Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amazon-S3-Logo.svg
Very unlikely own work; the bigger question is whether this image falls below or above the TOO. I lack the keen nose to tell this, but a few members of the Discord leaned yes. Ovinus (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep Authorship is as simple as changing the description. Regarding of copyright and threshold of originality, I think it likely is below the minimum for copyright. The specific precedents from the copyright office, with similar designs, which I think may apply, are:
- Minn Kota, parallelograms arranged to form an underlined M
- Comm Vault, a similar design but forming a C
- Hexagon divided into 12 pyramids.
Another case, which is similar but declined on grounds involving it being a derivative, is RE/MAX, which is a hot air balloon design, which used darkening shades to create a 3D effect.
A mere simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements [i.e. several parallelograms arranged to appear three-dimensional] does not demonstrate the level of creativity necessary to warrant protection. [...] It is true, of course, that a combination of unprotectable elements may qualify for copyright protection. But it is not true that any combination of unprotectable elements automatically qualifies for copyright protection.
— U.S. Copyright Office
With the appearance of depth, an example of a 3D design, which was declined, is Apple Watch heart emojis, which is a 3D rendering, on the basis that it's a non-original heart shape. However, copyright was upheld on a modified design, which was a heart with wings - I don't think this Amazon logo adds in the same way to make the design sufficiently original. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 23:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bacon Noodles: Great analysis, thanks. May I withdraw the nomination? Ovinus (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- A more recent decision released on April 14, 2022 (hexagon showing a 3D-perspective, divided by chevrons) was granted a copyright and it's considerably more similar (specifically use of different tones) to this file than the previous citations. Which may mean it's copyrightable. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: because to me, it does not seem quite as compex as the newly protected one with the chevrons, hexagonal shapes etc. --Rosenzweig τ 13:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
