Commons:Deletion requests/File:1836 alvarado flag.webp

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.

File:1836 alvarado flag.webp

I believe that this image is not free, as the uploader even uploaded it from a PBS website (https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/where-to-find-californias-oldest-flag-other-objects-in-socals-archives) and the image has a courtesy tag ("Courtesy of the Southwest Museum of the American Indian Collection, Autry National Center of the American West. 8.P.1") from a museum. So, I don't think this uploaded image is free. Tuckerresearch (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. - The user (User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden) has a lot of uploads removed for similar violations. Tuckerresearch (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't believe the photograph is copyrightable. Per wikiessay "Wikipedia:Copyright_on_emblems":

This page discusses the status of flags, coats of arms, seals, and similar official symbols, as well as drawings of such emblems, under United States copyright law. Other nations' laws may differ; however, for the English Wikipedia, only United States law is generally considered, since that's where the Foundation and its servers are based. Copyright on renderings of emblems

"Only creative works can be copyrighted. A work must be sufficiently original to be eligible to copyright; mere reproductions are not copyrightable (see Bridgeman v. Corel for the U.S.), and the effort required to produce a reproduction has been rejected explicitly as a base for copyrightability of a work in the U.S. by Feist v. Rural. This excludes both mechanical reproductions such as photocopies and also reproductions made by a human from copyright. Only works passing the threshold of originality are eligible to copyright. Inherent in the legal definition of originality is that the work be a human creation.

"The precise requirements a work has to fulfill to be considered sufficiently original to pass the threshold of originality are interpreted differently in different countries. In general, though, the requirements are rather low. For the U.S., the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices[7] of the U.S. Copyright Office (Compendium (Third)) gives some guidelines:

Common geometric forms such as rectangles, ellipses, five-pointed stars, as well as most works composed solely of uncopyrightable elements are not copyrightable.[8] However, works that include uncopyrightable elements, but are otherwise original, are copyrightable.(*)

____________
(*)Compendium (Third), § 906.1. "The Copyright Act does not protect common geometric shapes, either in two-dimensional or three-dimensional form. There are numerous common geometric shapes, including, without limitation, straight or curved lines, circles, ovals, spheres, triangles, cones, squares, squares, cubes, rectangles, diamonds, trapezoids, parallelograms, pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, and decagons. Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a work that merely consists of common geometric shapes unless the author’s use of those shapes results in a work that, as a whole, is sufficiently creative."

If the license that was provided is valid, itself, generally, so would be be uploading this instance of a simple photographic reproduction of a flag of geometric design (in fact, one that is, uber-noncomplexedly. but a red upright five-pointed star on a white field).

Also, see the museum photograph of yet another piece of "decorative material" also from 1836: File:(Agen)_Le_Printemps_-_Tapisserie_allégorique_de_la_série_des_Saisons_de_Lucas.jpg. It's likewise uncopyrightable because it's simply a photograph of the tapestry shown, whose license rightly is "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer." (Note: I'll add this additional license to File:1836 alvarado flag.webp.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Question Wouldn't the "faithful reproduction" rule that we use to disregard museums' claims of copyright over reproductions of paintings also apply to this kind of image of a PD flag? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Reply - I don't think it matters that it's a photograph of a star, or a flag from 1836. Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems talks about how an emblem itself isn't copyrightable. The issue is the PHOTOGRAPH is a new work and from a news organization. Is that copyrightable? Tuckerresearch (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That's addressed by the "faithful reproduction" rule, isn't it? If it weren't, we'd have to delete a lot of reproductions of PD paintings done by photographers hired by museums. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

So, ANY photograph from a museum, as long as the thing pictured is old, is public domain; and ANY photograph from anybody (including a new site) as long as the thing pictured is a flag or simple geometric shape, is public domain? (I am not tying to be sarcastic, promise, I'm just trying to put these assertions into words.) Tuckerresearch (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, only photos of 2-dimensional items, not sculptures. I'm not a law expert; you should read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, particularly the "Why do we allow the PD-Art tag to be used for photographs from any country?" section. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the flag is clearly not under copyright due to both age and consisting solely of geometric shapes; the photo is a faithful reproduction of a 2D work and thus does not generate a new copyright. —holly {chat} 19:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)