The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Image:Comic Con.jpg is not a free alternative. There is no free alternative of a copyrighted logo. Image:Comic Con.jpg is a derivative of the logo and also contains elements of the architecture of the San Diego Convention Center, which may themselves be copyrighted. Image:Comic Con.jpg should be nominated for deletion on the Commons. SVG is the preferable format for drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images per WP:IUP. -Nv8200p talk 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Comic Con.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CoolKid1993 ( | contribs).

• Delete unnecessary use of a logo. Image is orphaned at the moment. When it was in the article, that meant that the logo appeared three times because it was also in two photographs. This means that the uploader's claim, " It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value." is simply not accurate. MMMMMMMM (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is no longer orphaned - it is now used (again) in the article on Comic-Con International. I have removed one of the images from the article so that the logo is no longer overused. It seems to be common practice to have the logo itself and not a photograph in the infobox at the top of an article. I cannot see why this article/logo is different. It is fair use, and a photograph with a logotype as the main object is really not a free alternative. --Kildor (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It really is an unnecessary use of the logo. The photo of the banner at Comic-Con is a picture taken in a public location and has no copyright issues associated with its usage. Therefore a free alternative does exist. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I still do not understand the difference of this article/logo and the other thousands of articles using a SVG logo at the top of the infobox. Should all those be deleted and replaced if there is a photo of the logotype available? And I would say that a very close photo of a logo is not a free alternative (Image:Comic Con International.jpg). --Kildor (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the material on arguments to avoid. Just because other articles use logos even though they fail to meet the requirement that NO copyright-free alternative is available does not mean we have to violate that here. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of that essay. But it is not that there are few articles that use a logo in this way. Almost every article on a company or organization features an logo (and not a photo) at the top of the infobox in the article. And I still do not see how a close photograph on a logo (and almost nothing else) can be a free alternative. --Kildor (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussions on WP:LOGOS also indicates that the photo is not a free alternative. --Kildor (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1. Where? What discussions? 2. A discussion by a handful of people is not policy. 3. It is a photo of something in a public location. The photo shows more than the logo. Either it's a free alternative or it needs to get deleted too. 4. Even if you're right that "almost every article on a company or organization" includes the logo and if that means other articles are free to include them when alternatives are available which do not exclusively show the logos themselves, then that would mean that a big portion the logos policy seems pretty pointless. The article is not about the logo, so including a picture of the logo by itself seems unnecessary when the logo appears in other convention photos anyway. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1. Wikipedia talk:Logos, last section. 2. No. But it can be used to help understand the policy. And there is nothing in WP:LOGOS that say that we can't use the logo in this case. 3. The photo shows almost nothing but the logo. That photo should perhaps be deleted unless it is given a fair use rationale. 4. My point, still, is that there is never a free alternative to a logo. You might think it is unnecessary to illustrate an article about a company or organization with its logo, but most editors do not. And I fail to find any reasons to why this particular logo can't be used under the fair use policy. --Kildor (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's currently at Wikipedia talk:Logos, last section, is no discussion. You asked a question, and a single person answered.

The policy is clearly written with the understanding that free alternatives exist. Therefore, the argument that they don't exist doesn't work while the policy remains written that way. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the image of the festival contains the logo, that does NOT, and should NOT count as a free-use alternative, as copyright and trademarking of the logo remain. As such, there is no free alternative, no matter what. Any other arguments should thus be completely, and wholly, irrelevant. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I cannot see how it could be clearly written with that understanding when the word alternative does not even appear once in that guideline. If you think that the WP:LOGOS guideline is incorrect or unclear, I suggest you bring your concerns to the talk page. The section "Why does this page exist?" is perhaps what you are looking for. --Kildor (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy from WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That word "only" is pretty darn strong. Most importantly: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Doczilla _STOMP! 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with deletion arguments. The image is unnecessary to understanding the convention. Hiding T 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. WP:NFC#Images explicitly sets out how criteria 1 to 10 should be properly understood when it comes to logos. Namely, that a logo image is acceptable if its use is "for identification". This reflects (i) that presentation of the logo used for identification of the subject of the article is in itself considered to bring additional understanding to readers; (ii) that by their very nature, such logos are not replaceable by user-generated content (the other image in the article arguably fails WP:NFC, as a derived work); and (iii) there isn't the remotest chance that a U.S. court would rule this as anything other than legitimate fair use, on the four factors. We therefore have an explicit policy statement that this kind of a use of a logo is considered okay. Given that explicit policy direction, this image should be speedily kept. Jheald (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That same policy says, "If repeating a non-free image's use, please be aware that a new non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use." The logo appears in the article multiple times. The non-free logo by itself should not be used when it appears on a banner in a free image. But that's not as important as those parts of NFCC say more strongly that non-free content should be used only when no free equivalent is available and if its omission would be detrimental to understanding. MMMMMMMM (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image -- this particular SVG -- is used precisely once; and the use is appropriate. On the other hand the image Image:Comic_Con.jpg is much more questionable, since it appears to have been taken for the overwhelming primary purpose of showing the logo. That makes that latter image a derived work, and for WP's purpose an unnecessary one, since a picture just of the logo itself is already on the page. Another image might be included, in which the logo appeared incidentally but there was other interest in the photo as well (eg a general shot of the Con including stands, visitors, etc, etc), and that would be okay. But it is very hard to make such a case for Image:Comic_Con.jpg. On the other hand, this IfD is about Image:Comic Con.svg, and Image:Comic Con.svg is a speedy keep. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, this image is an SVG, hence infinitely scalable. This violates WP:NFCC #3b, "Low- rather than high-resolution". So scale it down to a 300 px png first. indopug (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly over at the time is not sufficient grounds enough to warrant a deletion, however. As such, this image should be placed in speedy keep. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The picture that was put with the logo should not even count as a freely-replaceable image, since it is still a trademark and the image is copyrighted. By the very nature of a trademark, it cannot be replaced with a free-use image. Because of that fact alone, even the logo in that picture is protected by copyright and trademark. Regarding THIS image, because of that fact, any argument that it can be replaced with a free-use image is (or should be rendered) absolutely baseless, since the copyright and trademark of the logo rests with the organizers. Any other arguments to the contrary should be wholly irrelevant. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get to !vote twice. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.