File:Paysafe.svg

This file was initially tagged by User:Kashmiri as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a logo protected by UK copyright. See footer at paysafe.com: "The Paysafe® trademark is the registered property of Paysafe Holdings UK Limited"; additionally, the UK threshold of originality is set very low and this logo almost certainly does not fall under fair use. . Speedy keep this logo is way too simple by any standard. UK is not as low as for example Australia. RZuo ( talk) 20:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's essentially the word and a colon, except the colon is coloured in two different colours. there's no fancy font or any artistic element.--RZuo (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as obvious copyvio. The logo and the two coloured circles are part of an elaborate branding that covers the company's website and a few sub-brands (paysafe:group, paysafe:cash), all built around these two colours, circles, and the typeface. Unlikely this would all be in public domain in the UK. — kashmīrī 21:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Example. — kashmīrī 21:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No one can copyright two colours or a colon. It's too simple.

Copyright is different from trademark right.

The website design involves many more images and shapes, which is a different story.--RZuo (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely one can. In the UK law. That's the UK copyright doctrine of the sweat of the brow. The work doesn't have to be original or creative, it's enough that it took an effort or expense to create. — kashmīrī 21:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

HSBC logo is surely more complex than colouring two dots: Commons:Deletion requests/File:HSBC.svg.--RZuo (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The HSBC logo is not covered by UK copyright, as you can read there, as its creator had no links with the UK. Moreover, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — kashmīrī 21:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Since Kashmiri thinks English common law did not apply to 1980s Hong Kong (it actually still kinda applies till this day in 2020), I take it that Kashmiri doesnt take the discussion seriously and so I will not respond to any more of his nonsense.

There're many more British logos here that are objectively more complex than colouring two dots. A wikipedia essay cannot change that fact that colouring two dots is too simple to qualify for copyright.--RZuo (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

One, I recommend you stop your arrogant personal attacks, you are crossing what is tolerated on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Two, I don't want to waste my time explaining not only that Hong Kong was never part of the United Kingdom and even in the 1980s had its own laws which were different from the laws of England and Wales, the laws of Scotland, or the laws of the Northern Ireland - but also that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a useless argument in a deletion discussion. — kashmīrī 12:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Keep: Plain text logo. --Achim (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, trivial enough. --rubin16 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)