Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyteam Logo 001.svg

File:Skyteam Logo 001.svg

Ditto for

Following discussions at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Logo_ITA_Airways_inspired_by_Alitalia, SkyTeam logos would be really beyond COM:TOO Netherlands. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Text it’s OK (for example this:File:Logo SKYTEAM Alliance.png) but the symbol of the Skyteam in the left side is not a geometric shape ,it’s a complex (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment peer Jmabel and Taivo's comments. AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx @Ikan Kekek: any opinion? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I may be misunderstanding COM:TOO Netherlands, but it seems under it to me:

The product has to bear an own, original character. In short, this means the shape may not be based on that of another work. (cf. article 13 Aw.) The demand that the product has to bear the personal mark of the maker means that there has to be a shape that is the result of creative human labor and thus creative choices, which therefore is a product of the human mind. In any case, excluded from this is everything that has a shape that is so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever.

And further:

For a work to be eligible for copyright, it is necessary that the work has an own original character and bears the personal mark of the maker ... The Court of Justice of the European Union has has formulated the benchmark in such a way that it must concern "an intellectual creation of the author of the work".

We see ordinary block text, an arc, and a regularly printed form of a type of script decoration that has existed for hundreds of years. It's a very nice logo, but it does not seem like an intellectual creation to me, nor something with original character. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Liuxinyu970226, that discussion does not establish that this logo is above COM:TOO Netherlands, as no decision is made in that discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek Suggestions from 1000logos.net told me that the elaborate curvy pattern inside looks like carefully designed instead of simple circulars. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a flourish traditionally used in people's handwritten signatures, but done in a regular way by machine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino:any opinion AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not very familiar with the Netherlands TOO so take this with a grain of salt, but from reading some info sheets from the Dutch government and others, my inclination is this logo would not be sufficiently original to earn copyright protection. That Dutch government page notes copyrightable work must be original and personal, it cannot be similar to works of others. If you Google Image search the logo you get many extremely similar logos from various small companies across the globe. I think this indicates that the elements of this logo are generic and widely used, not eligible for protection. Ajpolino (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the VPC conversation linked above, this looks original enough for a Dutch copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]