File talk:VT logo.svg

This is simply NOT a typeface that would be protected by public domain laws. You must justify your rationalization for it to be considered public domain; simply saying it's lettering is far from sufficient. --128.172.190.121 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is trademarked:

Other trademarks include:

* The HokieBird® * *The university seal * *The university shield * *The university logo * The athletic VT® * Hokie Tracks™

• Note that the ® designation would be used with the graphic representation of these trademarks.

The trademarked HokieBird® and/or VT® are limited to athletic and informal usage and must not be used for academic applications, academic products, or university websites.

See Licensing and Trademarks
--Opertinicy (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I wrote a rationale here and I guess I forgot to save it for some reason.

This logo is indeed trademarked, but it is not eligible for copyright. Uncopyrightable, yet trademarked images aren't unprotected as the General Disclaimers of Wikipedia explicitly mention how to treat such images.

"Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:

"...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."

Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:

"Under Regulation 202.10(c) it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art. Because of this, typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)."

The United States Copyright Office sets forth:

"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]"

There appears to be a misconception on Wikipedia and the Commons that only standard/publicly-available/etc typefaces (e.g. Times New Roman font, Verdana font, etc.) are ineligible for copyright protection. There is no support for this belief. If text falls within the definition of typeface above, it is generally not considered eligible for copyright; no consideration is given to prevalence or dispensation.

As an example, U.S. courts have determined that the threshold of originality is not met for this logo.

If a logo consists entirely of letters, it is important to note the "intrinsic, utilitarian function" of those letters. As an example, the New York Yankees logo consists of an "N" and "Y" whose intrinsic, utilitarian function is to be an "N" and "Y". No matter how ornate, they are still letters and therefore ineligible for copyright and, hence, are PD images. This same logic does not hold for something like ASCII art where letters are arranged to form pictures. The intrinsic value of the letter has been used in a creative way in a manner not consistent with its use as a letter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)