Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minnesotaseal.png

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.

No source, no premission, no license Svgalbertian (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The State seal is PD, and the Vector file was independently drawn. You really should have considered that it was used extensively on dozens of Wikipedias before nominating it for deletion. Fry1989 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vector image you are referring to is, File:Seal of Minnesota.svg and it was deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination). As per that deletion discussion work of Minnesota state government is not PD.--Svgalbertian (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that deletion discussion, and appologize for suggesting you nomintaed it yourself, however would not apply to the State seal, both PNG or SVG because they are PD under US federal law, as they were adopted in 1861. This file should not be deleted, and the SVG should be brought back to Commons for that reason. I don't understand how that could have been overlooked. Fry1989 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would only apply if it is identical to the version published in 1901. Given this seal contains may elements that could be subject to artistic interpretation e.g. people, animals, landscapes this version can carry its own copyright. And without any source for this image we cannot know what the copyright status is. See Commons:Coats of Arms for more information.--Svgalbertian (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, the SVG file was indepedently colourized by a user, per his source (the file only came in B&W from his source, which proves the user did it himself), that means that because he altered it in the process, as would be needed to colourize that seal, he then holds the rights to that version. He released it on Commons under a license that no longer exists, however it should have been re-licensed as PD-US, because the seal itself was adopted in 1861, and the current cut-off date is Jan 1st 1923 in US federal law. Being independently created and publicly released on Commons, that SVG file should be brought back for these reasons. As per this PNG file, IDK whether it shoud be kept or not, however it does appear to be a direct copy from Vector-Images.com, so that would be the source that Svgalbertian is seeking. Fry1989 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are talking about File:Seal of Minnesota.svg. While I did colorize the image and release that work into the public domain, the rest of the image was directly copied from brandsoftheworld.com. Simply making a derivative work does not negate previous copyrights. In terms of the year it was adopted, I again refer you to Commons:Coats of Arms. --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The colourized version is different from the B&W version. Fry1989 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that it is color, and not black and white, yes. As the creator of the image, I did not modify the black and white outline in anyway. --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can, and then upload it myself. I'm in the process of making minor updates to some seal files anyways, and that will remove any issue of originality. Fry1989 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not re-upload the image. Please put forth an undeletion request instead.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intent to just re-upload, but anyhow, that's done. Fry1989 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is not part of this deletion request. It is for the undeletion of File:Seal_of_Minnesota.svg and should be part of Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Seal of Minnesota.svg. My apologizes for further mixing the two.--Svgalbertian (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Barring presentation of evidence showing the new elements are not sufficiently creative to attract copyright, then this 1983 rendition of the seal is not PD by way of age. No other vehicle seems to be present to confirm the seal is PD. Also, simply redrawing it doesn't render the redrawing suitable for relicensing by the person who redraws it. Further, if you make it different enough that it's not a derivative work, but an entirely new work, then it's not the seal of Minnesota, making its utility pretty worthless. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The basic seal design is part of law, and PD anyways (see Commons:Coats of Arms). The state does not have any copyright ownership of the basic design, or any 1983 changes even. Any depiction put in the law is also PD. Each rendition does have copyright though, and it's not clear where this one came from. Copying graphics from websites is usually a copyright violation, and that goes for someone's particular version of a seal as well. If this was copied from vector-images, then definitely delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A graphic work is never a derivative work of a written design -- that is fundamental to copyright. The design is an idea, and there can be many (copyrightable) expressions of that idea. Second, the content of all law (including state law) is public domain ({{PD-EdictGov}}). When it comes to the actual design on the metal die... that is trickier. It very well could have been published without a copyright notice, and moreover the seal itself does have a legal effect -- people need to know what it looks like so they can identify a properly sealed document -- and I'm honestly not sure where that leaves things. States generally have special laws to protect against fraudulent usages of seal designs, as by law they cannot be trademarked, but I'm not completely sure of the copyright status. As far as other people making their own drawings of the design, those are all copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least one state (Alaska), BTW, argued in a court case that that "a state seal, because it is the symbol of a sovereign, is not a type of work that comes within the subject matter of copyright" (Robart v State of Alaska). I'd still have to think that individual drawings of the design (particularly by third parties) would each have their own, unrelated copyright, but the actual seal dies and the impressions they leave in paper... not sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]