Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zoso.svg

too derivative of designs by the Led Zeppelin band; no evidence of permission from copyright holders 84user (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I nominated this for the purpose of discussion, to determine how close the community considers this work is to the Threshold of originality, and whether it exceeds it by virtue of the pictorial aspect of some of the shapes. The source can be seen at www.ledzeppelin.com. For example, File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.png has symbols that the United States Copyright Office refused to grant copyright protection, see here, especially paragraph C '... shapes of the characters were not "complex pictographs containing pictorial content not essential to the purpose of the character.' That decision would seem to clearly allow the middle two symbols to have insufficient creativity, but I am quite unsure about the first and last symbols. After looking at the low resolution images from the Led Zeppelin website it does appear the Commons image may have been freehand drawn, and not directly traced. If this is considered non-eligible for copyright I would like to use it as an example in the Threshold of originality, or maybe in Commons:Image casebook. -84user (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Related questions: these four symbols also appear in the CD cover image used as fair-use at Led Zeppelin IV. It would be nice to be able to upload a copyright-ineligible version of that image onto Commons, using the {{PD-text}} and {{PD-textlogo}} templates. What changes would be needed? Would it be sufficient (depending on the decision of this DR) to only replace two symbols with redrawn symbols? Would the remaining text, even though in a non-general font, be simple enough? Does the fact that the originals were created in the United Kingdom affect the answers (I get the impression UK copyright laws are more strict than US laws in this case)? -84user (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep -- The central two glyphs were lifted straight from Rudolf Koch's classic Book of Signs (he died more than 70 years ago), while the rightmost glyph consists of a simple circle surrounding a variant of an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic sign. The only one of the four which might remotely have enough originality to be copyrightable is the leftmost glyph, but I've heard that Jimmy Page took that from an older source too (though I don't remember exactly which one). AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, most of those facts are already included at the link en:Led Zeppelin IV#Album title which you supplied above... AnonMoos (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the rightmost is an agglomeration of the two central symbols in image http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/img/14200.jpg linked from http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/ssm08.htm (alternate site http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/mu/SacredMu.html etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we need to keep this. Testing how close the community was a bad call, and it put a Led Zeppelin picture at risk. bad call. -- 00:56, 8 September 2010 76.28.178.1

KEEP

I Approached at this from the standpoint of laws of The US - Where the authors/copyright holders have enjoyed the most profit and comercial success of the original multi-media work from which this set of 4 symbols is originally taken. This is also a very influential jurisdiction regarding copyright uses in many other markets.

The image represents a TINY portion of the original entire muti-media work for which it is a portion of, including but not limited to the Entire Album: Graphic and Audio portions of the work- Songs, Album Cover(s) art work, labels and other copy written works where it subsequently appears. Further, this is being used in reference to intellectual inquiry and discussions regarding; origin(s) of the portion of the work being used, intent of the authors in using that portion and other issues which provide new knowledge, understanding and other benefits for the public.

The significance to the public has perhaps been increased by the use of this particular portion of the work by others in ways that include defining the name of the entire work. Whether this other use was/is "fair use" is part of the inquiry being made here. In order to discuss study and otherwise critique this set of 4 symbols, it is essential that these are able to be seen by all concerned.

It appears from subsequent analysis and interviews with the band that this set of 4 tiny symbols was part of a directed effort of protest against industry/corporate labeling practices and media's methods of reference when reviewing material. This effort on it's own is an historic event and portends to subsequent modifications demanded by artists and practices such as the changeing of a corporation owned name, to a symbol by the artist "Prince".

The discussion and analysis raises the question of whether there even exists an enforceable copyright to this portion of the work being considered. A larger portion of the 4 symbols (3/4 or more?) appear, at this point, to possibly be derivative of public domain sources. This question deserves rigorous investigation, analysis and discussion - which necessitates the use of the set of 4 symbols in question.

1- The use is definitely transformative and not derivative- again it is a small portion of a much larger work and is not being used to promote any work by this or other authors- It is absolutaly non-competitive in intent or nature. The intent is absolutely different from that of the author. New knowledge and understanding of the larger work is being created.

2-The portion taken is definitely appropriate as to type and amount considering the size of the work(s) it is being taken from.

3-Any potential harm to the authors market is tiny if existant at all. This use in no way competes directly with the authors/copyright holder's use.

Please see WIKIFair Use Page: [[1]]

The section below from "The Center for Social Media" sums it up well. There is attribution and a link to the full text- which is an fascinating read for those interested in the present thinking on these subjects.

"…scholars may confidently invoke fair use to employ copyrighted works for purposes of analysis, criticism, or commentary directed toward those works. This fair use, made to enable the research, extends as well to the distribution of their research results, whether in the classroom, on a Web site, in printed work, in conference presentations, or by other methods of disseminating scholarly knowledge." Attribution: "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication" - Created by the International Communication Association Facilitated by Patricia Aufderheide, Center for Social Media, School of Communication, and Peter Jaszi, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, Washington College of Law, American University - LINK: [[2]]

In summary; I think we are seeing "fair use" substantiated in relation to modern doctrines/laws, and by way of several intellectual issues/questions being reviewed for the benefit of the public at large.

A. Sturchio (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, withdrawing my nomination, because the source [3] that AnonMoos linked above (and from wikipedia which I had completely missed at first) now convince me each symbol (reading left to right) is in the public domain (if not outright ineligible for copyright) as follows:
  • 1. Jimmy Page's Zoso symbol is almost identical to a sigil for Saturn from page 51 of an 1850 reprint of a 1521 French book Dragon Rouge and Poulet Noire (The Red Dragon and The Black Hen); also seen on page 31 of Frinellan's 1844 book Le Triple Vocabulaire Infernal Manuel du Demonomane. A variation of the symbol also appears in Jerome Cardan's 1557 book De rerum varietate (page 789 of this 1580 reprint).
  • 2. John Paul Jones' symbol (interlaced triquetra overlaying a circle) is from page 33 of Rudolf Koch's 1930 book The Book of Signs (Koch died in 1934)
  • 3. John Bonham's symbol (three intersecting circles) is from page 32 of the same book by Rudolf Koch
  • 4. Plant's feather symbol, as AnonMoos pointed out, appears to be a simple merging of two symbols from the "Feather Symbol of Truth" illustration on page 105 of James Churchward's 1933 book The Sacred Symbols of Mu (Churchward died in 1936)
• -84user (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - Face 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]