Commons:Deletion requests/Civil Ensign and Roundel of Luxembourg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Civil Ensign and Roundel of Luxembourg
[edit]
derivative of a copyrighted image --Caranorn (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- [Note—I have added this page to the deletion requests page as it appears the nominator neglected to do so back when they nominated the images in July. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]
- I have asked the nominator to indicate why he believes the images in question to be non-free. So far he has offered no proof for that they are "derivative[s] of a copyrighted image", and furthermore merely being under copyright does not mean the images are not free. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, wish you had asked me in July (note I asked an admin in July whether I had followed correct procedure, sorry seems something went awry). I just did a rapid websearch and found the following link [1]. Our image dates to 2006, theirs to 2005 it seems (has to be verified of course), I think there can be no doubt that ours is a derivative of theirs. Of course it could be that both are derivatives of the Album des Pavillons, but that would not make this less of a copyright violation. It has to be assumed images on FOTW are copyrighted and therefore unfree unless a specific image was released otherwise.--Caranorn (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I would be stunned to discover that FOTW owns the intellectual property rights to the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg. They may well have made a particular electronic version of the ensign (and possibly issued a copyright claim to that image) but ultimately the images listed above are derived from the original design which may, or may not be copyrighted (probably not I would guess). As it stands there is no evidence of a copyright violation and there is plenty of evidence of various parties making copies of the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg with any other party seeking legal sanction against them. 87.113.25.22 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Oops - didn't realize I was not logged in. Greenshed (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, wish you had asked me in July (note I asked an admin in July whether I had followed correct procedure, sorry seems something went awry). I just did a rapid websearch and found the following link [1]. Our image dates to 2006, theirs to 2005 it seems (has to be verified of course), I think there can be no doubt that ours is a derivative of theirs. Of course it could be that both are derivatives of the Album des Pavillons, but that would not make this less of a copyright violation. It has to be assumed images on FOTW are copyrighted and therefore unfree unless a specific image was released otherwise.--Caranorn (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not copy this image from FOTW. -- Denelson83 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
kept Julo (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)