Commons:Deletion requests/File:Personal flag of Queen Elizabeth II.svg

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:Personal_flag_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II.svg

The uploader is clearly not the copyright-owner TreasuryTag (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is that clear? Did someone else draw the SVG? Or is it too close to the source bitmap version? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it clear that the Garter Principal King of Arms who designed the flag in 1961 didn't upload the image to Commons despite having been dead for over fifteen years? Well, it's just a hunch of mine... TreasuryTag (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Design does not equal copyright. See Commons:Coats of Arms. Each representation carries its own, separate copyright, and can be licensed independently. So, again, who drew this version? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can clearly see from the earliest history entry the drawing is "based on an image at http://www.flags.net/" which carries a stern copyright notice not compatible with free licenses.
I'm intrigued as to how it was that you were unable to find this out by looking at the image page? TreasuryTag (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see the source. By definition, an SVG is significantly different than a bitmap in terms of its authorship. It is still possible to be a derivative work, but there is generally a lot more detail in an SVG than a small bitmap... as again, "based on" does not necessarily mean "copied expression from". The bitmap was not directly copied (which would indeed be a problem, as the the copyright on that would seem to be owned by Graham Bartram, not the Garter Principal King of Arms ;-) ). The uploader of the SVG does appear to be its author, and definitely owns at least a portion of the copyright, so your original reason for nomination would seem to be flatly incorrect, which is what I was really getting at I guess. From that statement, you either had a misunderstanding of the nature of copyright, or knew of some vector source I was unaware of, thus my questions.

The main issue here is if it could be considered a derivative work of the bitmap (which is pretty tiny... not a great source for tracing, which is the usual concern). I'm not as certain on that one; a lot of the elements are pretty close actually, though there is a lot more detail in the SVG. Also, that style rose seems to be pretty common, and I'm not sure it really originated with the cited web page -- they could have used pre-existing rose graphics from somewhere else (maybe both used a similar source), in which case the copyright there is strictly on that exact bitmap, but not on similar-looking images authored separately. This SVG was uploaded more than four years ago, so it may not be so easy to track the provenance of the exact bits. But, portions of it are pretty close, and a case could be made I guess, if you believe the rose and crown elements originated with that source bitmap and did not come from some other source in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm... Bartram has contributed to Wikipedia some; maybe it would be good to ask him. The roses may have indeed come from him originally, though I do see some images from the Flag Institute uploaded supposedly with permission, so it's possible that part is freely licensed through some other route. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

KEEP This flag is used extensively, and there's no proof that it's a copyvio, it was nominated by someone who doesn't understand the licensing process, specifically many of the reasons listed above by others. We don't nominate things because of the "I the copyright holder" wording except when there's a clear violation. Just saying the person who SVGd a flag isn't the copyright holder because the flag was designed by someone else doesn't make it a vio. Fry1989 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"This flag is used extensively" – do we automatically keep extensively-used files regardless of their copyright status? If not, then you shouldn't have put that.

"It was nominated by someone who doesn't understand the licensing process" – interesting assertion, especially given my involvement in image copyright issues on the English Wikipedia, but my question is: do we automatically keep files if they were nominated for deletion by someone with an understanding of licensing less perfect than yours, Fry? If not, you shouldn't have put that.

I look forward to reading your reply. TreasuryTag (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

When a file that is used extensively is nominated for deletion, then greater scrutiny must be brought upon the nomination. In this case, I do not believe you understand that nomination process, as I have dealt with other people besides yourself nominating flags just because the person who SVGd it has the "I the copyright holder" wording in the licensing, but isn't the original designer. Do you know how many flags we have on here, with that licensing, but were designed by another person in the past, 20-30-50 years ago? Thousands. We don't nominate them just because of that, you need proof that the flag is a violation, and you so far do not. The flag is based off of the file at Flags.net, however that file is so poor, that it could not have been converted. Clearly Denelson83 drew and created this flag himself, which means that he holds copyright over this version. If you really object to that wording, we can always remove the {self} part of the licensing tag, but that's a separate matter, which should be discussed by the community. Fry1989 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you (accidentally?) failed to answer my question, allow me to rephrase it more directly: How is it in any way relevant to this discussion to point out that I am, in your view, unfamiliar with the licensing process, and how does that alleged fact affect whether or not the image should be deleted? TreasuryTag (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I answered your question quite clearly, and you failed to see it. I'm not attacking you, I'm saying that I feel you are mistaken in understanding the specific licensing to this file, and other files with the same. The website that contains the file that this one is based off of, has it's own copyright as a website, but it cannot hold copyright over the flags themselves, which are held by governments which use those flags. In this case, Denelson83 created the flag himself, because the Flags.net website file is too poor to be converted. That means that Denelson83 holds the rights to this flag, unless otherwise copyrighted somehow. You have not given any proof that it is, all you have said, is that first: Denelson83 isn't the original designer of the flag, which doesn't automatically mean it's a vio, and second: that it's based off a file at another website which can not hold the copyright to the flag. That is why I move for this flag to be kept. Unless someone else can show this flag is not free, and therefore shouldn't be on Commons, then this nomination is invalid for the reasons above. Fry1989 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Our policy on flags and coats of arms is clear. There is no copyright in the blazon -- the official written description of a flag or COA. There is a copyright in each representation of the blazon -- each drawing. Therefore a new, independent copyright exists in this SVG version which was drawn by the uploader. It is legally a DW of the blazon, which, as noted above, is not subject to copyright. Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)