Commons:Deletion requests/File:IPN Seal.png
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.
The main page (where the image was taken) says in spanish:
«Esta página es una obra intelectual protegida por la Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor, puede ser reproducida con fines no lucrativos, siempre y cuando no se mutile, se cite la fuente completa y su dirección electrónica; su uso para otros fines, requiere autorización previa y por escrito de la Directora General del Instituto».
Translated is:
«This page is an intellectual work protected by the Federal Copyright Law, may be reproduced for non-profit purposes, provided they do not mutilate, it quotes the complete source and electronic address, its use for other purposes, requires prior permission writing by the Director General of the Institute».
This is incompatible with license of Wikimedia Commons Gusama Romero (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. "© 2013 Sony Corporation of America". To claim copyrights and to have copyrights are not the same thing. IPN is a government-operated school, and as such {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} applies. Tbhotch™ 21:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the point. I understand that we can use the emblems. But that image was taken from a page that has an incompatible license. --Gusama Romero (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- And again, you cannot claim copyrights if a law say that you can't own them (that's why I posted Sony's logo as an example). You can claim trademark violations, which is different, but "IPN" or related logotypes are not trademarked, and Wikimedia has no problems with trademarks. We can cite 1000s of similar examples where the author (Sony, Samsung, Apple, Coca-Cola, etc.) has an "all right reserved", "you can use our content with non-profit purposes", "you can't reproduce our page without our permission", etc. message on their webpages, products, and retail, but if a law states otherwise you can't claim you own the copyrights, you just own the trademarks. Tbhotch™ 04:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let me clarify: I'm not arguing a violation of copyright of the shield. Only said that the logo was taken from a site whose content is protected, so it is not legal to use when no consent is given. If the image was created by another person or extracted from a page with a compatible license would be different. In other words, does not have the permission from the author. Sorry for my English, is not my native language. --Gusama Romero (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- This very same logo was deleted before (I tagged it). This logo isn't free and can't be published under {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} because the IPN is not a state, municipality, nor any other political subdivision, nor a similar distinctive symbol belonging to an international or "recognized" organization, nor NGO. It is just a public educational institute. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- From RAE, "Organización.- Asociación de personas regulada por un conjunto de normas en función de determinados fines.", therefore, it qualifies as "an international or 'recognized' organization, or NGO, operating in or outside of Mexico." Also per {{PD-MX-exempt}} "Copyright shall not apply to shields ... or emblems of ... names, acronyms, symbols or emblems of ... any ... organization officially recognized." Now, Romero has a point and I don't know if the file should be deleted or kept because of that Tbhotch™ 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Mexican law says:
- «No son materia de reserva de derechos: […] Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política equivalente, ni las denominaciones, siglas, símbolos o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los mismos. […] Sin embargo, serán objeto de protección las concordancias, interpretaciones, estudios comparativos, anotaciones, comentarios y demás trabajos similares que entrañen, por parte de su autor, la creación de una obra original».
- Translate:
- “They are not subject to reservation of rights: […] The reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of flags or emblems of any country, state, town or equivalent political subdivision, or the names, abbreviations, symbols or emblems of international governmental organizations, NGOs, or any other officially recognized organization and verbal designation of these. […] However, it should be protected concordances, interpretations, comparative studies, annotations, comments and other similar work involving the creation of an original work by their author”.
- That is, if a person creates for himself an imitation of a shield without authorization, is not incurs a copyright violation. But can not be reproduce or copy an element from original work. --Gusama Romero (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- {{PD-MX-exempt}} and this law can't be aplied because this is not an emblem of a country, state, municipality or political division. I don't think either that IPN is NGO or international or "recognized" organization. It is a university. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa] @ 18:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) —
- I already gave you the meaning of organization, you just commented the same with a different ending (institute -> university). You speak Spanish, right? You can search for the meaning of "organization", "university" and "institution" at RAE website and all of them are related in a form:
- "Universidad": Instituto público de enseñanza donde se hacían los estudios mayores de ciencias y letras, y con autoridad para la colación de grados en las facultades correspondientes.
- "Instituto": Organismo que desempeña una función de interés público, especialmente benéfico o docente.
- "Organización": Asociación de personas regulada por un conjunto de normas en función de determinados fines.
- It is simple, depending the context, they can be used as synonyms. The problem is not the concept, the problem is Mexican law, which is written in a vague form and use the wrong words. Tbhotch™ 22:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I never questioned it was an organization. I question it is an officialy recognized institution. As far as I see it is only public. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa] —@ 21:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I already gave you the meaning of organization, you just commented the same with a different ending (institute -> university). You speak Spanish, right? You can search for the meaning of "organization", "university" and "institution" at RAE website and all of them are related in a form:
- {{PD-MX-exempt}} and this law can't be aplied because this is not an emblem of a country, state, municipality or political division. I don't think either that IPN is NGO or international or "recognized" organization. It is a university. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa] @ 18:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) —
- The Mexican law says:
- From RAE, "Organización.- Asociación de personas regulada por un conjunto de normas en función de determinados fines.", therefore, it qualifies as "an international or 'recognized' organization, or NGO, operating in or outside of Mexico." Also per {{PD-MX-exempt}} "Copyright shall not apply to shields ... or emblems of ... names, acronyms, symbols or emblems of ... any ... organization officially recognized." Now, Romero has a point and I don't know if the file should be deleted or kept because of that Tbhotch™ 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- This very same logo was deleted before (I tagged it). This logo isn't free and can't be published under {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} because the IPN is not a state, municipality, nor any other political subdivision, nor a similar distinctive symbol belonging to an international or "recognized" organization, nor NGO. It is just a public educational institute. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let me clarify: I'm not arguing a violation of copyright of the shield. Only said that the logo was taken from a site whose content is protected, so it is not legal to use when no consent is given. If the image was created by another person or extracted from a page with a compatible license would be different. In other words, does not have the permission from the author. Sorry for my English, is not my native language. --Gusama Romero (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- And again, you cannot claim copyrights if a law say that you can't own them (that's why I posted Sony's logo as an example). You can claim trademark violations, which is different, but "IPN" or related logotypes are not trademarked, and Wikimedia has no problems with trademarks. We can cite 1000s of similar examples where the author (Sony, Samsung, Apple, Coca-Cola, etc.) has an "all right reserved", "you can use our content with non-profit purposes", "you can't reproduce our page without our permission", etc. message on their webpages, products, and retail, but if a law states otherwise you can't claim you own the copyrights, you just own the trademarks. Tbhotch™ 04:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the point. I understand that we can use the emblems. But that image was taken from a page that has an incompatible license. --Gusama Romero (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
IPN is an educational institution of the State, is a subordinate (in spanish is called “desconcentrada”, does not mean the same that decentralized) organization of the Secretaria de Educación Pública (Ministry of Public Education or Secretariat of Public Education — government cabinet) and is officially recognized [1]. But the IPN website is a protected work, at least so indicated. --Gusama Romero (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now; although I have reviewed, I can't found this image on the mentioned website. Maybe comes from ancient version, or maybe incurs an erroneous documentation, because is not indicating the original source. --Gusama Romero (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Tbhotch was updated the source, but the problem is the same, in this new website the legal indication is: «Universidad de Guadalajara © Derechos reservados ©1997 - 2012». The copyright is not compatible with free licenses. --Gusama Romero (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I update the source for verification. The UdG is not the copyholder of the logo regardless their license. Tbhotch™ 00:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it still being the same case as "© 2013 Sony Corporation of America". You hava a valid point about Commons:Licensing about "Commercial use of the work must be allowed", but that's it. The final decision will be about if we can use the logo considering IPN copyright use policy along with Mexican copyright protection law v. Wikimedia's Licesing policy. Tbhotch™ 00:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tbhotch was updated the source, but the problem is the same, in this new website the legal indication is: «Universidad de Guadalajara © Derechos reservados ©1997 - 2012». The copyright is not compatible with free licenses. --Gusama Romero (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
