File talk:CGPGreySymbol.png

Replaceable fair use

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result was to delete the image.

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

If the article is supposed to primarily be about a YouTube channel and not the person behind the channel, then it should be revised accordingly so that it's not written like it's a WP:BLP, categorized like it's a BLP, and using an infobox ({{Infobox YouTube personality}}) which seems to be for individuals and not channels. The formatting of the article is that of a BLP and the focus of the article seems to be Gray, not the channel. Moreover, it appears that there is still confusion over this on the article's talk page, It also appears the CGPGrey has even comment about bringing back the logo image in Talk:CGP Grey#An image of his face, spoiler alert. Subjects of articles do not have any real editorial control over article content, and images are content. Moreover, the approval of the copyright holder of non-free image is not needed for the file to be used; the use of the file, however, does have to be in accordance with WP:NFCCP. If Gray wants to use the logo as the primary means of identifying him in the article, he can release it under an approriate free license of his choosing; otherwise, relevant policy should take precedance over his personal opinion. Wikipedia wouldn't allow a non-free book cover, non-free painting, non-free sports team logo to be the identifying image in an article about an author, a painter, an athlete anymore that we would allow the non-free image of an author, painter, athlete president to be the identifying image in an article about a book, a painting, or a sports team. The article cannot try to be half blp and half YouTube channel article and then try to use non-free images in the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another consideration here is if the logo meets the threshold for originality, as it is somewhat composed of geometric shapes. It could possibly be public domain and thus permissible for use (see Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos). As much as I instinctively think otherwise, I am convinced that if it is determined that this criterion does not apply then the logo probably doesn't meet NFCCP as it could indeed be replaced by a free picture of the living CGPGrey. This is assuming that CGPGrey doesn't unambiguously release the logo under a free license, which probably wouldn't affect the trademark (not legal advice, just a guess). — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 12:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it may be possible that the logo is in the public domain because it is too simple. However, its country of origin seems to be the UK and the TOO for the UK is much lower than the one for the US. Many logos which would be considered OK as PD in the US, are not reated as such in the UK. It might be possible for something like Template:PD-USonly, etc. to be used for the logo and keep it locally on English Wikipedia as PD, but that would require further discussion. Copyright issues aside, the article needs to figure out if it's going to be written as a BLP or as an article about a YouTube channel. If the channel is what is notable, then that should be the focus. That should be what determines (copyright issues aside) what image is used as the primary means of identification at the top of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This logo is definitely too complicated to be PD-simple. The gear shape alone passes the threshold of originality. As for the subject of the article, the article starts with "CGP Grey is a podcaster and educational YouTuber" and goes on to have an "Early life" section. Whatever the consensus is on what the article should be, it currently is about the person rather unambiguously. As such, the rationale for deletion here is quite strong and I've deleted the image. If the article is refocused on the channel, ping me and perhaps this can be undeleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Add topic