Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg
However, I can't find evidence that Sigge Kotliar is the original author of non authomatic vectorized version (source of this file) of this Coat of arms and because this would contradict the original license The Photographer (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)These additional SVG flags have either been compiled from public domain sources, or obtained by various other tools (noticeably 'potrace', used to convert bitmap flags into vector format, see e.g. usa_florida.svg which was obtained in this way). We release them in the public domain (unless this would contradict the original license, but we are unaware of any such case).
- Note that our version has since bèn changed to include other bits (the horse) traced from another copyrighted source. So the defacto license/source being claimed is National Coats of Arms cannot be copyrighted, see art. 6er Paris Convention at www.wipo.int not xrmap. I'm not going to get into the validity of that claim just wanted to clarify the situation. /Lokal_Profil 15:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I know Paris. A blazon does not define a coat of arms in the very last detail. The shape of the shield, for instance, is left completely undefined. Non-geometric elements are only broadly described ("a rearing horse, facing left", but how exactly that horse is drawn is left undefined). Coats of arms including non-geometric elements leave the author of an emblazon considerable freedom to express his creativity to produce an original work. Examples of such non-geometric elements include animals and plants, but also crowns, banners, pinnacles, and so on. An emblazon of a coat of arms that contains such non-geometric elements is thus always copyrightable in itself as an original work. By extension, any drawing of a flag that shows a coat of arms is basically copyrightable. A Blasón could be free, however, Coat of arms design is copyrighted --The Photographer (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I fully agree which is why I instead found the xrmap version I believed was free. If, as the statement above indicates, that version isn't free then there are no objections from my part to deleting it.
- But since the current version doesn't rely on xrmap to be free, but instead Paris, that is the criteria under which it must be argued. For this reason I've pinged in the users involved in the later (Paris motivated) uploads. /Lokal_Profil 09:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is a derived (trace) version from copyrighted activeweb website, where publish date is 2001 --The Photographer (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is technically impossible to optain a traced version of the recent quality from this poor 300px x 360px source. -- MaxxL - talk 17:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- MaxxL, It is obviously impossible, however, is exactly the same version of the coat of arms. I have not managed to see the author and original design that clearly exists somewhere. I believe that there is little evidence that this shield is really free for the same arguments above. The idea of placing the link is to show that this version has been circulating on the internet long before being uploaded here. We do not have a source that can verify the original work from this version was made is actually a free.--The Photographer (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is a derived (trace) version from copyrighted activeweb website, where publish date is 2001 --The Photographer (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep Licensing OK . This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.--EEIM (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Licencing is not ok, blazon is free, however design could not be. Force the source not solve the problem --The Photographer (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted In the source flags file says clearly "These additional SVG flags have either been compiled from public domain sources, or obtained by various other tools (noticeably 'potrace', used to convert bitmap flags into vector format, see e.g. usa_florida.svg which was obtained in this way). We release them in the public domain (unless this would contradict the original license, but we are unaware of any such case)." So not all flags are in PD and we don't know exactly wich of them yes and wich no --Ezarateesteban 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
God, what have you done, you idiots. You deleted the coat of arms of a country, that is in the lead infobox of Venezuela's article in many wikipedias, such as in the Portuguese wikipedia article, which now has a redlink where the coat of arms was supposed to be. I hope you are satisfied Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
See my talk page. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Photographer: Are you proud? Are you freaking proud? By the way, many coats of arms don't even have a source. They were marked as Own work, such as the coats of arms of colombia, when it obviously is not. Go ahead and request the deletion of all coats of arms of every contry. Go ahead. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Most likely is the drawing their own work, the original arms is mosst likely PD, so the drawing is their own.
- Not read the DR or the README file, but if it is the source code that's the problem, we could just scrub it and recode it, and it would be fine...If it is a artistic different they have made that is above TOO however, I understand this deletion Josve05a (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: The hell are you talking about. The colombia coat of arms is the real coat of arms of Colombia. It is no artwork. I will just re-upload the coat of arms of Venezuela and upload it as Own work. Either that or we delete all coats of arms of every country. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
There you go, I've reuploaded the coat of arms as Own work, just like all other coats of arms. If you delete this one, you have to delete all others as well. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Incendiary Iconoclasm: This deletion may be an error, but it would be better than you request undeletion rather than reuploading the file. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Already closed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg, user User:Incendiary Iconoclasm ( blocked (3 days) in commons and wikipedia spanish) evading copyright, "fixing" the problem uploding the file like own The Photographer (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can I get a TL;DR? What is the source claiming might be copyrighted? Their design (the image) of the arms, which may be below TOO in terms of artistic expression, or the source code (of the svg) which can be solved by either redrawing it in incscape which will result in another source code which someone can claim as own, or simply scrub the code using svg optimizes and claim it as an own work. There are 2 copyright to consider in normal svg-cases, here there are 3.
- The original images copyright status. In this case PD, I assume, as it is a coat of arms of a country.
- The artistic change the 'drawer' has made, which may warrant copyright.
- Copyright of the code it self, which svg's are made of.
- Josve05a (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we have in 2. It is a coat of a country, in this case Venezuela, therefore, the blazon is free because PD, however, design is the artistic interpretation of someone and here is where is the copyvio. On the other hand, the svg generated with automated conversion process to svg ('potrace') was published under public domain, however, Sigge Kotliar ran the script to automatically generate this svg, he is not the original author and this would contradict the original license (Readme file from source), at this point the license is applied to a source, however, it is not only a source, It is a art work, svg is only the free format. Thus, the source code license is irrelevant because it is an automated conversion from somewhere. Btw, I've been looking for a replacement of this file, however, the official site of the government of Venezuela shows a bizarre low quality version. --The Photographer (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
| About the official source |
|---|
:::Can we use the image and the description (for vectorization) from this site http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Venezuela.htm ? --Shadowxfox (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Photographer: Last chance, this http://docs.venezuela.justia.com/federales/leyes/ley-de-bandera-nacional-himno-nacional-y-escudo-de-armas-de-la-republica-bolivariana-de-venezuela.pdf ? it's the law itself, and contains images of the symbols. --Shadowxfox (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
|
- Keep Close this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Fry1989: Thank you. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per Fry. It would be better if discussions could be limited to the points, not personalities. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Wrong Author information. File already deleted and uploaded without a undeletion request. [1] The Photographer (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ACoat_of_arms_of_Venezuela.svg&type=revision&diff=182466172&oldid=182464372){kind=link}
- Keep Not this again. Fry1989 eh? 18:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: If a image is deleted, the user need open a Undeletion Request, and how you can see the image has a Author, source and license wrong. --The Photographer (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer Please respect the rules and policies of Commons, this discussion is over, I kept the file. There is no reason to take a file to COM:UNDEL which has not been deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- This file was Already deleted and you can see a comment about it by the admin Yann --The Photographer (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer Please respect the rules and policies of Commons, this discussion is over, I kept the file. There is no reason to take a file to COM:UNDEL which has not been deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Venezuela.svg The Photographer (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Does a DR of a raster CoA be a valid reason to delete a SVG version? --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Amitie 10g: When you apply a automatic rasterisation over a bitmap image, the result is a "SVG", however, so complex as a bitmap and impossible to edit. --The Photographer (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Okay, I'm confused.
- As near as I can tell from reading this page, it was deleted once, then reuploaded by Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk · contribs) (who may or may not have been accused of falsely claiming it as own work?) who was angry that this left a redlink in many articles.
- What was the rationale for keeping the second time around? Ellin Beltz said "Kept: Per Fry." But the only thing the record shows Fry1989 saying was "Keep Close this nonsense."
- And while I'm trying to puzzle this out, I notice that Incendiary Iconoclasm's comments (beginning with "God, what have you done, you idiots.") were tacked directly onto a "do not edit this archive" message. Don't we normally have a renomination rather than an editing of the original?
- Delete Peer Perey --The Photographer (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get to keep nominating until you have your way. Fry1989 eh? 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, again. If you have a problem with this close, renominating it over again is not going to solve it. Discussing it at the closed nomination is also not the way to go. Please reconsider the badgering tactics, find your COM:MELLOW and let's get some other work done. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
