Image:Prince symbol album.svg and Image:Prince symbol.svg
As made news recently [15], Prince is going after websites hosting imagery of him and his works. I heard about this yesterday, and decided I'd take a look around our projects to see if we'd done things in line with our policies with regards to his works. I came across these two images hosted on Commons as free licensed works, where the uploaders claim they have the copyrights and are releasing them. I also came across a deletion request on the latter image at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Prince symbol.svg which resulted in the image being kept.

However, I believe that deletion request erred in a number of ways.

First; there was significant number of IPs and new users commenting on the deletion request. 5 IPs commented, and only two of the registered users (Kelly Martin and Bryan Derksen) who commented had more than 30 edits per user. On the delete side, three of the four deletes had substantial contribs. One of the two main opposers to deletion used (in part) a principle of defense of the image that was flawed; that in the case noted the court observed a potential problem with their being a copyright on the image and, so concludes the opposer, the image is not copyrightable. The court never actually ruled on that. See next.


Second; whether or not something is copyrighted or not isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. In this case, we have clear evidence that the image, Love Symbol No. 2, is in fact copyrighted. It was originally registered with the United States Copyright Office in 1992 at [16]. In 1997, all rights to the image, including right of pursuing infringements, was transferred to Prince Rogers Nelson (aka "Prince") [17]. There simply is no disputing that the copyright has been registered and is recognized by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Now, whether something is capable of being copyrighted is a matter of opinion. Whether or not this particular image is capable or not has not been decided directly in court.

The closest it came was the court case noted in the deletion discussion, which opinion can be found at [18] (also, new story). This case was decided in 2000. In that opinion, the court made reference to the potentially debatable nature of the copyright status of the image. However, it said "but the parties make [**2] nothing of this, so neither shall we". I.e., the court did not make a decision on that aspect of the matter. They did however uphold Prince's copyright to the image, and ruled in favor of Prince based on that.

The only other time that I can find comment on the ability to copyright this image is in a case that Prince filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 99 Civ 1439. In that case Prince was acting, in part, to defend his copyright on the image. The defendant argued that they could use the image because it was not subject to copyright as a result of it being used as a name. However, the court never ruled on these issues; the matter was settled out of court [19]. The disputants were not permitted to discuss the particulars of the settlement, only to paraphrase it. In their comments on the settlement, the defendant noted that with regards to the use of the symbol, "Finally, the settlement contract specifically gives UPTOWN the right to use the symbol as a means of referring to The Artist, but that we cannot use it for purposes which are not editorial". I.e., it was acceptable to use the symbol in way that agrees with fair use law, but not in a way that constitutes free license.


Third, whether or not something is able to be copyrighted as a name isn't the core issue at hand. Commons isn't in the business of deciding whether something is able to be copyrighted. The Foundation upholds a policy of supporting free content. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. This policy puts Commons in a position of hosting purely free content, not content that is flirting with the law. There is no question of whether this image is copyrighted. It is. It's a matter of fact (see point two). There is no question that Prince has and continues to be willing to defend the rights he has, which no court has vacated, to this image. Until such time as a court actually rules in favor of a party to a case that the image can not be subject to copyright and vacates the copyright registration, or the United States Copyright Office vacates the copyright registration on its own, or Prince specifically releases his rights to the image, a conclusion that this image is free is highly problematic.


There is also the question of trademark at stake here. I'll admit a fair bit of ignorance with regards to trademark law. Instead, I'll default to our handling of such matters on Commons in so far as I'm aware. We do not host trademarks on Commons. Yes, there is Template:Trademark. It's use is appropriate on images such as Image:Burberry_handbag.jpg. In that case, we have a product that has a trademark visible on the product itself. The image rights are held by the photographer, but the maker of the bag holds rights to the trademark. On Commons, we accept this. There are many other examples. However, we do not host works where the entirety of the image is the trademark. I deleted on such example earlier today [20]. Actual extant examples are understandably hard to come by on Commons because we delete them. But, to give an example if the image was not otherwise free; Image:National Park Service logo.png. This image is free due to it's nature as a U.S. federal government work. However, if it were the property of a company, we would not host it on Commons. However, hosting this image: Image:MLK sign.JPG would be ok. The difference of course is the entirety of the work. In the case of the Prince Love Symbol No. 2., we were hosting the entirety of the work, not as part of some larger work.

I've also discussed this with User:Bastique and he concurs that Commons should not be hosting these images. Local projects are free to upload replacement images in agreement with their local Exemption Doctrine Policy.

Based on the above, I am deleting these two images despite the conclusion of the deletion request. Comments are welcome, but I strongly encourage people to not knee-jerk undelete these images without substantial discussion to clarify these images as free, as it is obvious that Prince is embarking on a campaign of lawsuits against websites hosting (in the least what he believes to be) his works. We do not need a lawsuit. Thank you, --Durin 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I raised this issue independently to begin with, having read the BBC News report, and I'm quite shocked at the excuses that were used to upload an image which is realistically, honestly, unfree. It's a trademark, which means I can't use it anyway, anywhere or anyhow, and it's potentially copyrighted, and as such, we take the, "it's fully copyrighted" approach, which would mean, until copyright issues are finally resolved in a court of law, I would potentially be unable to use the image without permission from the copyright holder. We're portraying ourselves here as being an archive of images that can fairly readily be reused for pretty much any purpose, pretty much anywhere, and this and other heavily trademarked images being included other than through incidental inclusion are completely at odds with our mission to provide free gratis and free libre works. I believe that Commons really should err on the side of caution in these cases, and that anything that is anything less than totally free (PD, GFDL, CC-BY-SA etc) really shouldn't be included. We can make convincing cases for the use of these Prince images under Fair Use doctrine on individual project sites, but I'm left wondering if people aren't trying to foist unfree images on Commons, arguing complete nonsense to keep the images from being deleted, purely to prettify projects which don't allow fair use. With regards to the Prince images, let someone else be taken to court and argue the toss, we're a charitable foundation and we don't have money to waste arguing about the copyright and trademark status of an image in a court of law, especially when the image can be justifiably used in certain circumstances under Fair Use doctrine. Nick 16:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If this is a trademark, than the name "Prince" is also a trademark. It is a name, so it can be used as a reference to that name. We made a big mistake here. Why not just wait until Wikimedia hears something of Prince' lawyers. I followed this quit a while and all the lawsuits against fan sites are, as far as I know, not about this symbol, but about photos, videos, song texts, etc... made or not made by fans. I didn't hear anything about the symbol. Yes in the 90s, when he used that symbol. So please re-upload those images asap. --Jeroenvrp 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The image is copyrighted by Prince. Please see [21]. Until such time as a court vacates those rights, the United States Copyright Office vacates the rights, or Prince release rights on his own, the image remains copyrighted regardless of any claims it is not able to be copyrighted because it was used as a name. Commons is not a court of law. Commons hosts free content, period. There is no disputing the image is copyrighted. It's a matter of fact, until such time as those rights are vacated. Waiting for a lawsuit to be filed against us is not the way we should be doing things. Under that notion of acceptability, we could upload thousands of album cover images and song samples as free licensed and just wait for the nice folks at w:Recording Industry Association of America to contact us. --Durin 16:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The original image is maybe copyrighted, but not a remake, like this one was. I re-uploaded them. Please do not remove them without a valid discussion. --Jeroenvrp 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So now it's wheel warring? Do you understand the concept of derivative work? You can't just recreate an image someone else has copyrighted and then call it your own. You're *clearly* in the wrong here. If you were in the right, no company in the world could retain rights to anything it creates, because anyone could recreate it and call it their own. --Durin 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that if I personally redraw any image that is protected by copyright, it no longer becomes protected by copyright and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Please do tell me exactly how such an image is not a derivative work and why it would no longer be protected by law. Thanks in advance. Nick 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Images deleted. Blatant violation of copyright. How there can even be discussions about is puzzles me. Rama 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This image is used in tens of articles, not as an illustration, but as a name in the text. Deleting those images with commonsdelinker have ruined a lot of articles. Who are you to decide which images can be deleted without a proper discussion?! Again it is a remake and yes it can be used everywhere, what properly already happened. This is not about a company. It is about an artist who used this as his name! Not as an illustration, not as a trademark logo. You didn't even asked the original creator of this image about his/her opinion first! --Jeroenvrp 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The image is copyrighted in the same country as the servers that host this website are located, leaving the Wikimedia Foundation open to legal action over the claim that the image is not copyrighted and that it's use falls outwith that which is permitted by United States Fair Use Doctrine. This is not a community decision, but copyright enforcement. Copyright enforcement is never a matter for discussion and consensus, but pre-emptive action by administrators. So a few articles have redlinks, but the Foundation is no longer open to legal action, I know which I prefer. Redlinks ahoy!. Nick 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Of note; in an IRC discussion, Jeroenvrp agreed to the deletion (though he was not happy about it). --Durin 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And now User:Jeroenvrp has uploaded the images as public domain on nl.wikipedia [22][23]. I've placed them for deletion there [24], since nl.wikipedia does not permit fair use images and the license is incorrect. --Durin 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to see copyright violation in those symbols. Maybe you should also delete wikipedia, it might contain ۩۞ڬ葛且¥ symbols ! --LimoWreck 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Have those symbols been registered with and granted copyright by the US Copyright Office ? No matter how absurd this situation, the fact remains that these symbols are copyright and trademarked to Prince, and given the fact these symbols are protected under copyright policy, they cannot be claimed to be freely licenced/not protected under copyright when we have evidence from the US Copyright Office that that is not the case, therefore their existence on Wikimedia Commons without a fair use rationale is in direct violation of US Copyright Policy, and the claim that the image is freely licensed is extremely problematic from a legal standpoint. Nick 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Update: Jeroenvrp has now deleted the images on nl.wikipedia. This should close the matter. --Durin 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So by the sounds of this Wikipedia has looked into this and feels prince would have a good case as the image is copyrighted since 1992.... hmm interesting

You don't honestly expect me to read all that, do you?

Prince on the Oprah Winfrey show:

"You can type it on a typewriter. I can give you the computer font"

Oprah then explains to Prince that they are displaying to the millions of viewers how they are able to type the characters: O ( + > on their keyboards so that anyone can produce the symbol representing his name:

Neither she nor Prince at that point took the opportunity to point out that Prince would consider such use of the symbol a breach of copyright which he would enforce.

langebleu said:

True, but (IMHO) that wouldn't hold up in court.

Nothinbutjoy said:

Well times change dont they??

Prince on the Oprah Winfrey show:

"You can type it on a typewriter. I can give you the computer font"

Oprah then explains to Prince that they are displaying to the millions of viewers how they are able to type the characters: O ( + > on their keyboards so that anyone can produce the symbol representing his name:

Neither she nor Prince at that point took the opportunity to point out that Prince would consider such use of the symbol a breach of copyright which he would enforce.

langebleu said:

True, but (IMHO) that wouldn't hold up in court.

langebleu said:

That where i think the Copyright is an issue, when it was used as his name i dont think it was copyrighted, just trademarked but now it his not his name its copyrigted, cause from what i undrstand you cant copyright a Name but you can trademark it.

Now the question is Fair Usage, Say you take his symbol and like some fans has used Photoshop and make a Desktop Wallpaper, then post it for others to see it that i beleive is not fair usage because they have altered or used his symbol in the first place, same with photos.

In the case of Tattoos, yeah it may well have been thier Photos and body parts but its still showing a Copyrighted Image in which IMHO the Tattooist is liable cause he Profited from the work.

So by the sounds of this Wikipedia has looked into this and feels prince would have a good case as the image is copyrighted since 1992.... hmm interesting

i adore the symbol. it makes such a strong statement & very much belongs 2 prince.

only prince could come up with such controversial & truley beautiful design..!
i assume he did, anyway

it's facinating piece of art that he should take credit 4.
i can understand why he's protective of it. something 2 b proud of.
the music was made 2 share, but the symbol is a very personnal image 2 a very unique individual. anyone could b called prince, but no one else could ever get away with being 'the symbol'

it is his trademark. i love the way he's incorporated the design 2 guitar & stage...

however, removing it from Wikipedia? his behaviour is beyond bizarre. whatever next

lottielooloo1968 said:

Does this look in any way familiar to you?

This news gives me the runs.

[Graphic picture of diarrhea snipped. --Matt]

yes, the explosive kind.

get ova urself prince.

m3taverse said:

y? u r now going 2 tell me it's an ancient symol or something...

lottielooloo1968 said:

Yup. Ancient alchemy symbol representing soapstone.

m3taverse said:

oh nooo! u shattered my illusion! i thought he was an artiste...
mind u, it hasn't got the circle thingy. does he get credit 4 tht?

i still think it belongs 2 himm. no one else would have the madness 2 call themselves tht.
he wore it first, now everybody in the land wants a piece of it. NO! it's his!

Prince on the Oprah Winfrey show:

"You can type it on a typewriter. I can give you the computer font"

Oprah then explains to Prince that they are displaying to the millions of viewers how they are able to type the characters: O ( + > on their keyboards so that anyone can produce the symbol representing his name:

Neither she nor Prince at that point took the opportunity to point out that Prince would consider such use of the symbol a breach of copyright which he would enforce.

lottielooloo1968 said:

Does this look in any way familiar to you?

Prince on the Oprah Winfrey show:

"You can type it on a typewriter. I can give you the computer font"

Oprah then explains to Prince that they are displaying to the millions of viewers how they are able to type the characters: O ( + > on their keyboards so that anyone can produce the symbol representing his name:

Neither she nor Prince at that point took the opportunity to point out that Prince would consider such use of the symbol a breach of copyright which he would enforce.