Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo sot.jpg

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:Logo sot.jpg

In absence of further explanation, it is to be assumed that this is copyrighted, and there is insufficient evidence of permission. Ubcule (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Keep: This is an official logo of a section of the w:es:Chilean_Gendarmerie, and as an organization dependient of the Government of Chile, the logo is covered under the {{PD-Chile}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The phrasing in the template says "fallen into" the public domain (i.e. due to age). Is that the case here? From the discussions, it doesn't appear that Commons' collective understanding of the status of such government-produced material has been sufficiently resolved. Ubcule (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is an official emblem/logo/coat of arms of an official entitie dependient of the State of Chile (Gendarmerie of Chile), and therefore, these works are covered under the {{PD-Chile}}. Any doubts? Please read the Chilean Copyright law (specifically the article 88), and as summary, Template_talk:PD-Chile, before commenting again. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already read the discussion. It appears that there is no clearly-defined consensus what "article 88" specifically claims, or at least whether it constitutes "public domain" (at one extreme) or "fair use" (at the other end).

I don't like that "PD-chile" template because it doesn't explain *why* a particular image is "PD" in Chile; it simply refers to Chilean law. By implication, it places the onus of investigating that law (and a lot of work) and proving *their* case on anyone disputing an image's status. That is incorrect. The onus always lies with those claiming a particular image *is* free (i.e. the uploader or anyone else) to clearly explain *their* case (i.e. why the image *is* free).

It is unreasonable to expect discussion on a case-by-case basis, which is why there should be a settled discussion on that law in general, which can be used to form clear guidelines and templates for use by the community. "Read article 88 of the Chilean copyright law" or "read this inconclusive discussion" are not satisfactory for that purpose.

Regarding the template; US works also have different reasons why they may be free or public-domain. That is why (for example) there are different templates used for "PD due to age" and "PD due to being a government work". These (a) make the situation clear and (b) imply that the rationale and law behind them has been thoroughly considered.

That is not the case here; as I already mentioned, "pd-Chile" simply says "this is PD due to Chilean law" but doesn't explain why.

I am not opposed in principle to this image belonging on Commons *if* it can be reliably shown that it is free. But I would like the case to be clearer. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to clear up the issue? Ubcule (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this case is very similar (or the same) as a controversial Deletion request for the FBI emblem. Anyway, I requested information about the topic to the INAPI, according to the Law 20285, that may take up to 20 days to get an answer.

Also, there are several similar logos of entities from the State of Chile. Opening a DR for these files are sane? --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

By "oneing", I assume that you're suggesting combining the cases? That sounds like a sensible idea if they all use the same rationale; as I said, it's impractical to judge stuff like this on a case-by-case basis. Ubcule (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Mention a mispell (By "oneing") is assuming bad faith! Just wait the answer from the INAPI, once I get the answer, I'll contact to OTRS, and they will decide the future of the file. All of this has been necessary because your ingorance of the Chilean Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't deliberately highlighting your (very minor) typo. I honestly thought "onening" was slang or terminology I was unfamiliar with. Now I see that it was obviously meant to be "opening", but I didn't realise that at the time.

That said, Assume good faith only relates to cases where it's unclear whether a person's *intent* is helpful or malicious. By definition mistakes *aren't* intentional... so even *if* I had intentinally highlighted your mistake (which I didn't) it wouldn't have breached AGF... although it *would* have been petty and unhelpful.

Ironically, you should have assumed good faith on my part- I *wasn't* intentionally trying to make you look stupid!

(It's also generally bad form to go back and change comments after they've been replied to like you did here, since it's now unclear where the reference to "onening" came from) Ubcule (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional; you say "All of this has been necessary because your ingorance of the Chilean Copyright Law."

I honestly thought you understood what had been said above. Now it's clear that you haven't. So I'll explain again.

The 'onus is on the uploader (and whoever else claims an image is free) to make their case clear.

The responsibility is *not* on me (nor anyone else) to become an expert in Chilean copyright law or to take your claims on trust. That's not how Commons works.

The template used is too general vague, stating simply that "it has *fallen* into the public domain" according to Chilean copyright law. How? Due to age? Or due to being a government work? Those are two different cases, and the template provides no explanation.

You referred me to a long discussion which clearly had *not* come to a conclusion- at best, I would only be able to draw my own point of view.

We *should* be in a situation where the matter has been clearly resolved by those who *are* sufficiently knowledgable in Chilean copyright law and is clear enough that we can use standard templates.

This is not the sort of thing that should have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The problem here is that the legal basis for such claims under Chilean law in general have not been clarified sufficiently enough that the rationale can be made clear via a single template.

But I've a feeling this is more a discussion regarding general policy now, and would perhaps be better discussed elsewhere. Ubcule (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wait the answer from the INAPI and the OTRS ticket, once I get the answer. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)