File talk:Crosstar.png

We are deleting this image[edit]

We are deleting this image for 10 days (give it 11 to be hypertechnical) to comply with a friendly request from an upstream provider who is dealing with a DMCA issue on this. We have counter-notified. --Jimbo Wales 20:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are deleting this image for 10 days (give it 11 to be hypertechnical, let Brad do it when the time comes) to comply with a friendly request from an upstream provider who is dealing with a DMCA issue on this. We have counter-notified. Apologies for doing this again, the counterparty is being hypertechnical and the upstream asked us to go through the process again. --Jimbo Wales 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't see the image, does it have to do with the Nazi symbol? If so what does that have to do with the DCMA? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly: the logo is a variation on the Arrow Cross, not the swastika. The exact variation called "crosstar" was, supposedly, created by someone who took out a copyright on it. Though he uploaded the logo and other images, and gave permission to Wikipedia to use them, he subsequently withdrew the permission and deleted the images. It's been back and forth since then. The latest copy of the crosstar was drawn in a small format by a user here. Using a logo to illustrate an article about the logo is probably one of the clearest "fair use" exceptions to the copyright laws, but even so each complaint has to be handled properly. For other accounts, just Google [Crosstar Wikipedia]. -Will Beback 08:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of dealing with these complaints can be almost as bad as getting sued and losing, even when you are entitled to summary judgment at the outset.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.148.91 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I came across this image page and had no idea why the Office was involved. --M e rovingian (T, C, @) 21:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the 11 day deadline has passed, there are still issues outstanding (accord to Brad Patrick) so I'm afraid the image must remained protected for a while longer. Kaldari 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a rush. The outside reporting of this matter is so amusing that stringing it out a bit improves the theater. Wikipedia is a long-term project. -Will Beback 10:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? --HappyDog 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it slightly humorous that the words "No file by this name exists; you can upload it." are on a page that has been locked for ten days for five months.Barticus88 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is pretty funny. --WikiSlasher 11:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates? --Ali'i 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard anything from the Wikistaff since July. Kaldari 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current notice on WP:OFFICE says:

Must not be reuploaded without approval of Jimbo/WMF; DMCA notice served.

So the bottom line is that until the management at the Nationlist Movement changes we will not be able to use this logo. Not a big loss, since it's an insignificant "movement". -Will Beback · † · 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, this may just be all bogged down in legalities. I suspect if it came down to it, this would be justifyable as "Fair use" on the page that describes it. I suspect someone could ask them about it. 68.39.174.238 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn more about the viewpoint of Barrett by Googling "Crosstar" and "Wikipedia". I'm confident that he would not consent to allow us to use his logo. -Will Beback · † · 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that whether he consents or not is irrelevant, as use of the logo to illustrate an article on the logo is fair use, and Mr. Barrett's opinion has no bearing on fair-use law. --Delirium 10:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett is very litigious. Defending a fair use claim in a court of law would be a poor use of the foundation's resources. This isn't an issue that's worth fighting over becuase his logo is virtually identical to a commonly used symbol, the arrow cross. It's sufficient for us to say that "the logo looks like this". While nobody wants to acquiesce to bullies, "discretion is the better part of valor". -Will Beback · † · 11:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think such a case would be very worth the Foundation's resources as it would establish legal precident for Wikipedia's use of logo graphics. It would also let IP bullies know that you can't censor Wikipedia by threatening frivilous lawsuits. Right now we are sending the opposite message. I would gladly contribute money towards persuing such a case, as I imagine many Wikipedians would. Kaldari 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kaldari. Let's fight the issue in court against this guy now, and have a legal precedent on the books. Much better to fight this guy than Microsoft or Disney or any of the thousand other logos we use under legitimate fiar use. Johntex\^talk 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, would anyone even want the stigma of suing wikipedia? Almost everyone I know uses wikipedia at least every week or so, weither as a resource or as editors, most people nowadays know what it is, suing wikipedia would be very bad press -- feb^talk 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've been following this discussion very well. Do you know who owns the copyright? I'm pretty sure they don't give a damn about the stigma from suing wikipedia, considering they have a lot more stigma for other reasons. Indeed they'll surely relish in the press they receive. In some ways for this very reason we shouldn't bother with them since it'll just given them attention they don't deserve. And it's unlikely they use wikipedia much either since our NPOV policy means we have little time for views like their in our articles Nil Einne 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Foundation makes a decision to fight this then I'd support it. But the decision should be made by those who'd defend it and pay for it, not by us grunts. -Will Beback · † · 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But getting back to my point, can someone just ask them what the status of this is? Have there been any new developments in this? If not, it might be worth changing the text at the top of this page (Not the actuall comment), to note that it'll be gone alot longer then 11 days! 68.39.174.238 01:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see I mistook your pronoun "them" to refer to the Crosstar folks when you really meant the Office folks. I see you've already posted on Wikipedia talk:Office Actions. A private message to Wales would probably get you an update. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Brad Patrick is probably the best person to ask. Kaldari 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me why someone can't just create the star and upload it to Wikipedia? This is a common image and shouldn't be under any sort of copyright. What's the problem? I'm a bit confused. How can such a common symbol or name be copyrighted?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did create the image and uploaded it to Wikipedia. It isn't under any copyright. No one knows what the problem is except the WikiMedia Foundation Office. Kaldari 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also arrowcross, a virtually identical image. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly the symbol is trademarked by the "Nationalist movement" apparently a racist organization (Note that the word 'nationalist' is also supposedly trademarked by them as well). I don't understand how someone can trademark common and unoriginal symbols or words. I don't believe such trademarks are even legally valid because they are so common.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather above, this deletion was a show of legal good faith (DMCA's "safe harbor"). I'll post a comment on User_talk:Jumbo Wales and ask him to check this out and comment or refer us to the person currently handling it. 68.39.174.238 15:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some thoughts on the matter:

A cheap copy of a real logo is still a copyright violation.
Copyrights can be freely given and copyrights can be freely taken away by the copyright holder – so long as no contract exists.
A contract doesn't exist without meaningful compensation.
Anyone uploading original work on Wikipedia has the right to demand their work be taken down.
Wikipedia's upload agreement only serves to make it difficult for the copyright holder to collect damages.
A lawsuit (valid or otherwise) costs money - a lot of money. Folks who want to fight this out should start a fund, but not start the fight until the fund hits at least the x-million dollar mark.
Lawsuits provide exposure, but Wikipedia gets dozens or more mentions in the news – daily. We can spend the same amount of money and get a lot better exposure through other means.
Depending on your point of view, the less exposure the opposing party gets, the better for the world.
We have many more useful and interesting things on which to spend our money and time.

Conclusion: let's remove the image and stop worring about it. Rklawton 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this issue has anything to do with copyright. The logo is arguably uncopyrightable (as it is virtually identical to a historic symbol) and even if it were copyrighted, we clearly have a right to use it under fair use doctrine. I actually believe the legal complaint against Wikipedia's use of the logo is a trademark issue, as the trademark holder objects to how it is being use here. Kaldari 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all is the case this whole thing should just be deleted and the oldest still-extant entry on WP:OA should be removed. If not... something else should happen. As long as this empty image page sits here with a {{Office}} template on it and this YEAR OLD discussion saying that "It'll be gone for 11 days", this will remain an unresolved problem. I have no opinion one way (Fight it out) or another (Delete it and be done with it), I just dislike this sitting here as though it's been forgotten for all time. 68.39.174.238 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's happy with the situation, but I don't think there's any reason to just give up and delete the page. Kaldari 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA Counter notice recieved[edit]

We have received a DMCA counter notice permitting us to restore the image. Therefore, it's up to the community at this point whether to enforce the freeness of this image or not. Cary Bass 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long time coming. ~~I'll upload an image this evening if no one else gets to it before then.~~ (already there!) Thanks to everyone who has worked on this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License[edit]

Isn't it {{PD-ineligible}}? Thus why does it locally? I see only plain geometrical figures and few colors… --Base^talk ^сontr. 15:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]