Image talk:ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This image was nominated for deletion on 2008 February 27. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] No source information

What is the source information for this image? Cirt (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is believed that the logo may be obtained from Church of Spiritual Technology." -- "It is believed that..." - This is inadequate source info. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that this is not the logo of the Church of Spiritual Technology, or that someone other than the Church of Spiritual Technology owns the copyright? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that you need to have a Verifiable source as to where this particular image came from. Probably best to just use another image, one that could be verifiably sourced to a website or newspaper publication or something like that. This particular image is WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on Image:ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.PNG, which is based on the satellite image from Terraserver. The logo can be obtained form the Church of Spiritual Technology.

Based on something (since deleted) which was itself based on something else? This is spurious and we should just use a different image altogether so that there is no confusion. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] —Remember the dot (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that About.com is seen as a WP:RS source on Wikipedia... Cirt (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The source information on this image is still woefully inadequate. Simply stating "Based on Image:ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.PNG, which is based on the satellite image from Terraserver. The logo can be obtained form the Church of Spiritual Technology." is insufficient. Cirt (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Tagged again as inadequate source info. If that is removed/disputed again, we could resolve this with a deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate fair use

If this is indeed the logo of Church of Spiritual Technology, a fair use argument could be made for use in that article, but not in the separate article, Trementina Base. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a registered trademark of CST Serial Number 73507434. "Trementina Base" does have a very large copy of the logo buzzed into ground, visible from the air, and this is discussed in several news stories and talked about in the article. There are probably US government photos of the site (public domain), but the logo would need to be fuzzed out? AndroidCat (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are US government photos of the site than it is a replaceable fair use image and should be removed and replaced with a free use image instead. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be no more fair use of a trademark than the current image created by a Wikipedia editor. AndroidCat (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless it is "public domain" as a product of the U.S. govt. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was established that taking a picture of a trademark/copyright image and making that picture public domain does not result in a free image that Wikipedia can use. The current image is a reformated version of an image created by a Wikipedia editor for the purpose of having as free an image as possible for Wikipedia to use. If it can't be used, then the Trementina Base article is out of luck. AndroidCat (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and the same was true of the vector Scientology cross that was destroyed a few weeks ago. AndroidCat (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it might be different if it is a product of the US federal govt, rather than a Wikipedia editor. In any event, it would be better to use a logo directly with an attributable source. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the original graphic was attributed to the description in the trademark registration. AndroidCat (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See my rationale in the above subsection. As it currently stands, the source info is not satisfactory. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better image available?

Is there an image available that we could use with a hyperlink to the sourcepage, for better sourcing? Cirt (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steps for verifying trademark

No permanent URLs to United States Patent and Trademark Office search results are possible.

http://www.uspto.gov/
Select Trademark tab on left.
Option 3. Search TM database (TESS)
Structured Form Search (Boolean)
Enter 73507434 in Search Term editbox
In Field dropdown, select Serial Number
Click Submit Query

AndroidCat (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so this image should be deleted, and that one used instead. At least that one is verifiable, and not OR. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That image is virtually identical to this one, and poorer quality. If it's that important to you, just invert the colors on this image. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, what is important to me is that we not have OR, but rather a verifiable image. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)