk 01:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2023