Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Above TOO

— Racconish 💬 17:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.nelson: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico#Not protected cover them. Pretty much it merely covers what is known here as simple text and simple color. I don't know if COM:TOO Mexico should be redirected there. Tbhotch™ 15:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting all these images together is irresponsible because they're from different countries. Univision is based in the United States, and their logos clearly don't pass the test in the US entry for threshold of originality. This also applies to the Fox Sports logos, as those originated in the United States. As for TV Azteca, I can't say definitively where those stand in regards to Mexican TOO, but in my opinion they are not original enough. Several of the others, however, are too complicated and need to be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 23:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep At least for the ones from Mexico. As the all logos of companies in Mexico are de-facto PD. Per " Reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or equivalent political division, or denominations, acronyms, symbols or emblems of international governmental, non-governmental organizations, or of any other officially recognized organization." Also, in many cases of these files the company resides in the United States anyway. So really these should be nominated separately depending on the country or otherwise all kept because of a procedural mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that @Tbhotch: changed the TOO section of the copyright page for Mexico a few months ago in a way that makes it sound like logos of organizations with .com domains are copyrighted in Mexico but ones .org domains aren't. Which sounds like nonsense. So I've left them a message about it on their page asking for clarification. I suggest this deletion request is put on hold until Tbhotch clarifies things and there's evidence to support their edit to the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked here to add the Mexican Copyright Law concerning the threshold of originality. The law is here as it was published. Your interpretation of "As the all logos of companies in Mexico are de-facto PD" is a good reminder that Wikimedia Commons does not exist to determine the limits of legal loopholes, nor to interpret vague legal language as "well, it says 'any other officially recognized organization', and companies are organizations, therefore all logos of companies in Mexico are de-facto PD". Even logos that are truly de-facto PD are registered under the Mexican Copyright body (IMPI). Saying that, for example, this should be kept because of your interpretation of a vaguely written law goes against the precautionary principle, unless you want to take legal responsibility in all these instances. Further, the law was adopted in 1996. How can you assert that many of these pre-1996 logos are covered by that law? This is why I added the .com/.org precautionary statement. If you have questions, you can ask them directly at [email protected] where they will clarify the meaning and differences of NGO and company. Tbhotch™ 19:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "organization" isn't vague, especially when it comes to the law, and the last time I checked companies are organizations. Unless the law in Mexico specifically says otherwise. Which you haven't provided proof of. Outside of that, you were asked here to cite the relevant piece of Mexican legislation. Then you wrote in truly de-facto PD "if the company uses ".com" on their website, they are not covered as an organization. If they use a ".org", they function as an organization" without citing the relevant legislation. The Mexico copyright article doesn't say anything about .com or .org websites either. I don't really see why it would since anyone can register a .org domain regardless of their status as a none profit organization. So I'm asking you to cite the relevant legislation that says anything about .com, .orgs, and how that relates to the copyright of logos since you failed to do so when you edited the article. Can you do that or not? As far as the Precautionary principle, "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." I can't speak for everyone else, but someone inserting their personal opinion into an article doesn't create "significant doubt" in my mind about these logos being PD. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a huge stretch to assume that "officially recognized organizations" means "all companies"; I agree with Tbhotch that the clause is likely referring to .org-type organizations. If the law intended to mean "all companies" it would say that, not bury it within "international governmental, non-governmental organizations, or of any other officially recognized organization." Adamant1 Do you have any proof to back up your interpretation? -M.nelson (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.nelson: How is it a stretch when most or all definitions of the word "organization" includes companies? That should be all the evidence you need that the legal statue includes companies. I don't need to provide evidence beyond that either. Do a basic Google search. Here's a few for you. [[ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organization Merriam-Webster Dictionary - organization]] "a company, business, club, etc., that is formed for a particular purpose." Google's definition "an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc." Dictionary.com "the administrative personnel or apparatus of a business." None of those are "my interpretation."
    As far as the .org thing goes, anyone can register a .com or .org domain name regardless of their legal status as an organization. Hell, I can register one right now as a private individual. There's zero reason the Mexican government would create a legal framework in relation to what's copyrightable or not based on something that's completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with the law. Otherwise, it's on Tbhotch to show that's what the Mexican copyright law says. I know the Mexico copyright article didn't say anything about .com or .org domains before Tbhotch they edited it. So it's perfectly reasonable for them to tell us where they got the information they added to the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamant1: Nobody is saying that .org vs .com is the correct way to determine what an "organization" is, but .org is typically used for NGO-type organizations, whereas .com is typically used for companies, and I agree with Tbhotch that "other officially recognized organizations" likely refers to the former group. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, so I'm going to stop debating and leave it to the closing administrator to make a decision. -M.nelson (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.nelson: [Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico] literally says "in simple terms, if the company uses ".com" on their website, they are not covered as an organization. If they use a ".org", they function as an organization." How is "If they use a ".org" they function as an organization" not saying that going by the domain name is a correct way to determine what type of "organization" something is? I could really care less what domain is "typically" used for which type of organization because domain names have jack to do with how things work on commons or more importantly the copyright laws in Mexico. Otherwise, Tbhotch should say what legal statue the information they added to the article comes from. In the meantime we shouldn't allow copyright information to be inserted into articles or deletion discussions if it's not cited to an actual law or legal case. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamant1: Ah, my mistake, I didn't see that it was added to the policy; I agree with you that .org vs .com is not necessarily a reliable indication of "organization" vs "company". Given that the law states "officially recognized organization", there must be an official register (or at least definition) of what constitutes an "organization" (and I'm sure this register or definition is completely independent of web domain registration). -M.nelson (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam, you are clearly applying your Anglo point of view to a law written in Spanish. An organization is an "Association of persons governed by a set of rules for specific purposes. With that said, refer to this. Also, as I can't see any real intention on you proving what is the meaning of organization in Mexico, I have contacted the IMPI. Tbhotch™ 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, there is a key problem with you insisting that these logos are "emblems and symbols of organizations". None of these is an actual "emblem or symbol of organizations", these are "emblems or symbols" of those organizations' products (i.e. TV channels). A TV channel is not an organization, nor an association, nor a business, nor a club (if you want to still applying your Anglo definitions on Spanish-language terms). A TV channel is a station as defined by the RAE; in English, a "Channel [...] broadcasts television programmes in the form of airwaves from a transmitter to a receiving device". TV channels are not organizations. Tbhotch™ 19:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to ignore your "Anglo point of view" comment because it's clearly an add hominin attack that shouldn't have been made in the first place. I will say though that my user name is Adamant1, not Adam. Outside of that, your assertion that television channels aren't companies is utter nonsense and not relevant to this discussion anyway. Since none of these logos have anything to do with "airwaves from a transmitter" or whatever. Just to take one example though, TV Azteca is a mass media company. Not a television channel or a product. Also, as a side to that, TV Azteca is a member of Organización de Televisión Iberoamericana, which is a self described "union of broadcasting organizations." The key word there being "organizations." Which totally disproves your assertions that companies aren't organizations. Since Organización de Televisión Iberoamericana isn't a union of non-profit organizations. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's original research, and another false analogy sillogysm. As Nelson said above, I'm not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me (or the closing admin as a fact) that "Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we [can] host it on Commons" (as concluded in the DR that I liked above but you ignored). No matter how much you insist with this, what you have said, I have said it before in other places (concerning Mexican law). The burden of evidence relies on the people who want the files kept, not on the people who nominate it for deletion or support it. And you haven't provided "explicit written/textual, tangible evidence" that for the Mexican law "organization" and "company" are the same thing. Because of that, I rest this DR. Tbhotch™ 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's original research? TV Azteca is literally a mass media company. Not a product. Also, it's 100% on the people who nominate files and "vote" to clearly state why they think the file should be deleted based on the law and Commons guidelines. Which is why [deletion requests] says "Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of: any binding copyright law and the applicability of any relevant Commons policies." Nominators don't get a pass from that. Nor do Spanish speakers.
On the DR, I didn't ignore it. I just didn't find anything in it that refuted anything I've said. It's possible I missed it though. If you want to provide a specific diff or comment that you think refutes my points I'm more then willing to read and consider it, but I just didn't see anything that was super relevant or disproves what I've said when I looked. Generally it's better to provide links or quotes to specific messages. Instead of expecting someone to parse through an extremely protracted and obtuse discussion themselves to find what you think is relevant. I'm not a mind reader and I have zero way of knowing what you think is important to this about the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant: "it's clearly an add hominin attack that shouldn't have been made in the first place". Also Adamant: "Nominators don't get a pass from that. Nor do Spanish speakers." This is ironic or maybe you don't comprehend the real meaning of ad hominem.
Anyway, I don't need to provide you with quotes from the DR because that DR and this DR are about the same issue, what is the limit of "other recognized organization"? That DR was closed and the file was deleted and concluded as what I already said: "Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons".
An institution is a type of organization, as is a company; yet, that logo was deleted. This is why it is original research: you are concluding that because companies are organizations as defined by Merriem Webster, and because companies are excluded from copyrighting their logos in Mexico, then everything is PD, which is not the case and I did point you a legal case where the IMSS, a government-based institution sued a China-based company in 2005.
Unless you provide legal evidence that Televisa and TV Azteca have no copyrights, you can't claim they are PD. Even the IMPI's website deliverately excludes the "other recognized organization" clause from their copyright excemptions as it most likely caused them problems due to the lack of definition. Tbhotch™ 17:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what "ad hominem" means. I don't really feel like wasting my time on what you said is one and what I said about Spanish. Except to say that someone being an Anglo Saxion is in inherent characteristic that they have no control over or say in. Whereas, Spanish is just a language and there's absolutely nothing personal about saying people who speak it don't get special passes on things compared to none Spanish speakers, like not having to explain themselves "because Spanish." If you can't get that difference then that's on you.
On your second point, I didn't say "everything is PD." What I said is that logos of companies are PD because companies are a type of organization and logos of organizations in Mexico are PD. I'd appreciate it if you didn't twist what I said around. Outside of that, I could point a couple of DRs for logos of Mexican companies that were kept. The problem is though that it's cherry picking and we can argue all day about who's DR is authoritative and who's isn't. I could really give a crap though. I much rather figure out what the actual law says and skip the one upmanship and fake credentialism nonsense that your trying to make this about.
The evidence I provided that the logos are PD is that companies are a type of organization and logos of organizations in Mexico are PD. So it makes sense that logos of companies are PD. Unless the law explicitly says otherwise. The only counter you have to that is that we should all take your word that companies aren't organizations because you speak Spanish and our "Anglo view points" should be discounted. I've given you more then enough of an opportunity to make a better argument then discount my opinion because of my ethnic background, you haven't though. By all means, show us all some evidence that there's a special definition of an organization in Spanish that doesn't include companies. It should be pretty for you to. Like if you think Merriem Websters doesn't work because it's "Anglo" or whatever, cool. Cite a definition from a Spanish dictionary. I don't really care, but I'm not going to just take your word for it. Epecially considering the obvious nonsense you inserted into the Copyright in Mexico article. I don't think anyone should just take your word for it either. So stop complaining about people's ethnic backgrounds and cite something to support your argument already. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR: "Even though you provided a real legal case I will still feel offended because you used the word Anglo as a synonym of English speaker". You're right, you're wasting my time. Tbhotch™ 00:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, none of these logos are those of TV Azteca nor Televisa as symbols or emblems of their companies. These are the logos of their brands, several pre-1996 TV stations that godfathered the current law. And I don't have to prove shit, as I already did it with the IMSS case. The fact that you keep ignoring it and keep insisting that I have to provide you with legal evidence indicates that you actually can't provide evidence that proves I'm wrong, either because you don't know where to find them and you want me to do your homework as the burden relies on you (not even in Oscar Wang, who uploaded them and has not even commented about it) or because you don't speak Spanish and you don't know how to look for legal cases in Mexican websites. Once you demonstrate you are right, recontact us and we will change our position. Tbhotch™ 00:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, your wasting mine and everyone else's time. See my comment below for actual evidence, not the nonsense you keep going off about. My guess is that your probably discount it as well since it comes from someone with an "Anglo perspective", but whatever. I'm more then willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll actually have a substantive take instead of just going off on pointless, random side tangents like you have been. In the meantime it's pretty hilarious that you can't even cite a definition from a Spanish dictionary for the word "organization." LMAO! You didn't prove jack with the IMSS case either, because you never cited the damn thing. You just said they sued a Chinese company without linking to the case or even saying its relevant. Just saying "the IMSS sued a Chinese company" isn't evidence of squat. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to provide a more expert opinion about this then me and Tbhotch, The Mexican Law of Business Organizations is written by Joseph M. Cormack, a professor who specialized in Mexican law. As the name of the title says, the document is about the "Mexican law of business organizations." It uses the term "business organizations" in relation to Mexican law 37 times. Just to quote one usage, which I think is relevant "There is no such line of demarcation between the various forms of business organizations in the Mexican jurisprudence, nor in the civil law generally. In the Mexican law, all forms of business organizations are purely contractual and are formed entirely by the agreement of the parties, without the intervention of any act upon the part of the State." Take that how you will, but it seems clear that all forms of organizations are legally treated the same. Which this quote confirms "The blending of the treatment of the various forms of business organizations in the Mexican law, in regard to their contractual basis, their existence as legal entities and other attributes, is due to the nature of the historical development of the law of business organizations in Mexico."
In light of that it would be ludicrous for Tbhotch or anyone else to say there's no such thing as a business organizations in Mexico. Also, given that it's clear all organizations are legally treated the same in Mexico, I see no reason that the logos of companies in Mexico wouldn't be PD just like the logos of every other type of organization. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. for some Mexico specific references that say similar things there's TYPES OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AND INCORPORATION OF A MEXICAN COMPANY which uses the term "business organization." There's also FORMS OF DOING BUSINESS IN MEXICO COMPARED TO THE U.S. . Which says "A corporation is an organization similar to the Sociedad Anonima." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. These images are imho above TOO, compared with the examples given on COM:TOO MX, so they have to be deleted. If you do not agree in some cases, please request an undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. --Ellywa (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_OscarWongLara1999&oldid=627590394"