Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
ESTA MAL PUBLICADO QUERIA COLOCARLO EN EL ESPACIO DE ESCUDO DEL MUNICIPIO GRAN SABANA, NO ASI AISLADO Pitovallez (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: recent upload, uploaders request JuTa 23:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
was TEsting. This Is Not Your Ordinary Acid3 Fan. (My Talk Page) 16:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Mikemoral♪♫ 23:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Dateiname ist nach § 86a StGB strafbar. --84.61.132.115 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nur interessieren deutsche Gesetze auf Commons nur beschränkt. Aber ja,
Delete weil "out of scope". darkweasel94 09:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nur interessieren deutsche Gesetze auf Commons nur beschränkt. Aber ja,
- Delete: Obviously grabbed from internet, via (example) http://archive.4chon.net/meta/136194.html (2012) = http://archive.4chon.net/meta/136194/src_1339373115738.gif. Gunnex (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tagged as a {{Copyvio}}. Mikemoral♪♫ 02:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Speedy deleted a copyright violation. Mikemoral♪♫ 20:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
File:SUSHIL BHATI SAKIPUR --FACEBOOK MOST SEARCHED - -ID FACEBOOK - SUSHILBHATI76@GMAIL-COM--AGE - 16 --BIRTHDAY - 25 JUNE 2013-06-27 00-37.jpeg
[edit]I think this image might be out of scope Bawolff (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This image was originally uploaded to en-wp here as a non-free image, sourced to nataliecohen.net and imdb.com. Uploader did not seem to understand Wikipedia's non-free use policies, and now seems to have uploaded the same image to Commons claiming a free license. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Eskog has a little too much time on their hands. I am one person trying to upload one image each for Natalie Cohen and Trent Ford. I know them personally and have full permission to use my images of them on Wikipedia. The original "error" was due to the fact that Wikipedia makes it incredibly difficult to understand how to upload your own image with jargon no one uses in simple English. How is it some random page editor who does not know Natalie or Trent personally, is allowed to delete their images?! Insane. My misunderstanding of the lengthy options when uploading an image will now prevent me from ever adding one? How does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouperStarz (talk • contribs)
Delete No evidence that uploader has any authority to license the image, and various inconsistent claims made w/r/t this and other images. Nom's statements are on target. "Full permission" to use "on Wikipedia" would not be a sufficient license in any event. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Probably BlueSteel Photography would still hold the copyright. Uploader has had some other issues with non-free images on en-wp and here that would call the PD-self claim into question. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note that this edit changed the initial source claim to "my own" - almost certainly not true. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete No evidence that uploader has any authority to license the image, and various inconsistent claims made w/r/t this and other images. Nom's statements are on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has several previous uploads at en-wp of Trent Ford, among others, which were originally tagged as non-free and then uploaded here. This image does not appear to have had a duplicate on en-wp, but given uploader's history, it's likely the PD-self claim is false. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. It is so difficult to understand how to upload an image on Wikipedia, that I had no clue how to distinguish my images. I am directly related to the people I've uploaded images for on here. Tell me how someone is meant to be able to figure this system out, and then keep images I have the full rights o use on Wikipedia, without some other random page editor, who does not know Natalie Cohen or Trent Ford personally, deciding to delete MY images since THEY feel I cannot be trusted after making a mistake when first trying to understand how the heck image uploads work on Wikipedia....anyone willing to respond??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouperStarz (talk • contribs)
- It's not necessarily relevant that you are related to them. If the images are copyrighted, you can't use them on Wikipedia to illustrate articles on living people, and you can't upload them to Commons at all. Permission which only applies to uploading the image here doesn't really cover what we need, since most rightsholders don't realize that our images are widely reused by many other outlets, even some with commercial purposes, and so we need them to be released under a completely free license. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete No evidence that uploader has any authority to license the image, and various inconsistent claims made w/r/t this and other images. Nom's statements are on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, cropped from unknown source. Gunnex (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
supppppppppppp Jimthomas (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: ?!? Denniss (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Publicity, unclear licensing status (is the user the owner of agentcosme ?) Pleclown (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Despite the uploader claims I severely doubt that this image was created by them High Contrast (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
For this to realistically be useful for an educational purpose, it would need to have the description filled out stating who the subjects are or otherwise give some context. Bawolff (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Description implies this is a still from some (presumably copyrighted) tv show (it uses the word "season 3"). Additionally probably not an educational image, unless more context was given Bawolff (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Blatant copyright infringement of a Getty copyrighted image! Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Do you have the image source to prove that it's copyrighted? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oops! I didn't read the uploader's name - apparently the photographer IS the copyright holder. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: error by nominator Denniss (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
"The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose." 63.251.123.2 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - {{User page image}} --Yuval Y § Chat § 20:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't actually currently used as one. darkweasel94 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if it's really a version drawn by the uploader, but for sure the uploader isn't the copyright holder. Moonian (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think this can be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}{{TM}}. --McZusatz (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- That should be OK after the uploader clarifies the source of the image. --Moonian (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Qualifies for PD-textlogo. Missing source in this case is no reason for deletion. McZusatz (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio de http://elantroposofista.blogspot.com/2011/03/todos-los-mapas-de-colombia-online.html#axzz2XRTEezOy Chico512 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- No es Copyvio, pueden darse cuenta en los enlaces que este conlleva, además estoy incluyendo quienes son sus verdaderos autores y sus respectivas licencias, por favor, pido que se analicen bien estos artículos y páginas Web, ya que yo le pedí esto anteriormente al usuario Chico512, pero por lo que veo, parece que no revisa bien las páginas web relacionadas.--Who's That Boy? 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not copyvio, can realize the links that come along, and I'm including who their real authors and their respective licenses, please ask you to analyze well these articles and Web pages since I asked this before the user Chico512, but from what I see, it seems not double check related websites.--Who's That Boy? 19:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Picture looks like an atlas image. None of the links is the original source where this picture came from. Many of thems has no conection or leads to a map even similar. Cheers.
- La imagen parece tomada de un atlas. Ninguno de los enlaces es la fuente original de la misma. Muchos no tienen relación alguna o no llevan a un mapa ni siquiera similar al actual. Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
the name of several towns, not just one Cycn (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, but just make a disambiguation page of it, so the different potential towns can be found and various incoming interwiki links aren't broken, etc. --LimoWreck (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded this image but have now uploaded a better version, in my opinion Sofffie7 (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded this image but have now uploaded a better version of it, in my opinion Sofffie7 (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment File tagged with {{Duplicate}}. Mikemoral♪♫ 23:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Watermarked with CC-by-NC-ND, an incompatible license. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio: low quality, no EXIF - own work claim doubtful Wcam (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The source website http://www.fws.gov/mandalay/ shows the image is copyright © Tom Carlisle. The copyright page points out that only those images not marked as copyright are in the public domain. Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted rendition. Fry1989 eh? 02:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not own work, probably copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 02:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not own work, this is a JPEG of the SVG we already have by Cheposo. Fry1989 eh? 02:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
copyright issue, copied from: http://www.fullorissa.com/about-odisha/biju-pattanaik/ Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
no notabilty of artist Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
not own work. source:[1] Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not see OTRS permission, and the case is not really PD-trivial, hence it seems to be copyright violation. Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
no use for wikipedias Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1962 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia) Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1962 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia) Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1945 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia) Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1962 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1945 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1945 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1962 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1962 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1945 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof the uploader is the photographer, looks to be a journalist's picture. No indication of publication prior to 1945 (required for the image to be PD in both the US and Indonesia). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
no usability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Per quality of photo unlikely {{PD-AR-Photo}} (published in or before 1987): May be grabbed from (example) http://www.elsajama.com/2012/05/muchos-no-lo-saben-pero-la-copa.html (05.2012, credits: "Fuente: Conmebol.com"). Gunnex (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No evidence for the claimed CC-Zero license. To the contrary, per the statement "Fotografierna får användas fritt för redaktionellt ändamål, men inte kommersiellt. Uppge alltid fotografens namn vid publicering" in the EXIF data, no commercial use of this image is allowed. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
(due of high wiki use, DR) Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Previously published via (examples) http://mouvement-ultra.forumactif.fr/t24-le-mouvement-en-argentine (01.2007) = http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5646/f04tg2.jpg (last modified: 01.2007) or http://www.fotolog.com/hinchada_rojo/8720804/ (2005) or http://www.foroswebgratis.com/tema-la_n%C2%B01_la_guardia_imperial-19832-65440-6.htm (2006) = http://www.foroswebgratis.com/imagenes_foros/1/9/8/3/2//24656222.jpg (last modified: 2006, watermarked, but seems to show the original frame) Gunnex (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
no cv on commons Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No evidence for the claimed CC license. The source website says "Copyright © 2011 – Ágoston László. All Rights Reserved." -- Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No evidence for the claimed CC license. The source website says "Copyright © 2013 – MoltOpera. Minden jog fenntartva", i.e. "All rights reserved". -- Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality, and therefore not usable. File isn't in use right now. TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not iOS 4 logo. Small image size. Not used. TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Le fond de cette carte n'est pas libre de droit. Elle a été remplacée par Bourrichon par le fichier suivant : File:Habitats_de_la_carrière_des_Nerviens-fr.svg. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as work of Hillsborough County Sherriff's Office, therefore PD-USGOV is an incorrect license. NiciVampireHeart 12:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysterious watermark. Previously circulating in a montage from 2006. Gunnex (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- please delete. --DuffmanDuff (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 12:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
derivative of the cover photo. Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Book was published in 1984, so any reproduction of the cover is likely a copyright violation. Seems like copied from this book description at Amazon. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The file is of extremely low-quality, has little educational value IMO and is unused. Even for the sunset at Tinsukia, we have a much better image File:Sunset at Tinsukia.jpg. Rahul Bott (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Still copyrighted text: the author, Miško Kranjec, died in 1983. Eleassar (t/p) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also the following files:
- --Eleassar (t/p) 13:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has questioned whether the uploader is the artist. I removed the speedy tag and converted to DR. Canoe1967 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Uncropped version of File:Barkerdzp.jpg serves no purpose. Pete F (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
fake licence | подложная лицензия. Starless (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope. Del. on DE Nolispanmo 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
scan of an entire article uploaded as "own work", no evidence the uploader is the author of the article. Holyoke, mass (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
bad copy of File:Boerderij met bijgebouwen, voordeur in het midden van de voorgevel, naam in steen boven de deur, ramen met roedenverdeling en luiken, fruitbomen aan weerszijden van het toegangspad - Rijk - 20186885 - RCE.jpg Paulbe (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not find any credits to the original authors/sources for the individual images in this montage. As such, does it not constitute a cpvio? Rahul Bott (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The image seems to be a version of the current logo of an association. There is no evidence at all that the author/uploader has enough title or interest to release the copyrights of 'Nueva Acropolis'. Cinabrium (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Selfie? Unused and no description of who the subject is. Bawolff (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Presumably a self-potrait. Unused with no information on who the subject is. Bawolff (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Low quality image of unknown subject. Seems unlikely to be useful Bawolff (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused portrait of somebody who doesn't appear to be famous or notable Bawolff (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
~the permission found is in contradiction with a PD license Yger (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Support The photo is a copyvio. --Taichi (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Apparently an architectural design study of a stadium which was grabbed - as indicated: "Source= Club El Porvenir" - from (example) http://www.clubelporvenir.org.ar = related football club site. Permission from club or architecture firm needed. Gunnex (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
(possibly self-) portrait with no indication of who the subject is. Unlikely to be useful Bawolff (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, mysterious watermark "Mundo Azulgrana" = online-journal http://www.mundoazulgrana.com.ar, file was apparently grabbed from one of these galleries. Gunnex (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio from this page (not a 2D art object reproduction, PD-Art doesn't apply here) Mel22 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No educational use. 63.251.123.2 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No apparent educational use. 63.251.123.2 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No apparent educational use. 63.251.123.2 21:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No apparent educational use. 63.251.123.2 21:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No apparent educational use. 63.251.123.2 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No apparent educational use. 63.251.123.2 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No apparent educational use. 63.251.123.2 21:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
por que no se emplea en ningún articulo Hunter1323 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused crop made by MyCanon (sockpuppet) and a close enough duplicate of File:Matt LeBlanc, Arqiva British Academy Television Awards, 2013 (tone crop).jpg – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please replace usage first. --Denniss (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Denniss, I should've checked that earlier. Replaced. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enricomelozzi (talk · contribs)
[edit]no notability
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I think there is sufficient indication for the notability on the italian wikipedia: it:Enrico Melozzi. Also, Lisma Project recieived a prize for the soundtrack of a film (it:Le cose in te nascoste). However, own work doesn't seem plausible (if user:Enricomelozzi is in fact Enrico Melozzi), because he is also on the photos). --Darklingou (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lifeonfire (talk · contribs)
[edit]IMHO, these drawings are merely re-drawings or derivated works of existing copyright work (here: comic figures with unknown copyright status), even with some artistic additions by uploader. The images looks in a manner similar to the way they were published. COM:FAN. Examples (some images are also nearly copyvios): File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Tension@AnuragSaxena.jpg vs. [2], File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Waterfall@AnuragSaxena.JPG vs. [3], File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Desert@AnuragSaxena.jpg vs. [4], File:MSPaint-Winni d Pooh1@AnuragSaxena.jpg vs. [5], File:MSPaint-Ducktales@AnuragSaxena.jpg vs. [6] etc.
- File:MSPaint-Winni d Pooh@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Tension@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Mysterious Box@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Mission Accomplished@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Letter@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Cave@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Winni d Pooh2@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Waterfall@AnuragSaxena.JPG
- File:MSPaint-Winni d Pooh1@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Shadow@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Dragon@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Desert@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Cliff@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Talespin@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Tin Tin and The Avelance@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Scoooooby Dooooby Dooooo@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Fred n Barney@AnuragSaxena.JPG
- File:MSPaint-Ducktales1@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Ducktales@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-CHD HALE Winning Entry@AnuragSaxena.JPG
- File:MSPaint-Aladdin@AnuragSaxena.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lifeonfire (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non-notable artist's drawings.
- File:PencilSketch-Ik Onkar@AnuragSaxena@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Stay Away@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Saif Ali Khan@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Cricket@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Once Upon a Time@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Love@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Innocence@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Hrithik Roshan1@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Feelings@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Fun n Masti@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Face to Face@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Anushka Sharma@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Muzic@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Batman Returns@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Village1@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Village@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Sonakshi Sinha@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Salman Khan2@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Salman Khan1@AnuragSaxena.JPG
- File:PencilSketch-Salman Khan@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-New Life@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Masakali@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Katrina Kaif@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Lord Shiva, Parvati n Ganesh@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Kareena Kapoor@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Hrithik Roshan@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Deepika Padukone@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Avril Lavigne@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Aks@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:PencilSketch-Aamir Khan@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Dharmendra@AnuragSaxena.jpg
- File:MSPaint-Batman@AnuragSaxena.JPG
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Too blurry to have reuse value, so out of scope. Fæ (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete. – JBarta (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
IMHO out of COM:SCOPE. (Don't forget the redirect File:Tabela 2 Influência do grau de ligações cruzadas.png) JuTa 22:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nicole Cooke
[edit]The article at the source http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/britains-nicole-cooke-weathers-storm-take-olympic-gold-0 is not a self-created article but written off from the source. And so is the photo used in the article. It is not created by Erik van Erne but by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images, see http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/gold-medalist-nicole-cooke-of-great-britain-celebrates-on-news-photo/82238605.
Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - per Martin.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I was the uploader of this file in 2008, and I was not aware that the claimed license on the nowpublic-website was invalid. Although it could theoretically be that the gettyimages file is a copy, I think it is not. If I would have seen both these websites in 2008, I would not have uploaded the image. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isnt possible. They have a whole set (bottom of that search page), I found that via http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/aug2008/4/7/B1C0C276-D15E-8360-E309C01B4ACFF846.jpg (EXIF of that file). --Martin H. (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It still is possible, surely they could have copied a whole set of images... (I don't believe this happened, but it is possible, no matter how unlikely...) But that is irrelevant: even if we were unsure which of those websites is the original source, we should take the safe solution and delete this file. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isnt possible. They have a whole set (bottom of that search page), I found that via http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/aug2008/4/7/B1C0C276-D15E-8360-E309C01B4ACFF846.jpg (EXIF of that file). --Martin H. (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - I uploaded the cropped version but it now appears that the original version shouldn't be on Commons, and so the same must follow for the cropped version. Bencherlite (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Ele está duplicado NosLida (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Info = "The file is duplicated" = File:Camisa Verde e Branco (2010).JPG, license review passed, cats, in wiki use, better description etc., but lower res... hmm... Gunnex (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysterious watermark (see here, the file was later downscaled). Previously published (lower res) via (example) http://z6.invisionfree.com/UltrasTifosi/ar/t1194.htm (added - as indicated - by "Brann - October 1, 2005 03:48 PM (GMT)") = http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5696/2es1.jpg (last modified: 2006) Gunnex (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Info Eventually, considering the res 800x600, grabbed from http://www.infiernorojo.com/galeria/albums/wpw-20070202/vsbostainfierno0004.jpg (per file path, uploaded in 2007-02-02), embedded in this (new) gallery. Gunnex (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-Useful Image. This Is Not Your Ordinary Acid3 Fan. (My Talk Page) 18:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that it's not currently used does not place it outside scope. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This illustrates very well that an NDS still works when the topscreen has split off. This is a unique informational picture and should be kept. darkweasel94 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 22:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
out-of-scope, unused Ricordisamoa 13:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. That a file is "unused" is certainly not a reason for deletion. And why should it not be in scope? It's a good example of artistic nude photography, which is in scope, with an old building as a backdrop that should be in scope as well. The user requesting the deletion seems to have the notion that this file is "not encyclopedic because not used" ("non enciclopedica perché non utilizzata"), at least he says so at it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Nel frattempo, su Commons..., a page discussing recent events here at Commons.
- This notion is wrong of course, as we know, Commons is not just an image repository for Wikipedia. In fact, the deletion request seems to have been provoked by another user's displeasure, astonishment or whatever at finding the image in the Category:Caprera, "the island famous for being the last residence of Garibaldi", as "the picture that you did not expect to find" (translated from the Italian page named above). So they find an image they didn't expect and don't like in a category, and what do they do? They make a deletion request. Such sillyness. --Vydra (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your analysis! --Aplasia (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think the question is not the deletion, but the category: in fact the island of Caprera is not the main subjet of the photo. File:00-Nudist woman desert 02.JPG is perhaps in the category "desert"? Or File:Breasts of a 41-year old mother of two.jpg in category "chair"? File:Girl Goes Nude shopping .jpg in category "shops" or "car parking"? When I made this file (just an example) I was in Montelibretti, but I did not think to put it in the category "Montelibretti"... --Retaggio (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 21:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trackratte as Fair use (Non-free fair use in) and the most recent rationale was: Coat of Arms of Canada.svg|image has rationale=yes Sanandros (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- This was self-made by a user, and therefore free, so normally I'd say keep. However this image is so inferior and inaccurate in representing the Canadian coat of arms, it should be deleted.
- From the Canadian Trade-marks act: "9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for...... e) the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada in respect of which the Registrar has at the request of the Government of Canada or of the province or municipal corporation concerne", and "Requests for permission to use the Arms of Canada should be forwarded to: Federal Identity Program, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R5".
- It doesn't matter if the image was drawn by a user or not. Any depiction resembling the Arms of Canada is under Crown copyright and cannot be used for commercial use. Since the Commons does not accept fair use arguments, this image cannot remain. Delete Trackratte (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it does matter a lot. We have tonnes of coats of arms here that are still under state copyright by their respective governments, but a user has created their own free version. The government copyrights their own design, but coats of arms are explained in text by what is called a "blazon". As long as a user creates their own version following the blazon, they own the copyright and not the government. If they release it here, it's free. Perhaps you should spend some time studying the copyright rules regarding coats of arms here on Commons. In any case, this version looks nothing like any of the 3 official coats of arms of Canada throughout history, and for that reason it should be deleted. Several users have attempted to replace accurate renditions on various projects with this file, and it needs to stop. Fry1989 eh? 04:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Any image "resembling" or "likely to be mistaken for" the Arms are subject to Crown copyright through Canadian statutory law. The Government of Canada has pressed charges for companies using 'likenesses' of the Arms for commercial use without permission, as can be seen here, "He tried to argue that he had changed the image significantly, and should be allowed to use it. No way, the federal lawyers said. 'They waited a few months, contacted me again, and said that they'd be pressing charges.'". As per the Berne convention, Canadian copyright extends to the U.S. and thus, to Wikipedia.
- I agree, the use of this image to replace the official depiction needs to stop, and this image should be removed.
- I propose we fix this by uploading the official depiction onto the English Wikipedia under fair-use for use throughout the wiki. This is what I have tried to do by uploading the official depiction as a low-resolution image to satisfy fair-use (although I think the consensus is that the resolution is actually too low). I think that all of the Canadian Arms images from the Commons that are worth saving should be brought over to the Wiki itself, with the rest being removed, as the Commons does not allow non-free images. I actually don't agree with removing all the Arms from the Commons, but I'm not the one who won't allow fair-use. Trackratte (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it does matter a lot. We have tonnes of coats of arms here that are still under state copyright by their respective governments, but a user has created their own free version. The government copyrights their own design, but coats of arms are explained in text by what is called a "blazon". As long as a user creates their own version following the blazon, they own the copyright and not the government. If they release it here, it's free. Perhaps you should spend some time studying the copyright rules regarding coats of arms here on Commons. In any case, this version looks nothing like any of the 3 official coats of arms of Canada throughout history, and for that reason it should be deleted. Several users have attempted to replace accurate renditions on various projects with this file, and it needs to stop. Fry1989 eh? 04:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- In this case Canadian law is clear. This does not apply to all coat of arms, many if not all coat of arms have restriction on usage (i.e. maybe not be attributed to somebody else, use to get profit, or deceive people into thinking that they have patronage etc. etc.). But the depiction of them are not copyrighted, especially if the image is a derivative work and the originally author have died over a period of years. You can draw it, but you can't use it in the wrong way. This has been the convention for centuries. However the Canadian government have 'branded' their coat of arms, with the modern concept of copyright and all the restrictions that it applies. There is nothing wrong with this, they are allowed to protect their identity. However in other countries this is completely unnecessary since the laws of arms still applies (at least in common law countries) and the true owner of the coat of arms (i.e. the Canadian Government or Queen Elizabeth II) can just ask the offending party to remove it. In the UK this is very much the case, depiction and blazon is free, but the job of restricting the usage is delegated to the Lord Chamberlain. Theoretically Commons is not breaking the spirit of the law, since it will not be making any profits of the image (Unlike a certain website) or misattribute the owner of the coat of arms. Commons however cannot guarantee that the image (which is now free, since it has been published by Commons) might be misused on the internet. The image is bad, and it clearly breaks the law, delete it. Delete Sodacan (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
KeepThis is a Trademark Law and not a Copyright Law. With that the CoA is free to use even in Canada. The law just restricts usage which appears official and that is the law in almost any country. It is similar with our Microsoft pics. If you write about Microsoft and use their logo then Microsoft can't sue you cause you didn't appear as Microsoft but if you sell some Microsoft shirts then somebody else could think you are Microsoft and you violated a trademark law.--Sanandros (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying, although the act does specify "as a trade mark or otherwise". Additionally, "Trademarks,...are often created and used in an industrial or commercial context", and "a trademark must be used to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its registration can be cancelled or revoked if the mark is not continuously used", whereas, "copyrights cannot be 'abandoned'". Not all of the normal rules governing trademarks apply in this case, whereas some of those from copyright do, since the Arms do not operate according to a trademark licence, but to statutory law.
- From WP:NFC : "free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. Any content not satisfying these criteria is said to be non-free. This includes all content (including images) that is fully copyrighted, or which is made available subject to restrictions such as "non-commercial use only" or "for use on Wikipedia only". (Many images that are generally available free of charge may thus still be "non-free" for Wikipedia's purposes.)"
- Also, the arms are used as federal police and military rank badges, and is hung in state buildings, and in the offices of agents of the Crown. This is the reason why it is so fiercly protected, and why the government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars per year enforcing it, because it is so closely associated with authority. I think it would be irresponsible for us to release it to the public under free use, when someone could actually be charged for using it without permission, especially since its protection is so actively enforced. Trackratte (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Aren't these restrictions already indicated by the "insignia" template? DrKiernan (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would say no, since the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Government of Canada) offially states that "The official symbols of the Government of Canada are protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization." Where "Official government symbols" are the "Arms of Canada as revised in 1994, Government of Canada signature, Canada Wordmark, Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957, flag symbol, and federal emblem used from 1974 to 1987." Trackratte (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't break the law at all, it looks nothing like any of the three official coats of arms of Canada throughout history, it is an independent rendition just like 50 other coats of arms we have. The only reason it should be deleted is because it's so horribly inaccurate. Fry1989 eh? 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Fry. I never said it 'breaks the law'. Under educational uses its perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia, thus the fair-use rationales on all of the images being used on Wikipedia, including the Arms and its derivitives on the Arms of Canada page. However, the Arms or any derivitives or likenesses are still protected under copyright and trademark restrictions and cannot be placed under a free licence in accordance with Wikimedia Commons' own policy. In any event, I'm glad the original, longstanding svg was undeleted and restored to the articles, and I thank you for that. Trackratte (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- If it is also protected by the by the copyright law why that isn't written in the wp? And also that web page which reported about that CoA stuff wrote just about trademark incidents.--Sanandros (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Fry. I never said it 'breaks the law'. Under educational uses its perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia, thus the fair-use rationales on all of the images being used on Wikipedia, including the Arms and its derivitives on the Arms of Canada page. However, the Arms or any derivitives or likenesses are still protected under copyright and trademark restrictions and cannot be placed under a free licence in accordance with Wikimedia Commons' own policy. In any event, I'm glad the original, longstanding svg was undeleted and restored to the articles, and I thank you for that. Trackratte (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but several people here seem to not properly understand copyright. A government can not claim copyright to every single rendition of their symbol out there. Coat of arms are textually described as a "blazon". It says what the coat of arms is made of using specific terms, such as "torse" and "Argent". If I understand those words and draw my own version based on them, I own the copyright to what I've drawn and the respective government can do nothing about it. I suggest you all take a look at many of the coats of arms listed at National insignia. While many of them are explicitly exempt from copyright in various licenses, there are also many which are still technically under national copyright. They are accepted here because they are completely original self-made renditions by various users who have released their rights to their image. That applies to this one as well, it is an independent rendition and the Canadian Government can not claim rights to it. For that reason, this image is free and has every right to be on Commons. If it was simple a matter of copyright, this would be a Keep
- I'm sorry, but several people here seem to not properly understand copyright. A government can not claim copyright to every single rendition of their symbol out there. Coat of arms are textually described as a "blazon". It says what the coat of arms is made of using specific terms, such as "torse" and "Argent". If I understand those words and draw my own version based on them, I own the copyright to what I've drawn and the respective government can do nothing about it. I suggest you all take a look at many of the coats of arms listed at National insignia. While many of them are explicitly exempt from copyright in various licenses, there are also many which are still technically under national copyright. They are accepted here because they are completely original self-made renditions by various users who have released their rights to their image. That applies to this one as well, it is an independent rendition and the Canadian Government can not claim rights to it. For that reason, this image is free and has every right to be on Commons. If it was simple a matter of copyright, this would be a
- HOWEVER, I object to it's being here because it does not look like the real thing. It has the basic shield, the lion and unicorn, the crown and all that, but it's missing major details. It has no compartment, it uses ermine fur for the mantling instead of maple leaves. The helm is green and gold with a maple leaf, this image does not have that. It's not an accurate rendition. For that reason, this is a Delete. Fry1989 eh? 02:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- HOWEVER, I object to it's being here because it does not look like the real thing. It has the basic shield, the lion and unicorn, the crown and all that, but it's missing major details. It has no compartment, it uses ermine fur for the mantling instead of maple leaves. The helm is green and gold with a maple leaf, this image does not have that. It's not an accurate rendition. For that reason, this is a
- For my own knowledge, do you have a reference explicitly stating that the Government of Canada (Crown) cannot claim copyright to its Arms, including any derivative or likeness that is "so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for" the Arms? Because that is exactly what they have done through the Copyright Act, the Trademarks Act, and the FIP. People have been charged for using their own or modified versions of the Arms, whether they had "changed the image significantly" or not. WP on coats of arms is meaningless to governmental policy, Crown prerogative, and statutory law. Unless you have some sort of international legal reference stating that they explicitly cannot do this, then as far as I can see, the Berne Convention still applies. Trackratte (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Where these people charged cause of copyright issues or trademark issues?--Sanandros (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, the news article did not say. It just described how someone was charged for using a modified version of the Arms that they had created, which seems pretty non-free use to me. The official references state that the Arms fall under Crown control subject to the Copyright Act, and as per the Trade-marks Act. Trackratte (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Where these people charged cause of copyright issues or trademark issues?--Sanandros (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- For my own knowledge, do you have a reference explicitly stating that the Government of Canada (Crown) cannot claim copyright to its Arms, including any derivative or likeness that is "so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for" the Arms? Because that is exactly what they have done through the Copyright Act, the Trademarks Act, and the FIP. People have been charged for using their own or modified versions of the Arms, whether they had "changed the image significantly" or not. WP on coats of arms is meaningless to governmental policy, Crown prerogative, and statutory law. Unless you have some sort of international legal reference stating that they explicitly cannot do this, then as far as I can see, the Berne Convention still applies. Trackratte (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a copy and past from DrKiernan's talk page, minus our back and forth commentary, so you'll have all of the references that I've been going by to hopefully get this all sorted out. Please feel free to add complimentary or contradictory sources.
- From the Canadian Trade-marks act:
- "9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for...... e) the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada in respect of which the Registrar has at the request of the Government of Canada or of the province or municipal corporation concerne", and "Requests for permission to use the Arms of Canada should be forwarded to: Federal Identity Program, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R5". As per international convention, Canadian Crown copyright protected by statutory law is respected within the U.S. and thus within Wikipedia.
- From the Copyright Act:
- "12. Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. [S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 60(1)]" The Arms are not created by the government or by Parliamentary action, but as the Queen of Canada's personal Arms, are under the personal prerogative of the Crown, and beyond legislative restrictions.
- From the Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21):
- "17. No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty’s rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment." In the case above, the Copyright Act does the opposite by stating that it specifically does not impinge on the soveriegn's "rights or privileges".
- "The official symbols of the Government of Canada are protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization.". The official symbols being, "Official government symbols: Arms of Canada as revised in 1994, Government of Canada signature, Canada Wordmark, Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957, flag symbol, and federal emblem used from 1974 to 1987." The TB Secretariat is the agency that administers and protects the use of these symbols, and it clearly states that these symbols are 'protected under the Copyright Act'.
- From the Crown Copyright and Licensing FAQ:
- "Is permission needed to reproduce Government of Canada symbols such as corporate signatures, the Canada wordmark, the Arms of Canada, and the Canadian flag?" "The Arms of Canada, the Government of Canada signature, and the Canada wordmark are exclusive trademarks of the Government of Canada. Individuals or institutions external to the Government of Canada cannot use these marks without prior authorization."
- (WP) "Trademarks,...are often created and used in an industrial or commercial context", and "a trademark must be used to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its registration can be cancelled or revoked if the mark is not continuously used", whereas, "copyrights cannot be 'abandoned'". Not all of the normal rules governing trademarks apply in this case, whereas some of those from copyright do, since the Arms do not operate according to a trademark licence, but to statutory law and personal Crown prerogative.
- The Government of Canada has pressed charges for companies using 'likenesses' of the Arms for commercial use without permission, as can be seen here, "He tried to argue that he had changed the image significantly, and should be allowed to use it. No way, the federal lawyers said. 'They waited a few months, contacted me again, and said that they'd be pressing charges.'".
- From WP:NFC : "free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. Any content not satisfying these criteria is said to be non-free. This includes all content (including images) that is fully copyrighted, or which is made available subject to restrictions such as "non-commercial use only" or "for use on Wikipedia only". (Many images that are generally available free of charge may thus still be "non-free" for Wikipedia's purposes.)" trackratte (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems clear to me, but like I said, I'm no expert. Trackratte (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- So first of all the Trademark Law says it's not allowed to adopt the CoA, that is not the same as using it commercially. Cause adopting means that you appear as the government or you have any other governmental relations. Commercially use means that you are allowed to sell for example books with the CoA in it (like to describe the CoA or describe Canada). So with that we just have the copyright which can restrict us. The question is if the CoA on Commons is an own work of the author or if it is a derivate of the normal CoA. You also have to ask your self when the Canadian Government changes anything in its CoAs if it is then also a derivate or a new work. Would be interesting how that is dealt in Canada.--Sanandros (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Trackratte, that's right you aren't an expert. I've spent 3 years here understanding copyright. Please read Commons:Coats of arms. Textual blazons are almost always public domain. If a user creates their own design based on that, they own it not the respective government. This is a long-standing Commons policy and a very well-understood rule regarding heraldry. It applies to Canada's coat of arms as well. I've made it clear I want this file to go, but you have to understand the proper reason for it to go. If a user such as Sodacan created a good proper rendition of it by themselves, they would own it. This is not a copyright violation in any way, the only issue which you are quoting is trademarks, which is not incompatible with Commons. Fry1989 eh? 16:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, being a copyright lawyer would make one an expert, spending three years on Wikipedia and working with its policies does not. In the same way that my 10 years as an editor on the En Wiki does not make me an expert on any of the subjects that I have covered.
- Thankyou with providing the link to the relevant policy, which I have read. And you yourself just stated that "textual blazons are almost always public domain", where COM:COA states that "Coat of Arms definitions are public domains in almost all cases", seeming to me that WC policy recognises that there are exceptions to this "long-standing tradition". Please do not get me wrong, my intent here is not to change policy or wiki tradition. My intent here is to uncover the 'truth' so that any errors which may or may not have been made up to now, specifically and only related to the Canadian CoA on the Commons, are no longer repeated in the future.
- Furthermore, COM:COA outlines two restriction which do not affect the Commons licencing terms which are:
- It cannot be appropriated by someone else.
- Its use in a defamative context may cause a prejudice to its owner, who can ask for reparation.
- However, these are not the restrictions which are in place for the Canadian Arms. The restrictions in place for these specific Arms are that "heraldic emblems found in the Register may not be reproduced in any form or in any media without written consent", and that the Arms are protected under "the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization", and these include all uses of the Arms, past and present. These restrictions go far above and beyond the two restrictions which are 'waivable' according to Commons policy.
- From the Copyright Act, section 29.21 - Non-commercial user-generated content:
- "(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one, which has been published or otherwise made available to the public, in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists...if"
- "...the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one."
- If the copy is so poor a depiction as it could not be construed as a satisfactory replacement image for any of the Arms used by Canada, then what's the point in having it at all (like the present image in question)? In addition, even with regards to the image in question, it would certainly be a grey area as what, exactly, is the threshold test used by the Crown to determine at what point an image of the Arms would be considered as a potential substitute, and what constitutes "new work". I imagine adopting stylised elements of the Arms in the creation of a larger painting, for example, would be a new work, but a direct painting or digitial svg of the image would not be a "new work". In any event, such interpretation is conjecture and unfit for an encyclopedia, and we must stick with only what the secondary and primary sources clearly state, in accordance with WP.
- Second, official secondary and primary sources state that 1) the Arms are fully protected by the Copyright Act, and 2) the use of images or derivative images in the likeness of the Arms, or so closely resembling as could be construed as a substitute for the Arms, regardless of generator, cannot be 'freely' used without authorisation as they continue to be fully copyrighted.
- Third, Wikipedia cannot guarantee that images released under a free-use licence will not be 'used as a substitute' nor that it could be 'potentially exploited', which is the very reason why the Commons does not allow fair-use.
- Fourth, as specifically stated in the Copyright Act, as well as in the Interpretations Act, nothing can remove the prerogative of the Crown to enforce whatever standards it sees fit in the protection of its personal property under the Copyright Act.
- And finally, even if all of these secondary and primary sources were not clear, which I think they are in the absence of any official contradictory sources (Wikipedia policy is not a source), it would be best to err on the side of caution regardless, especially as the removal of Copyright protected images from the Commons does not remove them from their respective Wikis. There is nothing stopping their transfer to the Wikis which desire to use them under the proper fair-use licences and under the proper justification. Trackratte (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
More sources:
- From Government of Canada Publications - About Crown Copyright
- "When permission is required: Permission is always required when the work is being revised, adapted, or translated regardless if the purpose of the reproduction is for personal or public non-commercial distribution, or for cost-recovery purposes."
- Ryerson University Library General Questions
- "If you wish to adapt, translate, or revise Crown material you must obtain copyright clearance."
- "Although the Crown prerogative copyright has been cited in many judicial opinions, it has not been judicially tested, so its nature and extent are not certain. It is known, however, that this exclusive right to certain works by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection."
- From an essay by David Vaver, who is a copyright lawyer with Oxford University and Osgoode Hall Law School (and also against Crown Copyright):
- "The right (Crown prerogative copyright) is conveniently said to be perpetual (so it would cover statutes long ago repealed) and not to lapse through non-use or non-assertion"
- "The government should no longer assert, through the royal prerogative, perpetual copyright..."
- Irrevocable licences of copyright exist in Canada under Crown prerogative as you can see here in this contract, although very rarely used. Trackratte (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Trackratte, again please read Commons:Coats of arms. If you can't understand it, there's nothing I can do for you, but your understanding of copyright is flawed. Copyright for coats of arms is never absolute, free renditions do exist and it is an accepted policy. Fry1989 eh? 02:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please state your sources, and not just your own opinions and conjectures. A variety of official secondary and primary sources, as shown here, clearly state that these images are subject to full copyright protection and any use must be authorised.
- COM:COA does not say that COA are free-use in all cases, nor does it state that "Copyright for coats of arms is never absolute". What COM:COA does state though, is that "definitions are public domains in almost all cases", and that "CoA definitions indeed claim copyright, but this is very rare"). Further, in accordance with Wiki policy, from COM:CB: "You should assume that a coat of arms drawn by someone else is copyright-protected unless you can demonstrate to the contrary. Even if the elements making up the arms have been used for hundreds of years, each specific realization may have sufficient originality to attract copyright protection. Direct copies of such specific realizations cannot therefore be uploaded even if you have taken the trouble to trace or even re-draw the design yourself." So, according to Commons policy on coats of arms, copyright should be assumed, images created or drawn by a user themselves are still subject to copyright, and the burden of proof is on the person stating that there is no copyright, not the other way around. Thus, if we're going to follow the accepted practice here with regards to COA, you must conclusively show through proper and official sources that there is no copyright.
- Second, this argument is not even about the definition. The wiki policy quoted above is clear. And the sources do not explicitly state that the definition is copyrighted, but that the '1921 design is copyrighted along with all revisions', and that "If you wish to adapt, translate, or revise Crown material you must obtain copyright clearance". WP states that copyrighted material cannot be used under a free-use licence. In any event, even if WP did allow for the use of these copyrighted COA, which it does not, unofficial wikipedia policy does not trump national and international copyright law.
- Finally, in accordance with COM:DR, "If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle", and "Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept". From the overwhelming amount of sourced evidence presented here, as well as the very clear Commons policy, I continue to fail to see how this deletion could not be subject to speedy deletion.
- Trackratte (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- COM:COA IS A SOURCE, it's an official Commons policy not just my opinion. You don't understand copyright at all here and until you do you should certainly never conduct a DR again. With your understanding of copyright law, we'd have to delete almost every coat of arms we have on Commons. You have no proof that the blazon of the Canadian coat of arms is copyrighted text, and therefore COM:COA applies. You also don't understand the expiration of copyright under Canadian law. Fry1989 eh? 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well then I'm glad that you understand Canadian copyright better than the Government of Canada, as they clearly state that the '1921 design, the 1952 revision, and the 1994 revision are still today protected under copyright'. I'm also glad that you understand the concept of perpetual crown copyright better than a copyright expert, law professor, and lawyer, which he states exists (and argues that it shouldn't), where you state that there is no such thing. Also, according to COM:DR, it is you that have to prove that there is no copyright, according to Commons policy, I do not have to prove anything, although I have anyways. And no, we would not have to delete "almost every coat of arms we have on Commons", only the ones depicting the Arms of Canada, as I understand that nearly every other country does not perpetually copyright their arms like Canada has, and thus the confusion. And lastly, I never professed to be a professional copyright lawyer, I have only directly quoted one, along with the offical stance of the Government of Canada, Canadian copyright law, and Wikipedia policy (even COM:COA). You, conversly, have quoted and offered nothing except your own opinion. And no, WP is not a source, it's policy, and Wikipedia is not in a position to offer legal advice nor speak on behalf of the Government of Canada.
- If the fact that Canadian Crown copyright on the Arms of Canada is so self-evident, prove it. I have shown you an official source which explicitly states that the Arms are presently under copyright, even though the burden of proof is not even on me, it's on you. Show me an official secondary source that states 'the copyright on the Arms of Canada has expired and is now in the public domain'. Trackratte (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Government of Canada didn't say that anywhere, you're just making up your own interpretations of the law to get what you want. Absolutely nowhere has the Government of Canada said "btw, our two older coats of arms are also copyrighted in perpetuity even though they're out of use and out of age. PD-Canada and the supporting documents used by our copyright experts to form the license is clear, Crown copyright is not perpetual, it expires after 50 years. That is the law of the land in Canada, and the two historical versions are out of copyright under federal copyright law. Stop wasting your time on a moot point because the more you do, the more stupid you will make yourself look. I'm changing my vote to a Keep, this file has every right to be here according to the law, even as much as I hate it for it's inaccuracies. You need to learn copyright,. instead of bellowing out quotes that you do not understand. Fry1989 eh? 16:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- So when the Government of Canada outlines "Official government symbols: Arms of Canada as revised in 1994,...Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957" where "The official symbols of the Government of Canada are protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization", and "The Government of Canada does not permit commercial use or reproduction of the official symbols...Marks and designs similar to the official symbols are pursued as a copyright or trade-mark infringement" (source here) So, what they are really saying is that the Arms in no way, shape, or form are copyrighted, and that they are most certainly in the public domain?
- I've already outlined three sources which state that Crown perpetual copyright exists in Canada, and you have offered zero to refute it. Although I can see that I'm upsetting you, which I certainly apologise for. I did not realise that the concept of perpetual Crown copyright was not wider known on the Commons. It certainly is rare, where only a handful of works are covered under Crown prerogative, millions of works (and thousands more each day) are created and covered under standard Crown copyright which expires 50 years after creation.
- Thank you for your concern with regards to your comment that "the more you do, the more stupid you will make yourself look". Although I do not participate here to look intelligent, but to help out the best I'm able and to learn (it would be most helpful, learning wise, if you'd provide sources). And to be perfectly fair, I'm not "bellowing out quotes", more softly copy and pasting I'd think. Thanks for all your time and effort in this matter. Trackratte (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's not what I said at all! I said that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. Both historical versions of the Canadian coat of arms are well past that age. The only version the Government holds copyright over is the current version, and this file looks nothing like it! Perpetual copyright DOES NOT exist in Canada, Canadian law on copyright is clear, it does expire after a set age. The source you give states "copyrights and trademarks", but it doesn't say that both apply to all historical coats of arms in perpetuity anywhere on that page. The historical coats of arms can still be trademarked (which is not incompatible with Commons licensing), but as far as the LAW is concer.ed, their copyright has expired. In fact, copyright applies to only one image in your source, the current coat of arms. The old one has expired, and the wordmarks are only trademarked, you can not copyright the Canadian flag. Fry1989 eh? 17:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. Once again, don't mean to upset. I've sent an email to Publications seeking clarification which can then be posted so the issue won't ever come up again. Win-win either way. Although, I would appreciate it immensely if you'd refrain from name calling and swearing. Secondly, on what grounds do you say that 'perpetual copyright does not exist"? I'm not insulting you, I'm saying that I've seen and posted three sources which say it does. It may sound odd to you, but your stating over and over that it doesn't exist, when I see expert sources published that say it does, does not lead me to believe you. And when you are questioned to explain your reasoning you respond with vitriol, which further tempts me to ignore you all the more. I would greatly appreciate it if you could show me the sources on which you are basing your opinion, so that I may then attempt to see things your way. I am in no way hesitant to admit the fact that I am wrong, when I am, although I generally tend to rely on what official sources tell me, and not anonomous editors. Further, I do not mean to state that WP is wrong, but that WP is not representative of official sources, as it's completely made by people like you and I who could be anyone, and this is especially true when such policy does not provide any references to appropriate sources, and Wikipedia is not a valid source for academic reference. So when I am saying that WP does not say whether or not the Arms of Canada are copyrighted or not, that is all I mean, there is only one source which can definitively make that statement and Wikipedia is not one of them. Cheers. Trackratte (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The w:Berne Convention doesn't allow perpetual copyright. I think because of w:Rule of the shorter term. Since this svg probably wasn't was created in Canada then I doubt any local 'perpetual' law would apply in the USA where it is hosted. Re-use in Canada may be a problem but a trademark template should cover that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, as "works from a country that goes beyond the minimum requirements of a treaty may already have entered the public domain in foreign countries with shorter copyright term while still being copyrighted at home", although still ambiguous if this is the case or not in the US vis a vis Canadian copyright beyond 50 years. Worst case, it would be copyrighted in Canada only I suppose. Trackratte (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it was created in a country where the elements are public domain and hosted in a country where the elements are public domain then the only 'copyight' is on the creation of this svg. Canada may protect it there on 'trademark' or the similar insignia one but they can't hold copyright on a new work that they didn't create from public domain elements. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, as "works from a country that goes beyond the minimum requirements of a treaty may already have entered the public domain in foreign countries with shorter copyright term while still being copyrighted at home", although still ambiguous if this is the case or not in the US vis a vis Canadian copyright beyond 50 years. Worst case, it would be copyrighted in Canada only I suppose. Trackratte (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment Email response from Copyright@PWGSC.GC.CA (Government of Canada Crown Copyright and Licencing Office)
- "from: Droitdauteur - Copyright <droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca>
- date: 4 July 2013 17:37
- subject: RE: 201307020820: Comments to Crown Copyright and Licensing
- Good morning,
- The Library and Archives Canada link you have provided states that copyright for a watercolour 1921 work of art depicting the Arms has expired.
- The Arms of Canada is protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization. Please see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/T105-eng.asp . The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Please see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/T110-eng.asp.
- Legal protection for the Arms of Canada has not expired and no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain.
- We realize that unauthorized use occurs, especially on the Web, and Wikipedia entries are not always accurate. Government departments address unauthorized use when issues are brought to their attention, but the best defenders of the official symbols of the Government of Canada are often members of the public who react to unauthorized use and request that entities remove them from their sites.
- We hope this information is helpful.
- Droit d'auteur de la Couronne et octroi de licences | Crown Copyright and Licensing
- Direction générale des services intégrés (DGSI) / Integrated Services Branch (ISB)
- Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada / Public Works and Government Services Canada
- Ottawa, Ontario
- K1A 0S5
- droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
- Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-6886
- Télécopieur | Facsimile 613-998-1450
- Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada"
- It's not clear at all, it's a complete misunderstanding of the law. Canadian copyright is explicitly clear that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. This version of the Canadian coat of arms is 56 years old. All the rules and policies are in favour of this image staying on Commons, and stay it will. The historical renditions of the Canadian coat of arms are out of copyright according to the law, it doesn't matter what some idiot in the Public Works department thinks. They have no proof contrary to the law of the land.
- 12. Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. [S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 60(1)]
- That is the law, nobody can contradict it without proof that dispensation from the law has been invoked. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the copyright law to which you refer states that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years only "Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown". The law has no effect and cannot legislate against the 'rights and privileges of the Crown', and as the Arms are the personal Arms of the Canadian Sovereign, they fall under right and privilege. The official sources, including an email response from the Crown Copyright office, addressed specifically to this situation on Wikipedia, explicitly states that all depictions of the Arms are currently under Copyright protection. Wikipedia policy states that if there is any doubt, administrators should err on the side of caution and remove the files in question. I don't see any doubt here. Although, as I said at the outset, I would like to see the Arms stay as that was my goal in the beginning. It was only through the overwhelming weight of evidence that I had no choice but to conclude that 'all depictions of the Arms' are under Crown Copyright, and according to Commons policy the Arms cannot remain on the Commons, but only on Wikis under fair-use. I would seriously welcome contrary evidence, but to date all that we have against all of these official and expert sources is your opinion and synthesis based from your interpretation of a primary source. Trackratte (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly what it says which is why I quoted the entire thing, I'm not blind. The problem is you have no proof that that the Crown has exercised any privilege to permanently control all and any renditions of the Canadian coat of arms. Having privileges and exercising them are two different things and if this image is going to be deleted you need solid proof that it has been done, not the claim of someone that isn't backed up by fact. Commons policy states this image is PD. Canadian copyright law states this image is PD. The Boerne Convention states this image is PD. Everything says this is PD except you and some idiot in the Public Works department who provided no proof of their claims. You don't want this image to be here, because you're trying to hunt down every little detail and reasoning you can find to make it go, but the law and Commons policy is clear. Fry1989 eh? 19:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the copyright law to which you refer states that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years only "Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown". The law has no effect and cannot legislate against the 'rights and privileges of the Crown', and as the Arms are the personal Arms of the Canadian Sovereign, they fall under right and privilege. The official sources, including an email response from the Crown Copyright office, addressed specifically to this situation on Wikipedia, explicitly states that all depictions of the Arms are currently under Copyright protection. Wikipedia policy states that if there is any doubt, administrators should err on the side of caution and remove the files in question. I don't see any doubt here. Although, as I said at the outset, I would like to see the Arms stay as that was my goal in the beginning. It was only through the overwhelming weight of evidence that I had no choice but to conclude that 'all depictions of the Arms' are under Crown Copyright, and according to Commons policy the Arms cannot remain on the Commons, but only on Wikis under fair-use. I would seriously welcome contrary evidence, but to date all that we have against all of these official and expert sources is your opinion and synthesis based from your interpretation of a primary source. Trackratte (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that two sources from the Treasury Board Secretariat (official secondary sources), the Canadian Crown Copyright Office (official secondary source), Professor Vaver, copyright lawyer and professor at Oxford (expert academic secondary source), Publications Canada (official secondary source), the Copyright Act (legal primary source), the Interpretations Act (legal primary source), and other supporting sources, do not override your interpretations of a single primary source? So when the Crown Copyright Office issues the statement that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain", in specific regards to the question of the Arms on Wikipedia, you conclude that this means that the Canadian Arms are in the public domain? I've tried to understand your rationale, I really have, but I can't, terribly sorry. I've looked for reliable expert and official sources supporting your opinion, but I haven't been able to find any. After politely asking you over and over to help me with this by providing the sources supporting your opinion, you have steadfastly refused, and have instead resorted to swearing and name calling. I don't see the issue here. The sources state that this material is under copyright, copyrighted material isn't allowed on Commons, it seems simple enough to me. Wikipedia will not lose content, and the material won't be lost but simply transferred under proper fair-use to the Wikis that want to use them, and the user will have the proper information for licencing. Win-win. Trackratte (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm saying that Canadian copyright law says this is PD. The Boerne Convention says this is PD. Commons policy says this is PD. The Canadian Government itself says this is PD on their national archives website. Until you give proof that the Crown has exercised a privilege (not just that is possesses such privilege) of extremely restrictive and extensive copyright in contradiction of multiple laws and it's own public statements, this image is to be assumed PD by the Commons Community. As for my language, I'll speak how I wish so get over it. And I don't recall calling anyone names, yet. I sure am thinking them though at this point having to deal with someone so intent on ignoring the laws we know in favour of hunting down everything he can to get this deleted.
- The simple fact is that possessing a privilege and exercising one are two different things. With the lack of any proof that such privilege has been exercised, Canadian Copyright Law and the Boerne Convention on Copyright reign supreme, and we must assume this as Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 20:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything you just stated is your own interpretation and original research. The Canadian copyright law does not say that the Arms are in the public domain, it doesn't make any mention of the Arms at all. The Berne convention does not "say this is PD", but actually doesn't mention the Arms at all either (in fact the Crown Copyright Office specifically states that the copyright of the Arms is protected by the Berne and Paris Conventions). The "Canadian Government itself says" that the Arms are under copyright (see above sources). The email response says that the copyright on the 1921 watercolour has expired, not on the Arms themselves.
- You say that I've looked for sources as if it's a bad thing. Researching both sides of an issue (through a simple Google search), then asking the relevant official authorities for explicit clarification (which they gave), and then sharing everything so that people can form their conclusions based on the widest array of official and expert sources sounds like basic due diligence to me. Yet you disparage it. It seems that you would much rather no sources be presented since your opinion is the only thing that matters to you here. I started this by stumbling on something that said the Arms were copyrighted while looking for something else on the web. I then looked for a reliable source that stated that the Arms are public domain so I could back up the PD licence. Finding all reliable secondary sources to say the contrary, I transferred the images to the English Wikipedia and put these up for deletion subject to their violating copyright, based on official and expert secondary sources (I'd be perfectly happy if reliable secondary sources said that the Arms are PD). But, according to WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources", and not on editor's interpretations of primary sources. Furthermore, your personal interpretation of the Copyright Act and the Berne Convention are not "directly and explicitly supported by the source" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) as they makes no mention of the Arms and whether or not they are in the public domain. However, what we do have are official secondary sources which counter your unsourced opinion. One of which states that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain". We can ignore the primary source justification of prerogative copyright, the secondary sources are explicit in that the Arms are currently under copyright, and there are no reliable secondary sources to the contrary. Trackratte (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly are looking at this from a Wikipedia mentality. Commons has no concept of "original research", nor do we require secondary sources. In fact, our licenses are the very basis of the opposite; we seek the law, interpret it and use it for our files. Don't waste anybody's time here with claims of OR or the need of secondary sources because that language means nothing here.
- More important, you're now trying to trick us with words, saying "it doesn't mention the coat of arms, so it doesn't apply". The Berne Convention and Canadian copyright law do not need to explicitly mention the coat of arms at all. The Berne Convention forbids perpetual copyright, that would apply to all copyrights held by the Canadian Government as it makes no exception by name for certain works. As the Convention is an international treaty ratified by the Canadian Government, it has become part of Canadian federal law. Canada's own copyright law also states that all held Crown Copyrights expire after 50 without exception by specific name for certain works, which means it automatically includes the coat of arms which are an act of Crown Copyright. Unless the Crown has taken explicit action to extend the copyright on the Arms (in violation of the Berne Convention and currently an unsourced assumption on your part), it has fallen out of copyright.
- The facts are clear:
- The Boerne Convention states this image is Public Domain
- The Canadian Government states this image is Public Domain in the national archives (in direct conflict with your email)
- Canadian Copyright Law states this image is in the Public Domain (unless there is absolute proof that the Crown has exercised license to extend copyright beyond it's normal age limitation, having a right and using it are two different things)
- Those are the relevant laws and facts we have and until you have solid proof otherwise, this image is to be assumed Public Domain by the Commons Community. And as for your mention on what your email says, your email is completely unreliable for various reasons. First is it's in contradiction with the laws and facts relating to the matter. Second is you claim the email says that the watercolour is no longer copyrighted. Well that is a "depiction" of the coat of arms, is it not? You're claiming the Canadian Government has copyrighted all and every rendition or depiction of the coat of arms, but your email contradicts that claim. If you want to use Wikipedia standards for sources, your email would be rendered completely unreliable. There is no actual source to the contrary of any of the facts or laws regarding this issue. The current Canadian coat of arms of 1994 is clearly copyrighted, but the historical versions of 1923 and 1957, as well as any derivatives of such are not copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming anything, just quoting the relevant reliable and qualified sources and not simply making interpretations on things I'm not qualified to handle. Are you claiming to be a lawyer specialising in Canadian Crown Copyright? Even if you were, reliable secondary sources on an issue is appropriate proof, self-stated claims are not. And your 'clear facts' are once again your interpretations of how they should apply to this case, for of course those primary sources themselves make no mention of it. Trackratte (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- But you are making claims and you are making interpretations. You're claiming there is such a thing as perpetual copyright (there isn't) and that the Arms are excluded because they fall within "the rights and privileges of the Crown" (no evidence for that claim). In England and Wales, for example, coats of arms are protected by law such that only the grantee of the arms and their heirs can use them, but that does not mean that every artistic rendition of them is copyrighted. I don't believe the law is any different in Canada. You are confusing copyright with the legal protection that is applied to coats of arms, in their individual jurisdictions. Further, I don't believe the protection extends beyond the jurisdiction of the individual heraldic authority. So, in the United States any private citizen can use any coat of arms because there is no heraldic authority, however they can not infringe on the protection afforded to official insignia, such as the Seal of the President because such insignia are reserved for official use despite not being copyrighted. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Trackratte, if you don't think that Canadian copyright law, in it's full text regarding Crown copyrights, is an explicitly clear source on what the law is and that I'm just "interpreting it" my way for my own benefit, I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. This DR should be closed immediately. You're not willing to understand the law, you're not willing to accept well-understood practices regarding copyrights, and you are manipulating words, omissions and inclusions to suggest something which the facts simply do not support. Canadian copyright law states the coat of arms is PD inasmuch that it makes to explicit exceptions in the text for any certain works. It doesn't have to mention the coat of arms by name, the fact it makes no exception means it automatically includes the coat of arms. You have zero proof that the Crown has violated both Canadian copyright law and the Berne Convention to hold a perpetual copyright on all historical renditions of the coat of arms, it is purely your assumption but it's not backed by the facts. Fry1989 eh? 16:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- But you are making claims and you are making interpretations. You're claiming there is such a thing as perpetual copyright (there isn't) and that the Arms are excluded because they fall within "the rights and privileges of the Crown" (no evidence for that claim). In England and Wales, for example, coats of arms are protected by law such that only the grantee of the arms and their heirs can use them, but that does not mean that every artistic rendition of them is copyrighted. I don't believe the law is any different in Canada. You are confusing copyright with the legal protection that is applied to coats of arms, in their individual jurisdictions. Further, I don't believe the protection extends beyond the jurisdiction of the individual heraldic authority. So, in the United States any private citizen can use any coat of arms because there is no heraldic authority, however they can not infringe on the protection afforded to official insignia, such as the Seal of the President because such insignia are reserved for official use despite not being copyrighted. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming anything, just quoting the relevant reliable and qualified sources and not simply making interpretations on things I'm not qualified to handle. Are you claiming to be a lawyer specialising in Canadian Crown Copyright? Even if you were, reliable secondary sources on an issue is appropriate proof, self-stated claims are not. And your 'clear facts' are once again your interpretations of how they should apply to this case, for of course those primary sources themselves make no mention of it. Trackratte (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop attacking a straw man.
No, your interpretation of statutory copyright law is not an explicitly clear source, it's not a source at all. Canadian court rulings and interpretations are. The relevant authorities' official statements are. Academic essays by expert Canadian copyright lawyers are. (And in that order). From the Canadian Crown Copyright Office: The Arms are protected under the "Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization...The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works...Legal protection for the Arms of Canada has not expired and no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain." The Canadian Crown Copyright Office is the determinative source for Canadian Crown Copyright.
So:
- "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain" --> Arms are not PD
- "The Arms of Canada is protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization." --> Use protected under Copyright Act
- "The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention" --> Use protected according to Berne and Paris Conventions
- COM:L: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." "Republication and distribution must be allowed. Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Commercial use of the work must be allowed."
- COM:DW "Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other copyrighted works onto Commons, or they will be deleted."
- Com:DR "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept", "If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted".
- You've already expressed your opinions, and I have passed on the relevant sources, and the official response from the Crown Copyright Office with specific regards to this matter here on Wikipedia. As Canoe stated, I think all there is left is to wait for a closing admin / WMF copyright lawyers. Cheers. Trackratte (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I've expressed facts, you have expressed opinions. Images under copyright don't get "released", once they have passed the legal age by law they automatically fall out of copyright, the copyright expires. The Government has already said that the watercolour is PD, which is in direct conflict with the claim "no renditions of the arms have been released". The watercolour IS a rendition of the coat of arms, so your email contradicts itself, let alone the law. COM:DW means nothing, a derivative work of something that is not in copyright is free by it's own nature. COM:L, that's right we need licenses which state something is PD, AND WE HAVE IT. Canadian copyright law says that Crown Copyrights expire after 50 years and it makes no exceptions. The Berne Convention is a part of Canadian law as well since it as ratified by the Canadian Government, and it forbids perpetual copyright. Everything says this is PD, the only thing you have to the contrary is the assumption that the Crown has exercised a right in contradiction of the Berne Convention, and a self-contradictory email that has no sources for it's claims either. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- For the closing admin, here are the facts we actually know.
- Canadian copyright law states that Crown Copyrights expire after 50 years. It makes no specific exceptions for any works by name. Without a deliberate exception for the coat of arms, it is to be assumed that they are included.
- The Berne Convention bans perpetual copyright. That convention was ratified by the Canadian Government and is therefore part of Canadian law. The convention makes no exceptions for certain works by name, which means it would apply to all Canadian copyrights. It is therefore a violation of the convention for the Canadian Government to claim a perpetual copyright on the coat of arms.
- The Canadian Government states that a watercolour painting of the coat of arms is PD. That is in direct conflict with Trackratte's email claiming "no renditions have been released".
- Trackratte's email also states that watercolour is PD, so it directly contradicts itself. The email is therefore unreliable.
- Trackratte has not provided any proof that the Canadian Government has taken reservation and extended it's copyright over all renditions of the Canadian coat of arms past and present. Without any proof that the Canadian Government has done so, it is to be assumed that Canadian copyright law reigns supreme, which means that while the current 1994 coat of arms on Wikipedia is indeed copyrighted, the 1923 and 1957 coats of arms as well as their derivatives, are PD by law.
- There has been zero proof that the historical coats of arms are copyrighted, and Canadian law states otherwise. All Trackratte has provided is assumptions, twisting of words, and an unreliable email. There is zero reasoning to delete this file for those reasons. Fry1989 eh? 19:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sry but what is exactly that watercolor which you are writing and trackette you said the Arms it self didn't expired what does that mean? The description or what?--Sanandros (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The link to the watercolour can be found here. The email from the Crown Copyright Office says that the "copyright for a watercolour 1921 work of art depicting the Arms has expired", but that protection under the Copyright Act "for the Arms of Canada has not expired and no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain". Trackratte (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does there exist also a history of the these renditions? I can only find the last one.--Sanandros (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Trackratte once again, your email completely contradicts itself. The watercolour IS a rendition of the coat of arms and as such it would have been under crown copyright. But your email says that the copyright on it has expired. That is in keeping with how copyright actually works, in that once a work has passed the respective age by the relevant laws, it's copyright expires. It doesn't have to be "released", it expires. Now tell me how a rendition of the arms can be be out of copyright and the Government claim copyrights on "all renditions" at the same time? It's absolute nonsense. The language of the entire email appears brash and scripted in an attempt to protect things that legally can no longer be protected, and I would love to see exactly what kind of language you used in writing to them to get such a response.
- Does there exist also a history of the these renditions? I can only find the last one.--Sanandros (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sanandros, I don't understand your question. Fry1989 eh? 16:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the email that I sent:
- "http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/t105-eng.asp states that the "Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957", and "revised in 1994" are protected under the Copyright Act. But the link here (http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=2906009) clearly shows that copyright has expired.
- Has Crown copyright expired on the 1921 and 1957 depictions of the Arms of Canada and been released into the public domain?
- Thank you so much for all of your time.
- Regards,"
- And the response received has already been copy and pasted into this conversation above. Feel free to get in contact with them yourself. Trackratte (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly as I suspected. Images under copyright do not get "released" (unless of course the copyright holder chooses to release it prematurely), their copyright automatically expires after the work has passed the stipulated age under the relevant laws. You might not know that without having previous experience with copyright, but whoever replied to you should know that and the fact they don't means they're unreliable. The email does in fact contradict itself and the law, and provides no sources for the claim that a perpetual copyright has been invoked on all renditions of the Canadian coat of arms, past, present, and no matter who drew it and based on what. That unheard of type of over-reaching copyright is a violation of the law, and is not backed by any true government source. Fry1989 eh? 16:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- And the response received has already been copy and pasted into this conversation above. Feel free to get in contact with them yourself. Trackratte (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Apparently this is PD. No valid reasons backed by written, textual evidence to delete this file have been provided. FASTILY 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Not even close to what the real one looks like. We should not be misrepresenting the symbols of courties Moxy (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Very widely in use, so can't be deleted on basis of "no educational value". darkweasel94 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question ... the reason for deletion is that it is widely used - thus this fake made-up - wrong version of the Canadian coat of arms is misrepresenting what the arms really looks like, all over. Its clearly a bad idea for us to have this named Coat of Arms of Canada and used all over when it is wrong and misleading. -- Moxy (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please see COM:PS and COM:NPOV. On Commons, "wrong and misleading" isn't a valid reason for deletion. The closest valid deletion reason we have is "not realistically useful for an educational purpose", but that is never the case when the image is in good faith use in the article space on a Wikimedia project other than Commons, because if somebody is actually using it for an educational purpose (e.g. a Wikipedia article), then by definition it must be useful for one. You can use {{Disputed coat of arms}} on the file description page, or you can get all local projects to remove the image from their articles, but we can't just override educational decisions that the projects we serve have made. darkweasel94 00:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- After reading all the above...I see original research or misleading wiki readers is not a concern here. Thus I am proposing that it be moved to a new name with no redirect. -- Moxy (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please see COM:PS and COM:NPOV. On Commons, "wrong and misleading" isn't a valid reason for deletion. The closest valid deletion reason we have is "not realistically useful for an educational purpose", but that is never the case when the image is in good faith use in the article space on a Wikimedia project other than Commons, because if somebody is actually using it for an educational purpose (e.g. a Wikipedia article), then by definition it must be useful for one. You can use {{Disputed coat of arms}} on the file description page, or you can get all local projects to remove the image from their articles, but we can't just override educational decisions that the projects we serve have made. darkweasel94 00:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question ... the reason for deletion is that it is widely used - thus this fake made-up - wrong version of the Canadian coat of arms is misrepresenting what the arms really looks like, all over. Its clearly a bad idea for us to have this named Coat of Arms of Canada and used all over when it is wrong and misleading. -- Moxy (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't misrepresent like this. If we can't Delete it, then it should be renamed, get all disclaimered up, and be put out of popular useage. 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is an accurate rendition of the blazon, but it is a personal individualistic rendition not the official version. I see nothing inaccurate heraldically speaking. If the comment on the file page "The circlet of the Order of Canada was added around the shield for limited use in 1987, and for general use in 1994" is correct, then this version (which is very close to Beddoe's 1957 version) may have been in limited use from 1987 until Bursey-Sabourin's 1994 version was adopted for official use. Perhaps the file could be renamed something like "File:Arms of Canada before 1994 with circlet.svg" or "File:Arms of Canada before 1994 with Order of Canada.svg" or "File:Arms of Canada before 1994 with annulus of the Order of Canada.svg", etc. DrKiernan (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Its looks like a copy of an old version that we have a copy of in fair use....Its not what the new one looks like. We should not be passing it of as the new version when its a copy of the old one.... File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).png -- Moxy (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your first comment is not clear to me. On the second comment, I don't see why you are repeating something I've already said and linking to a file I've already linked to. DrKiernan (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- This file is a copy of the old 1950s version and does not look like what the modern arms looks like. I am linking to the same file to show that it looks like the old one and does not represent the modern version. Passing off a old version as a new one is not what we do in an encyclopedia...I understand that here at commons they dont care about representing things properly....but all the other projects do. Its frustrating to say the least that commons does not care about misleading the sister projects readers...thus we are here to correct the problem on all the sister projects. We can do this by deleting the file or reaming it so its not deseving editors, thus it being used all over the place. -- Moxy (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am a content editor. You seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I presume that is because you have not understood my comments. I do not see why you are arguing points that I have not raised or questioned. Or why you appear to be telling me things that I have already shown that I know. Or why you are repeating back to me my own words, suggestions, sources and files. Or why you appear to be arguing against my suggestions for a rename while at the same time saying that the file should be renamed. Are you in fact saying that you agree with me? Because currently it looks like you are disagreeing, but that makes no sense given that you have agreed with most of what I've said.
- Although you are almost right to say "this file is a copy of the old 1950s version", to reiterate my own point, that is not fully true. As I said, "this version ... is very close to Beddoe's 1957 version)", but the old 1950s version does not have the Order of Canada motto surrounding the shield, and so it is different, perhaps too subtly for you to have noticed.
- You say that "this is not what the modern arms look like", and I said, in essential agreement, that it is not the same as Bursey-Sabourin's 1994 version. I do not understand why you are telling me something I have already largely acknowledged in my very first sentence: "it is a personal individualistic rendition not the official version".
- Heraldry is an art, and individual heralds can make artistic choices about how a coat of arms can be depicted as long as each element is true to the blazon. So even though this stamp or this civic art or this coin or this bas-relief or this watercolor or this coat of arms (all of which are "official" sources, by the way) do not look like Bursey-Sabourin's 1994 version that doesn't mean we should delete those other files. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- This file is a copy of the old 1950s version and does not look like what the modern arms looks like. I am linking to the same file to show that it looks like the old one and does not represent the modern version. Passing off a old version as a new one is not what we do in an encyclopedia...I understand that here at commons they dont care about representing things properly....but all the other projects do. Its frustrating to say the least that commons does not care about misleading the sister projects readers...thus we are here to correct the problem on all the sister projects. We can do this by deleting the file or reaming it so its not deseving editors, thus it being used all over the place. -- Moxy (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your first comment is not clear to me. On the second comment, I don't see why you are repeating something I've already said and linking to a file I've already linked to. DrKiernan (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Its looks like a copy of an old version that we have a copy of in fair use....Its not what the new one looks like. We should not be passing it of as the new version when its a copy of the old one.... File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).png -- Moxy (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Its wide use does not matter in this case not does it's supposed "accurate rendition of the blazon". The fact that it's not accurate when compared to http://www.heraldry.ca/images/canadaarms1921.jpg, which is the legal rendition with different colours etc., it should be replaced or deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The color of the maple leaves in the lower division of the field was changed in 1957. I see no other color differences. The 1921 rendition is not the only "legal rendition". This file is more akin to http://www.heraldry.ca/images/canadaarms1957.jpg (identical source to yours above) with the addition of the Order of Canada motto encircling the shield. DrKiernan (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- We are not and should not use this fake version on any Wikipedia when there is an official version to be had. What we are now asking is that we move this fake version to a new name as to not confuse our content editors, thus resulting in the wrong version being used. Please think of the parent projects and there goals - that is not to render original research. Just move the file ...very simple request-- Moxy (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- This version is not fake. It is you who are confused, it seems. Could you point out on the file talk page why you think that this version is fake? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting really frustrating .... its a copy of the 1957 version ....it is NOT WHAT THE MODERN ONE LOOKS LIKE. Please just move it - I find it odd no one here understands the problem. Its just a copy and paste of the 1957 version with a circle added to it....its not a new version...just a copy of the old one. I will take the time to replace them in all the Wikis since there no help here. Dont you guys find it odd Canadians keep complaing about it? This should be a hint its wrong -- Moxy (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- As said before, the proportions don't matter, they are simply to the artist's preference. This is the modern "version". So far, you have been unable to point to any problems. Stubbornly ignoring my repeated calls for a specification, that is the thing that's rather frustrating. Please, also do refrain from diminishing the content of articles. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problems are obvious ... I find it simply not possible people don't see the problems - at this point I think its clear people here are just messing with us. Not the right crown, or flag, the Order of Canada or the right style of animals etc... So can we get the file moved or not???????????? Why is this so hard to get done. What is the problem???? -- Moxy (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The crown was indeed in the original blazon the imperial crown, but the article clearly mentions that this is no longer the case, and the official version clearly shows this. An issue with the flag was raised on the talk page, and has since been corrected. The Order of Canada has been made broader before you posted this as well. Every rendition of the coat of arms of Canada has had a different style so far, and this issue has been repeatedly addressed before. The rename request you tried shows this misunderstanding of yours: every coat of arms of Canada is a rendition. Why have you so far ignored this every time? You accuse us of messing with you, but simply fail to respond to any argument we provide. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The file is not being moved because a move request has not been made, and there is a deletion request in progress. We are simply following the usual processes. DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually every effort made has been reverted. The warning its not official, the move request all reverted. Sure you guys are doing right by others? -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- As Adelbrecht says below, the file mover was not able to complete the move request because there is an ongoing deletion debate. Your claim below that it was "reverted by people here who believe all is ok" is not true. You have misunderstood the processes here and as a result are misrepresenting the views and actions of others. There is no grand conspiracy; indeed, there is almost no dispute since we are, in fact, all agreed it is not the current official version. Aggressive attitudes are counter-productive, misdirected and unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually every effort made has been reverted. The warning its not official, the move request all reverted. Sure you guys are doing right by others? -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- To restate and add to my previous comment. This file can't legally be identical to the rendition used officially. It should not replace the official rendition on the English Wikipedia on those pages where fair use reasonably allows this, which currently is solely the Coat of Arms of Canada article(though I think the Canada article should also be included). In other articles (e.g. templates), this can be used. Other language Wikipedia projects might have stricter policies on fair use. This file thus fills a gap. It does an adequate job of representing the blazon, though certain parts are rather crude (especially the flower compartment). We ought to work on that. DrKiernan and I have touched it up already. Errors in the depiction are no reason for deletion, as they can easily be corrected (as I stated in my vote below). It is important that these errors are addressed. That is why I keep pressing on specifics. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting really frustrating .... its a copy of the 1957 version ....it is NOT WHAT THE MODERN ONE LOOKS LIKE. Please just move it - I find it odd no one here understands the problem. Its just a copy and paste of the 1957 version with a circle added to it....its not a new version...just a copy of the old one. I will take the time to replace them in all the Wikis since there no help here. Dont you guys find it odd Canadians keep complaing about it? This should be a hint its wrong -- Moxy (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- This version is not fake. It is you who are confused, it seems. Could you point out on the file talk page why you think that this version is fake? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- We are not and should not use this fake version on any Wikipedia when there is an official version to be had. What we are now asking is that we move this fake version to a new name as to not confuse our content editors, thus resulting in the wrong version being used. Please think of the parent projects and there goals - that is not to render original research. Just move the file ...very simple request-- Moxy (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Decent rendition of the original blazon. Any errors ought to be corrected, which the vector format allows easily, rather than the file being removed entirely. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes it is just not enough for a National symbol to be 'heraldically correct' and 'according to blazon'. We need to consider the image's important as a symbol of state and representative of an entire country. I completely understand where User:Moxy is coming from, and the arguments here are moving towards a very weird stage, because you are arguing over different principles. On the one hand the Canadian Moxy wants the images remove from all the Wikipedia articles and/or to put a caveat in the image's name or page to say that it is not the official version used by the Canadian government, indeed as it is definitely not. On the other hand the rest of the Commons users are more concerned with protecting the image from deletion and using the heraldry defence on an image that is no longer any ordinary coat of arms. I am not voting because I am way to invested in this. I am frankly embarassed and ashamed of this image, I kind of want it to disappear. So ashamed of it as if it was my own. Indeed the uploader did point to me as the author of it. So by that logic I have to be involve in this somehow. This is my opinion: The image should not be deleted on the grounds that it is indeed (and curiously so), heraldically correct. It is useful in this regard because frankly there is no better and free alternative for us to use. But what we need to do (as it is our responsibility to do it), is to discourage its usage on the Wikipedia pages. And then to put an appropriately worded template to explain the issues surrounding it. There is no point saying that the other user 'knows nothing about heraldry' and then just using that as an argument against his concerns. Isn't the reason we are here for is to teach people? are we not an encyclopaedic project? Furthermore this is by no means permanent, a better version of the image will eventually come along and replace this image, I don't know how, I am not saying when. But someone will do it. If not then we can wait until 2044 when the official version comes into the public domain and someone not yet born will upload that image for us. I will be 56 then, I'll fucking do it. Please come to a sensible agreement. Sodacan (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sodacan, you say that "Sometimes it is just not enough for a National symbol to be 'heraldically correct' and 'according to blazon'." Nobody claims that this is anything but unofficial. Moxy does not want to put a notice of it being unofficial on the page, he claims that it does not follow the blazon and thus wants it deleted. He is unable to substantiate these claims, avoids and ignores discussion on this. You drew a few of the individual elements that Moxy attacks, will you thus agree that your crown is not St Edward's Crown? If so, a lot of files you have so far are in error. He mentions an issue with a flag that has been fixed for about a month now. The points you raise and attribute to Moxy are close the points I raised in my last comment (17:17, 1 September 2013), not close to any of Moxy's. Furthermore, how can someone be "taught" when he doesn't even attempt to refute our arguments. On 30 August, Dr. Kienan gave a long explanation that Moxy ignored. So far, he has also ignored my statements as well. Every time it gets spelled out for him on this page, he just starts the discussion again. This is really getting tiring. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have explained many times the problem as have others on numerous occasions and in numerous places - also just have to look at the version to see the problem(s). Repeating that it looks like the disruption does not change the fact it does not look like the real one. I understand for those that dont edit Wikipedia the fake image looks ok, but for those of us that wish not to mislead readers there is a problem and all we want to do is indicate this. I had added waring to indicate such and requested a move but these were all reverted by people here who believe all is ok despite the many that have said it is not. How many more people need to bring this up???? All really think its a good idea to mislead our readers....you need to think why you we here.... We are here to help spread factual knowledge - not make nice look alike images and pass them off as real. Please explain why this cant be moved or a tag to indicate its not official or to indicate its original research? -- Moxy (talk)
- You have not, and I have kept asking for such an explanation. This version is not fake, and you are the only one who is misleading. Nobody here has claimed that this is the official version, please cease repeating this straw man. Claiming that we do not edit Wikipedia, which would explain why the fake image looks okay to us is an extremely condescending ad hominem, especially if most of us have undeniably contributed more on the subject of heraldry than you ever have. You did not add any warning: you added a unsubstantiated disputed tag, which serves to pinpoint specific errors that ought to be corrected. That has been explained multiple times. You have yet to specify these errors, and I once again urge you to do so. This coat of arms is well documented, you should be able to exactly state the errors. You filed a rename request, which was reverted by a file mover. This file mover explained this in the edit summary: Please wait with your request while the discussion is still pending. Also keep in mind that you filed this deletion request, which I assume is the discussion referred to. So far, you have ignored to address these explanations, yet you still ask for one. I'm all for a template that clarifies that this is not the officially used rendition, but there is no such template yet. The disputed template does not serve this function, and original research is a wholly different matter (which would be for example applicable when one were to assume the external ornaments of a coat of arms, when none are provided, based on the person's rank of nobility and granted orders). Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I retract that statement: it seems we do in fact have such a template, and I will add it to the file page immediately. (Template:Coa blazon) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding the template...as for what is wrong ...as indicated before many many times its just a copy and paste of the 1957 version....not one things looks like the new version. All one has to do is look and see wrong crown, wrong leafs wrong animal style etc... People need to understand we are dealing with an official national symbols and its likeness is very very very important. Having arms that look like ones from the past is not what we should be doing. The new tag is good and will help keep the image at bay...again thank you for a solution. -- Moxy (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- The crown is the same as in the official version. (Cfr. w:Arms of Canada), the Crown of St. Edward, with the Tudor Crown having been used in older versions. With leafs I assume you mean the compartment? It is certainly rather crude, but it does show the required flowers. The styles of the animals is up to the artist, and both more abstract and more realistic depictions would still be correct. The 1957 version seems to be in the public domain, and thus is a good base to work from, if one keeps in mind that this is not the officially used design. If one looks at all the different design, it seems clear that the 1957 was a big influence on the 1994 design (look at the maple leaf on the neck of the helmet, which I intend to recreate in this file at some point). There's also a more direct recreation of the 1957 design (File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957-1994).svg), and if we can sync the changes, both files can be used to clearly illustrate what has changed since 1957 without people being confused by the many different styles. I've taken cues from the official version (though clearly distinct) when redesigning the lambrequins, and that combined with the fact that the original creator took Sodacan's elements instead of tracing the 1957 ought result in a truly autonomous depiction, one that can be used outside of the boundaries of fair use. So far, the coat of arms can only be used on the Coat of Arms of Canada article on the English Wikipedia. I have added an HTML comment there that should discourage people from removing the official version from (regrettably) the only article in which it can be placed. Adding the image to the Canada article seems wise as well, even though permission for that seems to be lacking at the moment. I think the file page of the official version clearly shows what gap this file can fill: A new, free artistic rendition of the coat of arms of Canada might suffice for some purposes, but would fail to show the comparisons of various features in the official rendition as discussed in the Arms of Canada article. Now that we have all come to an understanding, I suppose this deletion request can be closed. :-) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why do the flags have borders, it's not in the blazon? Also, I think that the mantling doesn't look like maple leaves. 117Avenue (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- The fringe doesn't really matter, just an artistic touch (cfr. 1957 version), like the maple leaf lambrequin in the current official version. And my rendition of the maple leaf lambrequin is quite subtle, yes. Look closely at each ending (or compare with the first revision uploaded). The official version does this differently, by putting maple leaf on maple leaf. But this ought to be on the talk page. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- You asked for specific problems, I gave you specific problems. 117Avenue (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- But those are just artistic touches, as I explained. The mantling doesn't have to look like maple leaves, that is just a stylization of the artist of the current official depiction, and the fringes appeared on the 1957 and the 1923 version. In that sense, it references all depictions, and is also a truly autonomous depiction. This file needn't replace the official version,
- You asked for specific problems, I gave you specific problems. 117Avenue (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The fringe doesn't really matter, just an artistic touch (cfr. 1957 version), like the maple leaf lambrequin in the current official version. And my rendition of the maple leaf lambrequin is quite subtle, yes. Look closely at each ending (or compare with the first revision uploaded). The official version does this differently, by putting maple leaf on maple leaf. But this ought to be on the talk page. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why do the flags have borders, it's not in the blazon? Also, I think that the mantling doesn't look like maple leaves. 117Avenue (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- The crown is the same as in the official version. (Cfr. w:Arms of Canada), the Crown of St. Edward, with the Tudor Crown having been used in older versions. With leafs I assume you mean the compartment? It is certainly rather crude, but it does show the required flowers. The styles of the animals is up to the artist, and both more abstract and more realistic depictions would still be correct. The 1957 version seems to be in the public domain, and thus is a good base to work from, if one keeps in mind that this is not the officially used design. If one looks at all the different design, it seems clear that the 1957 was a big influence on the 1994 design (look at the maple leaf on the neck of the helmet, which I intend to recreate in this file at some point). There's also a more direct recreation of the 1957 design (File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957-1994).svg), and if we can sync the changes, both files can be used to clearly illustrate what has changed since 1957 without people being confused by the many different styles. I've taken cues from the official version (though clearly distinct) when redesigning the lambrequins, and that combined with the fact that the original creator took Sodacan's elements instead of tracing the 1957 ought result in a truly autonomous depiction, one that can be used outside of the boundaries of fair use. So far, the coat of arms can only be used on the Coat of Arms of Canada article on the English Wikipedia. I have added an HTML comment there that should discourage people from removing the official version from (regrettably) the only article in which it can be placed. Adding the image to the Canada article seems wise as well, even though permission for that seems to be lacking at the moment. I think the file page of the official version clearly shows what gap this file can fill: A new, free artistic rendition of the coat of arms of Canada might suffice for some purposes, but would fail to show the comparisons of various features in the official rendition as discussed in the Arms of Canada article. Now that we have all come to an understanding, I suppose this deletion request can be closed. :-) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding the template...as for what is wrong ...as indicated before many many times its just a copy and paste of the 1957 version....not one things looks like the new version. All one has to do is look and see wrong crown, wrong leafs wrong animal style etc... People need to understand we are dealing with an official national symbols and its likeness is very very very important. Having arms that look like ones from the past is not what we should be doing. The new tag is good and will help keep the image at bay...again thank you for a solution. -- Moxy (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I retract that statement: it seems we do in fact have such a template, and I will add it to the file page immediately. (Template:Coa blazon) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- You have not, and I have kept asking for such an explanation. This version is not fake, and you are the only one who is misleading. Nobody here has claimed that this is the official version, please cease repeating this straw man. Claiming that we do not edit Wikipedia, which would explain why the fake image looks okay to us is an extremely condescending ad hominem, especially if most of us have undeniably contributed more on the subject of heraldry than you ever have. You did not add any warning: you added a unsubstantiated disputed tag, which serves to pinpoint specific errors that ought to be corrected. That has been explained multiple times. You have yet to specify these errors, and I once again urge you to do so. This coat of arms is well documented, you should be able to exactly state the errors. You filed a rename request, which was reverted by a file mover. This file mover explained this in the edit summary: Please wait with your request while the discussion is still pending. Also keep in mind that you filed this deletion request, which I assume is the discussion referred to. So far, you have ignored to address these explanations, yet you still ask for one. I'm all for a template that clarifies that this is not the officially used rendition, but there is no such template yet. The disputed template does not serve this function, and original research is a wholly different matter (which would be for example applicable when one were to assume the external ornaments of a coat of arms, when none are provided, based on the person's rank of nobility and granted orders). Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have explained many times the problem as have others on numerous occasions and in numerous places - also just have to look at the version to see the problem(s). Repeating that it looks like the disruption does not change the fact it does not look like the real one. I understand for those that dont edit Wikipedia the fake image looks ok, but for those of us that wish not to mislead readers there is a problem and all we want to do is indicate this. I had added waring to indicate such and requested a move but these were all reverted by people here who believe all is ok despite the many that have said it is not. How many more people need to bring this up???? All really think its a good idea to mislead our readers....you need to think why you we here.... We are here to help spread factual knowledge - not make nice look alike images and pass them off as real. Please explain why this cant be moved or a tag to indicate its not official or to indicate its original research? -- Moxy (talk)
- Sodacan, you say that "Sometimes it is just not enough for a National symbol to be 'heraldically correct' and 'according to blazon'." Nobody claims that this is anything but unofficial. Moxy does not want to put a notice of it being unofficial on the page, he claims that it does not follow the blazon and thus wants it deleted. He is unable to substantiate these claims, avoids and ignores discussion on this. You drew a few of the individual elements that Moxy attacks, will you thus agree that your crown is not St Edward's Crown? If so, a lot of files you have so far are in error. He mentions an issue with a flag that has been fixed for about a month now. The points you raise and attribute to Moxy are close the points I raised in my last comment (17:17, 1 September 2013), not close to any of Moxy's. Furthermore, how can someone be "taught" when he doesn't even attempt to refute our arguments. On 30 August, Dr. Kienan gave a long explanation that Moxy ignored. So far, he has also ignored my statements as well. Every time it gets spelled out for him on this page, he just starts the discussion again. This is really getting tiring. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This file does not aspire to replace the official version, but it can potentially fill a gap where fair use doesn't reasonably allow the official version to be used. The file page clearly notes This depiction of a coat of arms is not the same as the one used by the relevant municipality, authority or organisation and Please use the official version (Coat of arms of Canada.svg) where fair use reasonably allows it. Some Wikis, such as my home wiki (the Dutch Wikipedia) don't allow fair use at all. These issues, be they stylistic or not, can be discussed on the talk page. I'm quite certain that this deletion request can be closed, it has been 7 days now, with the warnings that the nominator requested having been added, a graphics lab to improve the compartment having been opened, and most people having voted to keep it. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep It was used everywhere, even in passports. Squidville1 (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, the official, copyrighted, version is used on passports. 117Avenue (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok this is the last try for me...
The new one has changed alot since 1957 like...- Supporters have no gold trim around flags - Helm stylized in the official version to look like maple leaves now and has much more green in it - The new Tudor crown does not have any white space in it anymore - the flags are not as tall as the top crown and should never be..noting as tall as the crown.... I can go on .......Should I? -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't go on. Firstly, this has all been addressed countless times, and I had hopes we were past this. The Order of Canada was added to the Coat of Arms of Canada in 1994, and that was all that has changed in 1994. The rest is just artistic license, and is all explained on the template that has been added, the template that you approved of. The only one who claims that this is the official version is you. And secondly, this belongs on the talk page and is no reason for deletion. But of course, by now I should expect you to just ignore this and keep repeating your strawmen. I feel like you're trolling us, and if that is true I regret wasting all this time, and this is why we can't have nice things. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Saying this is okay because it follows the blazon is like saying it's okay to build someone a tin shack for a house, because a house is technically defined as having walls, a roof, windows and a door. I concur with Sodacan - this rendering is horrendous, embarrassingly bad. It should be renamed to something else, and replaced as quickly as possible with a version that at least attempts to capture the balance and spirit of the official version. — Scott • talk 15:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, no consensus to delete, nor is there any real evidence pointing to copyvio -FASTILY 01:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong name, he change name when he is a bishop. New picture in File:Coat of arms of Ignatius Huang Shou Cheng.svg.--Iflwlou (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
We have an SVG flag map of Kenya. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It has better resolution so why delete it for a map that has less resolution, If anything the map is an update for the svg map. wth?
- It doesn't have a better resolution, this file has a set resolution. The SVG is scalable, you can make it any resolution you want big or small. Fry1989 eh? 16:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep : en:Paula Rae Gibson. Notable as a photographer: 2 book publications at a specialized publisher ([7]., [8]). --Darklingou (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Two options here: 1. That seems to be a photo of a photo printed on a paper (see also the wrinkles - is that the right word? - on her hand etc.), similar as what was published at http://jazzjife.tistory.com/3076 = http://a4.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/47/ac7561a4eacca23d0447ad40ce4a05cf/l.jpg (last modified: 2007). In other words: COM:DW and needs permission from Paula Rae Gibson. 2. On the other hand, we have Paularae59 as uploader and - with some phantasy - we could guess Paula Rae Gibson behind the curtain of this user... Nevertheless, we should obtain permission from Paula Rae Gibson..., or?. Gunnex (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 21:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely that professional photographer "Julie Harper" (here an example) released this image to PD/CC. Uploaded locally at enwiki by user Viequense (who already had some copyright issues stored at his talk page) and later transferred to Commons. Permission from "Julie Harper" needed. In Commons the uploader Viequense uploaded 1 file = File:EnzoMartinez.JPG and... again... same problem: This file is also from Julie Harper (17.02.2012). Summarizing for both:
= need permissions from "Julia Harper" (Google+ profile). Gunnex (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like Julie Harper and "Viequense" are the same person - see this Twitter account. Obviously, the connection could've been made clearer, but I don't think this is an obvious copyvio. --Ytoyoda (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thx for spotting this connection. I sent an email to Viequense to clarify this issue. Hold on... Gunnex (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission. If permission is recieved, it should be forwarded to COM:OTRS FASTILY 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation, as a Logo this file is not public domain Faciemterrae (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This looks simple enough to be {{PD-textlogo}} (tag should be changed). GermanJoe (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd-text FASTILY 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Uploader says the subject gave permission but there is no proof of it. Uploader has stated previously that he is not the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A relevant e-mail was sent yesterday, check this out. Romayan (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- An email from whom? Aizik didn't take the picture, so I question how he can release it. The photographer owns it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- An e-mail from Aizik. This photo was given to him by his friend photographer with all the rights to use it any where, including Wikipedia, of course. Romayan (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- He should prove he has the rights to it. To be blunt, he has a proven history of embellishing things, so just taking his word in an email might not be the best route to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- An e-mail from Aizik. This photo was given to him by his friend photographer with all the rights to use it any where, including Wikipedia, of course. Romayan (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, email COM:OTRS FASTILY 21:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. cell phone UI may be copyrighted Bawolff (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to be Android which would fall under {{Apache}}. No opinion on scope however. darkweasel94 22:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 22:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Not covered by Freedom of Panorama Denniss (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It is an official memorial, integrated into a bus stop as a creative means. You, sir, have no idea of what you are talking about. --188.192.204.89 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Of course it is (it is located in Berlin, Germany). Why should it not be? Read de:Panoramafreiheit. If it was not covered by FOP I would not have uploaded it. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The source image is covered by FOP - no question here. The close zooming in on parts of the image is not covered by FOP and the Eichmann image in question was not made by the exhibition commitee. It's at best of unknown source and has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- German law does not forbid derivative work of this kind. Close zoom-ins of FOP photos are treated just like the source images. It is legal, so there is no reason to delete it. Prove me wrong, if you can. But you can't. --188.192.204.89 22:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- +1. UrhG § 62 Abs. 3 Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The source image is covered by FOP - no question here. The close zooming in on parts of the image is not covered by FOP and the Eichmann image in question was not made by the exhibition commitee. It's at best of unknown source and has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- FOP allows derivative works of copyrighted images if they are not the main part of the image. Using the memorial as whole is covered by FOP, using the image not if the source is not explicitely stated like coming from Bundesarchiv or other free sources. As an Army/SS image the copyright holder is the photograph who made this image. --Denniss (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can find your interpretation nowhere in the text of the law. Will you admit that you are pulling that out of thin air? --188.192.204.89 23:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Once again: please read de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland (and the cited law texts therein). It seems you are confusing FOP and de minimis (which would only be relevant if a country does not have FOP). Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. I'mnot confusing anything here. FoP is an option for a photographer to create (and reuse) images from otherwise copyrighted material if it's permanently placed and accessible by the public. It does not tangle the rights of the creator(s) of the original artwork(s). If you use a FoP work but zoom-in on copyrighted or possible unfree artwork it becomes a derivative work and has to be deleted. Let's assume there a FoP object using several reproductions of Picasso paintings. Photographing it as a whole is covered by FoP but zooming-in onto a reproduction of a Picasso painting is a derivative work. --Denniss (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- See also: COM:FOP#The right to modify. --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo ("work") is in the public and FOP applies. There is no rule in German FOP law that forbids FOP for photos. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Lets make it more simple. If somebody uploaded a scan/copy of the original photography of Eichmann (such as en:File:EichmannAdolfSS.jpg), would we let it stay or delete it? The image is claimed to be from 1942. If the photographer was killed on the next day, we would still have to wait until end of 2012 (1942 +70). --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -
butbecause it is not in the FOP. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC) changed --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)- With "not in the FOP" you refer to the original File:Eichmannreferat BusStop3 2009.jpg? If yes, well, I fear it needs to be, as there is too much copyrighted content in this scene. --Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- With no in FOP I refer to the file you asked about: en:File:EichmannAdolfSS.jpg Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- With "not in the FOP" you refer to the original File:Eichmannreferat BusStop3 2009.jpg? If yes, well, I fear it needs to be, as there is too much copyrighted content in this scene. --Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This entire discussion is useless. German law is clear: If a copyrighted work - both three-dimensional or two-dimensional - is part of something that is permanently on display in a public space or even only visible from public space, you can take photos of it, produce derivative work of it (including zoom-ins) and also publish the resulting photos. Why do certain people here at Commons not understand this simple principle? Why should anyone bother and upload a perfectly legal image file here instead of uploading it locally with Wikipedia, if the risk of deletion out of ignorance is so high? --188.192.204.89 13:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, seems to be not so clear or at least not undisputed, if you read this recent expert assessment by a law-office in Germany (see 3.b.), asked for by Wikimedia Germany. To be sure, IANAL, but the situation seems to be less clear than we would like to have it. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The "expert assessment" you've liked to does not contain "panoramafreiheit". And if it does: please cite the paragraph. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Den Miniaturhinweis auf 3b habe ich überlesen. --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)- Mag sein, dass es nicht ganz klar ist. Aber die grundsätzlichen Probleme sind nicht bei deisem Bild sondern global in Commons zu diskutieren - wenn du meinst das das so ist. Das Gutachten scheint mir reichlich ungenau zu sein. Etwa: "Eine Lizenzierung unter einer Creative Commons-Lizenz, die die Bearbeitung des Fotos gestattet (z.B. CC BY – SA), ist hingegen nicht möglich ..." Toller Satz - irgendwas kann in ihm nicht stimmen (etwa, dass sie die CC-Lizenzen nicht verstanden haben), wenn sie Ahnung von der WP haben (wo ausschließlich Lizenzen verwendet werden, die ausdrücklich Bearbeitungen erlauben) oder sie haben keine Ahnung von der WP, was auch schlecht ist. Kurzum: das Gutachten scheint mir irrelevant zu sein, da unklar geschrieben oder einfach mit Unkenntnis erstellt. Zum Schlechtachten siehe auch: de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Urheberrechtsfragen/Hausrecht und gemeinfreie Werke Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oder, Achtung Überraschung, Option drei: Sie haben Ahnung von der Lizenz und Wikipedia, halten es aber für eine eher schlechte Idee, ihre rechtliche Einschätzung davon abhängig zu machen, welche Lizenzen in Wikipedia verwendet werden. Aber klar, es ist natürlich auch sehr schön, Leuten "keine Ahnung" zu unterstellen und das Gutachten erstmal ein paar lustigen Wortspielereien zu unterziehen. —Pill (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Der Sinn des Gutachtens ist doch der Wikipedia zu helfen (wofür sicher ordentlich bezahlt wurde - monetär und mit Werbung für die Kanzlei in der Wikipedia) - mit der Aussage im Gutachten ist das (aus welchem Grund auch immer) verfehlt. Disclaimer: Mag sein, dass ich etwas übersehe oder falsch interpretiere. ;) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oder, Achtung Überraschung, Option drei: Sie haben Ahnung von der Lizenz und Wikipedia, halten es aber für eine eher schlechte Idee, ihre rechtliche Einschätzung davon abhängig zu machen, welche Lizenzen in Wikipedia verwendet werden. Aber klar, es ist natürlich auch sehr schön, Leuten "keine Ahnung" zu unterstellen und das Gutachten erstmal ein paar lustigen Wortspielereien zu unterziehen. —Pill (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Da ein Großteil hier Deutsch spricht: Panoramafreiheit gibt uns das Recht das zu fotografieren. Ich seh grundsätzlich folgende Punkte:
- Panoramafreiheit dieses Bildes: ist das Bild selbst legal dort abgebildet? Ich gehe mal davon aus, dass diese Werbetafeln rechtlich legal sind, dann müsste für das Foto selbst ja auch ein Nutzungsvereinbarung vorliegen, die das permanente Zeigen auf öffentlichem Grund erlaubt. Somit musste der Lizenzgeber auch Nutzungen durch die Panoramafreiheit dann hinnehmen. Oder gibt es hier noch andere Möglichkeiten, solch ein Bild zu verwenden?
- Dann ebenfalls noch eingeworfen wurde §62 UrhG sowie das Rechtsgutachten, welches Veränderungen des Werkes nicht gestatten. Das stimmt zunächst, doch scheint es mir hier falsch ausgelegt zu werden. Zunächst §62: „Soweit nach den Bestimmungen dieses Abschnitts die Benutzung eines Werkes zulässig ist, dürfen Änderungen an dem Werk nicht vorgenommen werden.“ Damit wird hier argumentiert, dass man an dem Foto nichts verändern dürfte, damit legt man das aber falsch aus. Denn: nach Teil 1 des Satzes dürfen wir ein Werk benutzen, das ist hier die "Schautafel-Bushaltestelle". Teil zwei des Satzes beruft sich auf das Werk (i.S.v. dieses Werk). Also auf das gleiche Werk wie in der ersten Satzhälfte. Legen wir den Gesetzeslaut vom Allgemeinen in das konkrete um, so kommt folgendes raus: „Soweit nach den Bestimmungen dieses Abschnitts die Benutzung der Schautafel-Bushaltestelle zulässig ist, dürfen Änderungen an der Schautafel-Bushaltestelle nicht vorgenommen werden.“ Ich hoffe es wird klar: es wird verboten, die Schautafel in ihrer Abbildung zu verändern. Das wird hier aber nicht gemacht, die Tafel bleibt gleich, wir vergrößern nur einen Ausschnitt. Zu gleichem Schluss kommt man auch, wenn man das Rechtsgutachten, was Túrelio einwarf, in genau jenem von ihm genannten Abschnitt anschaut: „da § 59 UrhG keine Bearbeitung des abgebildeten Werkes gestattet, so dass z.B. Fotomontagen mit Abbildungen von urheberrechtlich geschützten Gebäuden unzulässig sind.“ Hier wird eindeutig auf Fotomontagen verwiesen, also veränderte Darstellungen des Gegenstandes, die das geschützte Werk (hier die Tafel mit den Abbildungen) so darstellen, wie sie real nicht sichtbar sind. Es gab da mal ein ähnliches Urteil zu einer Skulptur, die farbig eingefärbt wurde (in regelmäßigen Abständen). Die durfte man auch darstellen. Jemand hat dann aber mal einfach eine Nikolaus-Version gemacht (die es nie gab), das aber wiederum war verboten, weil man es nie so sah. Kurz wird es in de:Panoramafreiheit#Entstellung_und_Bearbeitung_des_Werks und in de:Holbeinpferd#Rechtsstreit_um_Postkarten erwähnt.
Solange also man nicht davon ausgeht, dass die Infotafel an sich illegal ist (Punkt 1), so kann man das Foto hier benutzen. --Quedel (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Schön auf den Punkt gebracht. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Denniss's own interpretation of German copyright is indeed only his own, and is not shared by anyone else I know of, let alone by any of the literature. Finding a suitable detail and photograph angle does not equal creating a derivative work from the original. Otherwise, the whole concept of FOP would be nonsense. Hence, keep without any doubt. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)—
I think it's fair to assume that this zoom-in version is fine. While I wouldn't consider the DR itself nonsensial or absurd, as some seem to suggest, I don't find Denniss' argument particularly convincing. The reason is that it is already legitimate to create a photograph of (only) Mr. Eichmann's portrait as displayed on the information board. The reason here is that the portrait is a work of its own, thus FOP would equally apply (note that, in the case of photographs, the restrictions Denniss and Quedel describe serve to protect the creator of a [displayed] work from inacceptable modifications of this work as shown in an "FOP image" of this work -- you cannot infringe these restrictions if you take a photograph of the original work and do not modify this photograph at all). But if we assume then for a moment that Denniss is right this would lead to the contradiction that while it would be acceptable to publish a photo of A, it would not be acceptable to take a picture of B and A and then removing B before publication. This would, however, for no apparent reason lead to the different treatment of an entirely identical work (i.e. the resulting photograph of a photograph) depending on how it was produced. (Let me add that the only thing I'm not sure about at first glance is whether the (original) photograph does really comply with FOP (frankly, it doesn't look particularly "bleibend" to my eyes ...), but as I have no clue about that, in my comment I just, as you seem to do, assumed it to be a permanently installed information board (which it probably is anyway, given the location, but I don't know).) Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: German FOP is very broad -- "works" -- without limitation, may be copied. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Heinrich Hoffmann photo that isn't public domain in its source country. See File:Adolf Eichmann (1942).jpg. Christoph Braun (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hast Du mitbekommen, dass es sich um einen Zuschnitt aus File:Eichmannreferat BusStop3 2009.jpg handelt, welches von der Panoramafreiheit gedeckt ist? -- Rillke(q?) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I did. As we have seen in the first RfD, the argument to keep the image is entirely based on Germany's FoP. While I do not object the prevailing interpretation of Germany's FoP in principle, I have doubts about the image's compliance with our current licencing policy.
- Per Commons:Licensing "[a]ll copyrighted material on Commons must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose [...]", furthermore Wikimedia Commons only accepts media "that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
- The current use of {{PD-Old}} doesn't really make sense in this context. Neither Sargoth, Der Bischof mit der E-Gitarre nor Heinrich Hoffmann comply with 70 years PMA. Therefore I propose to remove {{PD-Old}}.
- AFAIK there is no reliable case about the interaction of FoP and free licences (especially Creative Commons licences). The image in question is a further derivative work per COM:FOP (which is neither official policy nor guideline).
- Quedel pointed out that unrestricted editing wouldn't be possible (referring to §§ 59 and 62 UrhG), which IMHO contradicts the applied CC licence: Per Section 3. b) of CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported the licensor grants the right "to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work." If there are restrictions to the creation and reproduction of adaptions, the licensor would be unable to grant this right in the first place.
- Conclusion: A frictionless interaction of Germany's FoP provision and free licences seems unlikely without reliable cases or legal comments. Independant of this RfD's conclusion: an improvement in re-user communication is due.
- Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed explanation. -- Rillke(q?) 22:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous. If we delete this one on these dubious grounds, we have to delete every single of our thousands and thousands FOP images from Germany (pretty much all public art and all modern architecture), plus all images of living people (since personality rights apply and hence the images cannot be altered as freely as one could imagine). Keep --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Bearbeitungskonflikt: Wollte gerade Nonsense schreiben und das gleiche Argument wie Andreas anführen. Nun halt auf deutsch: behalten und den Troll verwarnen --Historiograf (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that Creative Commons licenses do not waive or otherwise affect rights of privacy or publicity to the extent they apply. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - German FOP requires that a work is permanently placed in the public; menaing the work's more or less "lifetime". Such posters/billboards in bus stops are exchanged after a while (mosty after some months); such works are not covered by FOP. In this specific case the original picture shows the bus stop as main subject - with some goodwill, the Eichmann poster can be seen as inevitable "accessory". While the crop is not an "accessory", thus not covered by FOP - especially not in regard to derivates of a protected original work. --Martina talk 18:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)/18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Strong objection to the last statement. This is not a poster at a bus stop, but an official, permanent memorial, integrated in a bus stop in Berlin. rgds --h-stt !? 10:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- keep. FoP in Germany is a broad limitation of copyright, this memorial is public and permanent. Therefore it is covered by German FoP. We can and should use the picture. Or ask a Berlin Wikpedian to take a new better one with the cropped part in question at the center and in better resolution. rgds --h-stt !? 10:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a memorial but a simple bus stop. Posters/Billboards are exchanged after a while, and do not stay permanently in the public. --Martina talk 12:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is a memorial, permanent since 1998, when it was erected. The bus stop stands in front of the building that once hosted the infamous "Judenreferat Berlin", the agency where Eichmann worked. And it is covered by German FoP. rgds --h-stt !? 16:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a memorial but a simple bus stop. Posters/Billboards are exchanged after a while, and do not stay permanently in the public. --Martina talk 12:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is apparently a permanent installation, which would mean that it satisfies German FOP rules -FASTILY 22:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The image added 04:06, March 26, 2016 is not from the bus stop, and needs to be removed, as it is not released under the stated license. Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Diannaa, why would this image be under copyright? Is it not an official (government) image of him? SarahSV (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Government documents are PD in the United States, but not in all countries. Canada for example has no such rule. And we don't know if it's an official government document. This page at the USHMM credits the image to "DIZ Muenchen GMBH, Sueddeutscher Verlag Bilderdienst", ie. a German publishing house. The image may be in the public domain in the US and UK as seized enemy property, but we have no proof of that. I can't find it at NARA or the Library of Congress. Given that there's no proof it's in the public domain, we have to assume that it's not. Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep FoP in Germany. --Ralf Roleček
22:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
の募集広告.JPG){kind=link}
_Pot_za_cili_(Novine,_1929._X._27).JPG){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
%E3%81%AE%E5%8B%9F%E9%9B%86%E5%BA%83%E5%91%8A.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E3%81%AE%E5%8B%9F%E9%9B%86%E5%BA%83%E5%91%8A.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
の募集広告.JPG){kind=link}
の募集広告.JPG){kind=link}
_Pot_za_cili_(Novine,_1929._X._27).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pot_za_cili_(Novine,_1929._X._27).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Pot_za_cili_(Novine,_1929._X._27).JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pot_za_cili_(Novine,_1929._X._27).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://funxd.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/4lsscbrl.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JauzlxZBLm8/Ts_xJdzA-TI/AAAAAAAALHs/tvnAeLdmQf4/s1600/tintin-waterfalls.gif){kind=link}
![[4]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tkV1FJYMiZU/Ts_xTnBjc2I/AAAAAAAALH0/pn2zgo_A9sI/s1600/tin-tin-west.gif){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept: kept the file, reverted to the last version that was actually excerpted from the FoP photo and hid the version from another source that was uploaded over the earlier versions. --Rosenzweig τ 00:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Images with only PD-Yugoslavia tag
[edit]- File:Croatian Pilots of WWII.PNG
- File:Delegacija USAOJ.jpg
- File:Bleiburg column.jpg
- File:Aleksa I.jpg
- File:1182km0.jpg
- File:Funeral of Nikola Pasic.jpg
- File:Galeb g2.jpg
- File:Dragoljub Mihailović and Tanasije Dinić during the trial.jpg
- File:Kanarinci jastreb.jpg
- File:Kluz Franjo.jpg
- File:Ivan Milutinovic 1.jpg
- File:IК3.jpg
- File:JNA na Sinaju 1958.JPG
- File:Pilots of YRAF.jpg
- File:Niš 1930s.jpg
- File:Nikola Pasic, a day before his death.jpg
- File:Mihailovic at the Thessaloniki Front1.jpg
- File:Rudi Cajevac.jpg
- File:Rukovodstvo NOP Crne Gore 1941.jpg
- File:RViPVO SFRJ MiG21bis.jpg
- File:RViPVO SFRJ MiG21MF.jpg
- File:Privremena jedinstvena vlada DFJ.jpg
- File:Queen Elizabeth II Tiara.jpg
- File:Tito i Olga Humo.jpg
- File:Tito i prva proleterska.jpg
- File:Tito on military exercises.jpg
- File:Slavonski Korpus 1943.JPG
- File:YPA AA gun.jpg
- File:YPA AA rocket.jpg
- File:YPA artillery.jpg
- File:Tu-95 and YPA MiG-29.jpg
- File:YPA BOV 3.jpg
- File:YPA Coastal artillery.jpg
- File:YPA cruiser Kotor.jpg
- File:YPA gazelle helicopter.jpg
- File:YPA soko J22.jpg
- File:YPA submarine.jpg
- File:YPA T-55 tank.jpg
- File:YPA victory flag.jpg
- File:YRAF Hawker Hurricane.jpg
- File:YPA mortar.jpg
- File:Zeljava another angle migs.jpg
- File:Zeljava tito.jpg
- File:Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik.jpg
These files are tagged only with the PD-Yugoslavia template. This template is actually not a free licence template. It's only purpose is to explain that the file once belonged to the government of Yugoslavia, and now belongs to the successor states (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina). This template says nothing about the copyright status of the file. Even the template itself states that this template must not be used on its own. But it is used on it's own on all of these nominated files. These files should be deleted as they actually do not have any licence tag, and there is no evidence that they are in public domain. --Vanjagenije (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Those photos that were originally created in Slovenia in 1969 or earlier or in Croatia in 1970 or earlier (I have not checked for the rest of the former Yugoslav republics) and are not protected with the publication right (for Slovenia, 25 years; for the rest should be checked) anymore, are per Commons:Copyright rules by territory free for Commons. These only need an appropriate license tag. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Add the appropriate tags and Keep Fry1989 eh? 04:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- What tags? All of these photos are actualy copyrighted. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Add the appropriate tags and
Delete, unless someone provides the appropriate details (year of creation and year of publication) that demonstrate some images are free. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 21:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This template ignores current Commons category scheme. We already have localized categories by languages such as Category:Commons policies, Category:Commons help etc. This template only creates links to inexistent categories (e.g. links to Category:Commons policies/de even there are already Category:Commons Richtlinien)in current commons category scheme and is not suitable to use. That's why this template should be deleted from Commons. – Kwj2772 (msg) 06:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely Keep It's for Extension Translate. Its imposible (or extremely difficult) to generate categories as used to be created and you want via the extension. --BaseSat (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's possible if categories by languages are registered in templates (by using code like this) – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: It's for extension translate FASTILY 21:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fattonyni as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Duplicate (L/R mirrored) of File:ACDC-Hughes-long ago.jpg
Converted by me to DR, as this file/image-version is on Commons since 2007 and is quite heavily used (though mostly on userpages). If decided to delete, the deletion should be put on hold as long as Commons-Delinker is dead. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not official material
[edit]File:Milankovitch bridge.jpgPD-Old- File:Dragiša Cvetković.jpg
- File:Draža Mihailović and others verdict reading.jpg
- File:Esad Dzudzevic.jpg
File:AVKonuzin.jpgOTRS confirmed Ticket #2013071010003075 --Milićević (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)- File:Aleksandar Rankovic.jpg
- File:IK-2.jpg
- File:JosipBroz1928.jpg
- File:Jozo Urožnik testifies at Draža Mihailović's trial.jpg
File:Justiniana Prima, aeroimage.jpgSmaller version of original PD-self file- File:Knezevic2.JPG
- File:Mihailovic at the Thessaloniki Front.jpg
- File:Mihalj Kertes.jpg
- File:MilanBačević.jpg
- File:MilanGrol.jpg
- File:Milos Vucevic crop.JPG
- File:Milica Čubrilo.jpg
- File:Milos Vucevic.jpg
- File:Milan Marković.jpg
- File:Mladjan Dinkic.jpg
- File:New military Sajkaca.jpg
- File:Mirko Bajić.jpg
- File:MirkoCvetnovic.jpg
File:Official portrait of Tomislav Nikolić.jpgOTRS confirmed Ticket #2013071010003075 – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)File:Official portrait Tomislav Nikolić.jpgOTRS confirmed Ticket #2013071010003075 – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)- File:Slavica Djukic Dejanovic.jpg
File:Stanislava Pak Stanković.jpgOTRS confirmed – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)- File:Suzana Grubjesic.jpg
File:Tomislav Nikolić official portrait, 2012.jpgOTRS confirmed Ticket #2013071010003075 – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)File:Tomislav Nikolić official portrait, headshot.jpgOTRS confirmed Ticket #2013071010003075 – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)File:Tomislav Nikolić official portrait, standing.jpgOTRS confirmed Ticket #2013071010003075 – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)File:Tomislav Nikolić, official portrait.jpgOTRS confirmed Ticket #2013071010003075 – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)- File:Velimir Ilic.JPG
- File:Велимир Илић.jpg
- File:Destroyer Kotor And Split guard Galeb 60s.jpg
- File:Lekovic Petar.jpg
- File:Idma.jpg
- File:Ninoslav Konstantinovic.jpeg
- File:Milos Simovic.jpeg
- File:MilanPanicPM.jpg
- File:Milan Jurisic.jpeg
File:Novosadska racija 1942 5.jpgHistorical Museum of Vojvodina claims this is a public domain imageFile:Novosadska racija 1942 4.jpgHistorical Museum of Vojvodina claims this is a public domain imageFile:Novosadska racija 1942 3.jpgHistorical Museum of Vojvodina claims this is a public domain image- File:Sava Kovacevic cropped.jpg
- File:Sava Kovacevic (1942 winter).jpg
- File:SA-13.jpg
- File:Svetozar Marovic.jpg
- File:Tito met orden.jpg
- File:Tito's Yacht "Galeb".jpg
- File:Tito-slika2.jpg
- File:Triglav50.jpg
- File:Ucka.jpg
- File:Učka (54).jpg
- File:Učka.jpg
- File:Veljko Kadijević (standing).jpg
- File:Veljko Kadijević.jpg
- File:Vladimir Milisavljevic.jpeg
- File:Durmitor(53).jpg
File:Novosadska racija 1942 1.jpgHistorical Museum of Vojvodina claims this is a public domain imageFile:Novosadska racija 1942 2.jpgHistorical Museum of Vojvodina claims this is a public domain image- File:Biokovo.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
All those images are tagged with "PD-SerbiaGov" or "PD-SCGGov" templates. These templates are meant to be used for files that are free of copyright under Serbian Copyright Law (or Serbia and Montenegro Copyright Law) which states that "Laws, sub-laws and official materials of a state body or a body performing public functions" are free of copyrights. But, a photograph from a government's web site cannot be claimed to be "official material", nor are they laws or sub-laws. I sent an e-mail to the Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia asking what are official materials as meant in the Law and if photos from government web sites can be defined as such. They answered me that their opinion is that this category (official materials) covers only: official acts, drawings and blueprints of building and cadaster agencies, diplomas, certificates, official reports of government agencies, statistical reports, drafts of Laws and other documents. They also explicitly state in their answer that we cannot include any photo from government's web sites in the category of official materials, nor anything else from government's web sites not included in the aforementioned categories. You can read the whole answer here (in Serbian). One such file is already deleted. See the discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jovan Krkobabic.jpg. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete any that are not official acts, drawings and blueprints of building and cadaster agencies, diplomas, certificates, official reports of government agencies, statistical reports, drafts of Laws, and other extremely similar documents. Great detective work on this! – Quadell (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete most of these. The modern photos of people appear to be from news releases or other publicity material, not from "official materials" as defined above, so they should be deleted unless we can find another reason they would be PD (which seems unlikely). Most of the historical photos (of people, ships etc) don't appear to be sourced from official materials either, so they should be deleted unless another reason for them being PD is established. The two photos from The Trial of Dragoljub-Draža Mihailović: Stenographic Record and Documents from the Trial of Dragoljub-Draža Mihailović (1946), namely File:Jozo Urožnik testifies at Draža Mihailović's trial.jpg and File:Draža Mihailović and others verdict reading.jpg, seem to be exceptions and can probably be kept. Another photo (File:Mihalj Kertes.jpg) is sourced from what is described as an indictment/arrest warrant (the link given seems to be dead), which might also qualify as "official materials". Those are the only ones I see with some support for the original PD rationale. --Avenue (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per previous same requests - just look through old deletion requests. There is always someone who "discovers" that these files are not somehow official material and then after a discussion the decision was always keep. There is no need to go through it all again, everything is clear.--Avala (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, I agree, everything is clear. These files are not official materials and are copyrighted. No discussion can alter the Law. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DRs and such. Successor States licensing applies. Fry1989 eh? 19:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per older DRs. Also, OTRS for some of those are already sent, so closing admin should wait anyway before close this. Please, ask me about OTRS waiting, in order to solve that. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept everything with confirmed permission. Rest deleted. If new permissions emails are recieved, they should be forwarded to COM:OTRS FASTILY 08:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)