Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Australian copyright law forbids the Union Jack in the Australian flag to be replaced with the Australian Aboriginal flag. 84.61.165.65 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete; what would be a reason to delete is if the copyrights of Harold Thomas on the Australian Aboriginal flag design are recognized as valid (as opposed to falling under Template:PD-shape). The previous discussions on the subject are at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Flag_of_the_Australian_Aborigines.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is the File:Flag_of_Australia_with_Aboriginal_flag_replacing_Union_flag.svg legal under Australian copyright law? --84.61.165.65 14:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can neither *harold nor *thomas be an Australian Aboriginal word? --84.61.165.65 14:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your statements and questions are somewhat irrelevant as possible reasons why this image should be deleted. See Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Flag_of_the_Australian_Aborigines.svg for actually relevant issues... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to release works containing copyrighted works in the public domain? --84.61.165.65 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." The flag of australia itself is clearly in the public domain and so the only issue relates to whether the Aboriginal flag, which is copyrighted in austrlalia - can fall within Template:PD-shape. I would suggest that it almost certainly CAN fall within that definition and that therefore it does not attract US copyright. If that is a correct interpretation then this should be included and Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Flag_of_the_Australian_Aborigines.svg was an incorrect deletion.
Speedy Delete Sorry did not realise this was a link to commons, on commons only images that are public domain in both the US and their country of origin can be uploaded, the evidence presented in Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Flag_of_the_Australian_Aborigines.svg is conclusive that the Aboriginal flag design is copyrighted in Australia and so under australian copyright law this is a prohibited derivative work. This image could be uploaded to en:wikipedia but it cannot be accepted on commons :).Ajbpearce (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the File:Flag_of_Australia_with_Aboriginal_flag_replacing_Union_flag.svg be uploaded to the German Wikipedia? --84.61.165.65 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is fair use allowed under Australian copyright law? --84.61.165.65 20:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. This file must therefore be deleted in the next hour. --84.61.165.65 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuinately, your cloud of tangential questions and ultimatums (and English Wikipedia Humanities Ref. Desk questions) does very little to appropriately clarify the relevant copyright status of this image, which is supposed to be the main purpose of the discussion here. If you don't know very much about how things work around here, then maybe you should educate yourself a little bit more before participating in such things as deletion processes... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. This file must therefore be deleted in the next 24 hours. --84.61.165.65 07:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed under Australian copyright law to replace the Union Jack in the Australian flag with the Australian Aboriginal flag? --84.61.165.65 14:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. This file must therefore be deleted in the next 168 hours. --84.61.165.65 07:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the File:Flag_of_Australia_with_Aboriginal_flag_replacing_Union_flag.svg contains the Australian Aboriginal flag, which is copyrighted in Australia; it has therefore to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. --84.61.165.65 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear evidence has been presented that the flag contains a copyrighted element, dating to 1971. Oz is a signatory to the Berne Convention. So is the US. The Oz copyright is respected in the US - the location of the commons servers and hence of the copyright violation. As night follows day, the file should be deleted from here, as was Image:Flag_of_the_Australian_Aborigines.svg some time back. That 84.61 seems incapable or unwilling to mount a sane and responsible argument for its deletion should have no bearing on the outcome. PD-Shape has no bearing on the argument - the copyright image is a complex shape with precise colouring, falling far outside the scope of that template. Cases can be made on en.wikipedia and other language wikipedias for fair use of the image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TagihSimon. Also IMHO the issue of the Berne convention and whether this is copyrightable or the copyright is recognised in the US is irrelevant if we agree it's copyrightable and copyrighted in Australia. Per policy Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law, content needs to be in the public domain or freely licensed in both the US and the country of origin i.e. Australia in this case. There's an exception for faithful reproductions of 2D artworks which are in the public domain (i.e. photos or scans of old artworks) but this clearly doesn't fall into that category therefore it needs to be available under a suitable license or in the public domain in both the US and Australia to be on the commons. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It contains simple geometric shapes and greatly contributes to numerous articles. For a similar parallel regarding flag design, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. If the Hezbollah flag, which contains significantly more unique design than this, was allowed to be kept with the note "Rule of thumb: if you want your copyright honored everytime your graphic design is displayed or used, don't design a flag," than neither should this. Mnmazur (talk)

Sorry but that's a flawed comparison. As I mentioned above, we require images be available under a free license or in the public domain in both the country of origin and in the USA. In this case, we have clear cut evidence, a court case, it is copyrighted in the country of origin, Australia. I don't know the details of ther other case, but if it's true flags are rarely copyrightable then it may be resonable to presume the Hezbollah flag is not copyrighted in the country of origin (and whose country of origin is questionable anyway), but that's clearly not the case here. And we did delete the copyright infringing flag that this is derived from. If you want to propose a policy change so we have another exception to the current requirement that items be under a suitable license or PD in both country of origin and US so that if it's PD-ineligibible in the US that's sufficient even if it's clearly copyrighted in the country of origin, you're welcome to, but this clearly isn't the place. It's worth remembering the last exception came from the foundation Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete File:Eine-Million-Artikel-Seite-Bild.jpg, too! --84.61.165.65 09:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the file of the aforementioned court case be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons? --84.61.165.65 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the judgment. - Mark (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. This file must therefore be deleted in the current month. --84.61.165.65 10:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could Harold Thomas sue the Wikimedia Foundation? --84.61.165.65 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Harold Thomas? --88.76.18.70 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. This file must therefore be deleted in the current month. --84.61.162.111 20:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. This file must therefore be deleted in the current month. --84.61.146.104 14:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Harold Thomas still living? --84.61.146.104 18:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Harold Thomas license the Australian Aboriginal flag under a free license? --84.61.146.104 13:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep "Australian copyright law forbids the Union Jack in the Australian flag to be replaced with the Australian Aboriginal flag." Copyright law.... or just law??? Hmmm... The Muhammad images can not be depicted, is against Islam!!!! Oh, wait, but we do have those images, because Commons is NOT censored and it doesn't matter if the australian law (except the copyright law, of course) says that this picture is illegal.

Now, why are you giving ultimatums? Who are you??? The internet police officer in charge??

And the copyrighted portion used in the file is to small to copyright all the file. If there's a picture of a boy with a shirt of McDonalds, the McDonalds logo is not copyrighting the image because it is not big enough. --190.25.105.119 08:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Contains derived works of the Aboriginal flag which is protected by copyright[3]. Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per [4]. Yann (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]