Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.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.

There's no evidence the original of this derivative work is libre-licensed in the first place. Their website indicates the opposite. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep PD-old, pd-ineligible, pd-whatever. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The flag was designed in 1973 by the first Commonwealth Secretary-General, Arnold Smith and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau; this doesn't fall within the age-exemption aspects of copyright law afaict, and ergo doesn't meet "PD-old" criteria.

Under what category of "pd-ineligible" are you referring? Given Commons' precedent regarding thresholds of originality, this design doesn't fall under any simplicity exemptions. I'll admit though that don't know what other "ineligibility" criteria may exist, could you provide a specific Commons-listed policy or guideline for such?

"pd-whatever"? There's no evidence of this design having been released into the public domain by M. Smith, M. Trudeau, or the Commonwealth of Nations itself, particularly given the copyright notice on their site. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was older, and in your nomination you did not say when it had been designed. Anyway, I think that this is a rather simple design. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar problem with the flag of the Australian Aborigines. --84.61.183.89 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep OMG... Chaddy (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh My God ;) Chaddy (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I meant that I didn't understand the rationale, not the meaning. I mean, it seems to me to be a copyrighted work, what obvious point am I missing? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it´s not copyrighted. It may be also after Commons rules be PD-ineligible. Chaddy (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But COM:SCOPE#Evidence requires that the uploader have provided evidence of its public domain status. Denelson83 (talk · contribs) claimed that (a) he is the copyright holder, and (b) that he releases his rights therefor. Since this is actually a derivative work of Messrs. Smith and Trudeau, we need evidence that their original work isn't copyrighted. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That´s copyright paranoia par excellence. Please stop this... Chaddy (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the design is wrong. According to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=37832 each ray needs to be a very thin diamond not just a line. However, I doubt this will be public domain in the USA. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright violation and apparently wrong as well. Kameraad Pjotr 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 restored because flags of official entities are as such OK on commons (whatever the "copyright" legislation says for other creations) - Please have a second thought. If the flag is wrong, it just needs to be corrected, and furthermore "Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg is used on at least 2172 pages in 98 projects.". Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Take this to DR instead of just restoring things like that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Undeleted. PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Commonwealth of Nations is a British institution, this is way over the COM:TOO in the UK, less than 50 years old. LGA talkedits 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.png
  •  Delete I'd like to read why User:Yann thinks it is not eligible. It looks to me to be well over any ToO and it is apparently from 1973, so it is not yet out of copyright, no matter whose rules apply. If this SVG is drawn from a blazon, then it would be OK, but that has not been suggested. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how a flag could have a copyright. Saying that it's a private organisation is not true. It's an association of several countries, which makes it very well a public entity, therefore it's flag is necessarily in the public domain. Yann (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why so? Certainly the UK and many of the other Commonwealth countries copyright their works. Most, maybe all, national flags are PD, but that's usually a special exception in each country's copyright law. I wouldn't assume that the flag of an association of countries is PD on that basis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rethorical question won't help much. The good question is, if I make a postcard or a poster with this flag, would a court forbide it because of copyright infringement? Very unlikely IMO. Yann (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could sign on to that argument, but doesn't it violate PRP#1? Hmm, maybe not. Ultimately copyright is what a court says it is. So you're claiming that it may have have a legal copyright wherever it was created, but that as a practical matter it doesn't have an enforceable one. Does that clear PRP? I think so. OK  Keep.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that flags are free to use? Google was recently prevented from including a flag in one of its customised logos; see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0554507894.shtml --Stefan4 (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan4: Well, that's the infamous flag of Australian aborigines, it's a very special case, and I am quite sure that it won't get a copyright except there. More importantly, don't create a general rule out of a very special case, as you are accustomed to do, that's a bad idea. The article you cite rightly shows irony that the artist "designed the flag as a symbol of unity and national identity" [...], but apparently that unity and identity doesn't extend to anyone else actually displaying the flag without paying for it. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting we reject actual examples or case law and have the arrogance to supplant that with our own learned judgment. Commons is all about creating unsubstantiated policy so long as it supports a Free Culture perspective. That's ironical. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean acknowledging both halves of the truth? Yes, so ironic we would ever do that. Fry1989 eh? 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I mean  Delete the thing unless you can provide some actual reference to case law or a legal opinion that support Yann's well intentioned and possibly correct lay opinion. Yes, that is a vote. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep On the grounds of the reason for the nomination. The Commonwealth is NOT a "British institution" any more than the United Nations is an "American institution" because the General Assembly is HQ'd in New York. The Commonwealth is a family of dozens and dozens of nations and this kind of foolish over-simplification serves no benefit to the actual status of the image. Furthermore, the flag was (partially) designed by a Canadian at a point in time after-which Canadian citizenship had departed from British citizenship, further complicating the notion of this being solely "British". Overall, the nominating reason is grossly flawed. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There seem to be a few errors/misunderstandings here. According to the relevant Flags of the World page, our image depicts the previous Commonwealth flag, which was replaced by an updated design in October 2013. The central globe was altered, the number of spearpoints surrounding the globe has been reduced from 64 to 34, and the field colour has changed to Pantone 280.
According to the Commonwealth's FAQ page, while the Commonwealth symbol (at the centre of the flag) has been redesigned a few times, it was initially designed by Gemini News Service, London, in 1972 - not by Arnold Smith and Pierre Trudeau. They mention Smith only as approving the design. --Avenue (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The central element of the original flag was designed by a London organisation (Gemini News Service, which went out of business in 2002[1]), and seems to be well above the UK threshold of originality. The changes since then may have attracted additional copyrights, but that is moot since the copyright on the initial design hasn't expired yet. I see no evidence that such a flag would be exempt from copyright protection in the UK (or the US), so I think we should delete it.
Also, although this isn't conclusive, I think it's interesting that the (previous) Commonwealth symbol isn't hosted here, but is hosted on enwiki under a fair use exemption. See w:File:Emblem of the Commonwealth of Nations.jpg. --Avenue (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above -FASTILY 07:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]