Commons:Deletion requests/File:Silver Fern Sunburn.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.

File:Silver Fern Sunburn.png

[edit]

Previously published at https://flagoptions.com/public_html/newzealand/welcome/annes-designs/ without a free license. Also, as a random flag design from somebody's website, it's not clear that it's in scope --ghouston (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am both NZ_Flag_Maven, the uploader of the flag design in question, and Anne Onimous, the creator of all of the flag designs on the website https://flagoptions.com/public_html/newzealand/welcome/annes-designs/, as well as everything else on that website, which I recently built myself, I hardly think that the criterion mentioned above for deletion of my image upload is valid. Nice of you to visit my website, however. Kind regards, --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that the nominator thinks I have not adequately addressed 'scope', which is perhaps not so much a term of art as of opinion, I would point out that the Commons Category 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand', at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_national_flags_of_New_Zealand, includes several overtly absurd and/or amateurish flag designs that might better deserve the attention of the 'scope police' than 'Silver Fern Sunburn'. I might also mention that 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand' has the 'parent' Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_flag_debate, and that my image upload falls solidly within the scope of that debate, as does everything else on the website https://flagoptions.com/public_html/newzealand/. Further kind regards, --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to put a CC license on the flag on your website? Otherwise, the license should be confirmed using COM:OTRS. The files in Category:New Zealand flag referendums, 2015–16 are in scope because they took part in the flag referenda, although I'm not sure that they were all actually released with a free license. Some of the other files in Category:Proposed_national flags of New Zealand may also be out of scope. --ghouston (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, what are you on about? I have affirmed that the image is my own work and that it has no strings attached. There is no copyright so there is no need for OTRS nor for any licencing beyond Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0, under which I uploaded the image to Commons in the first place. The image is entirely germane to the scope of the Commons category in which it resides, 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand', as well as to the scope of the broader debate for which the category was originally created, the 'New Zealand flag debate', and that scope is not abrogated by your conflation of the valid categories with the unrelated category 'New Zealand flag referendums'. The fact that the image appears on my website, where every other image and document is also my own work and is also free of any strings, is irrelevant, and it in no way invalidates the Share Alike 4.0 license terms nor obligates me to take any further steps for either the image or for my website. Virtually every image in the category appears on a website somewhere. If you want to make it your mission to pedantically investigate all of those websites for specious grounds under which to weed out images from their Commons category, as well as all other images in all other Commons categories ad infinitum, then by all means, go, strain at gnats and swallow camels to your heart's desire. The world never lacks for those who will diligently strive to undermine the creations of others. I swear, mate, it almost seems as if you have your own horse in this race. You are not fighting the good fight here. Let it go. --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, your original complaint was based on the fact that the image appeared on the Internet before it appeared on Commons. It is true that I freely offered the image on my website several hours before I freely offered it on Commons, but that temporal sequence is irrelevant, no more a justification for removal of the image from Commons than a refusal to feed a child if the child's older sibling has been fed first. Do you know the expression 'reductio ad absurdum'? Presumably you would have had no complaint if I had presented the image on Commons before presenting it on my website. The mere fact that I offered the image first on the Internet has not magically imbued it with any copyright status that would invalidate the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0, or that would require additional licencing of the image or of my website, and such inferences only amount to a muddying of the waters. You will do what you are wont to do, and I rather think I shall survive it, but if you have a logical mind, rather than a dusty repository of pedantry and obfuscation, you will wipe your removal nomination from my image upload. In any event I am well and truly over your tedious objections, and really, mate, I just can't be bothered any more. --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just giving you a hand, because the decision won't be up to me, but the administrator who decides whether to delete it after a week. Commons has a policy that files previously published elsewhere either need a free license at the source, or confirmation with OTRS. This is because people are always uploading files that they find somewhere on the Web and claiming it to be their own work. As for scope, anyone can propose a new flag design for anything, but they aren't likely to be used on any Wikipedia page, or have any other educational use. --ghouston (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each page of my website now prominently displays the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. I thank you for your suggestion, and I apologise for my original truculent attitude toward your advice. I do not apologise for disagreeing with your constrained opinion of scope and of whether my image properly falls within the scope of its Commons category, 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand', given that the image is from a website that I have entirely devoted to that very subject, and not only to proposed flag designs but to related informational resources. I daresay that if you do not think my website provides 'educational' offerings to its target audience, you did not spend much time considering the ten resource PDF documents that if features in support of an entire 'philosophy' of flag design, nor the 64 flag designs that it currently showcases. I also find it curious that the 'scope' of the Commons category in question gives a pass to several proposed flag designs for which the only possible educational value would be the international media ridicule that they invited during the New Zealand flag referendums, as well as to other hopeless designs for which the single qualification seems to be a footnoted news or website article. Worst of all, the category is stuffed with designs that were proposed during the referendums but that were formally and forevermore rejected by those referendums, as well as with other designs that have been rejected for decades. The category might better be called 'Failed national flags of New Zealand'. How can any of those already rejected flag design proposals be more in scope than my flag design image, especially given the 'footnote' worthiness of its related website? I rather think that in time the images and resources of my website will accrue their own share of journalistic mentions, but even stripped for now of such pedigrees my image is definitely not one that just 'anyone' could have offered up to Commons. I would even go so far as to suggest that the Wikipedia article 'New Zealand flag debate' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_flag_debate should include a link to my website, but doubtless someone else with a pinched view of scope would disallow it. --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the license. I searched a bit in Commons and found that although some flags have been deleted as proposed or fictional, others have been retained, and there's also Category:Special or fictional flags.

deleted:

kept:

Numerous others can be found with searches like [1]. --ghouston (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your search listings. Are you trying to say that what you found in your searches somehow provides justification for removal of my Commons image? If so, how, exactly? --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's unclear, since some have been deleted but others kept. --ghouston (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will inform you of what I think is a Commons image that should clearly be removed from the category 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand', as well as from the two other Commons categories in which it appears. As preface you might want to visit the Wikipedia page 'Tino rangatiratanga' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga. Afterwards see the Commons image 'Rangi-Papa flag' at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rangi-Papa_flag.svg. But for the change of one of its colours, this image is an exact copy of the Tino Rangatiratanga flag, which was designed in 1989 by Hiraina Marsden, Jan Smith, and Linda Munn, and which was formally introduced in 1990. The flag was intended to be a symbol of Māori sovereignty, and it is widely regarded to be the Māori national flag, notwithstanding its rejection by some Māori who prefer the United Tribes of New Zealand flag. Of the three designers of Tino Rangatiratangi, only Linda Munn survives. Because of annoying and unauthorised usage of the design, many times for profit, Ms. Munn obtained a copyright. In the run-up to the NZ flag referendums of 2015-16, the Flag Consideration Panel met with iwi (Māori tribes) as well as with Ms. Munn and the surviving whenua (family) of Hiraina Marsden and Jan Smith, to ask permission to include Tino Rangatiratangi as a candidate for a new national flag, a culturally insensitive request that was politely refused by all to whom it was put. The 'author' of the Rangi-Papa flag image is attributed to a link that goes to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tino_Rangatiratanga_Maori_sovereignty_movement_flag.svg. This is an undisguised image of Tino Rangatiratanga that does at least acknowledge its designers, but its Commons page insultingly claims that its 'author', Fry1989, has released the image into the public domain. I sincerely doubt that Linda Munn ever authorised either of these two images for Commons usage of any kind, let alone public domain usage. In any event no version of Tino Rangatiratanga or any ripoff thereof will ever qualify as a 'proposed national flag of New Zealand', because its proper copyright holder has denied its use for that purpose. In every possible way then, because it is in clear violation of copyright, because it has been given false claims of authorship, and because it cannot possibly belong in the Commons category 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand, the Rangi-Papa flag image should be summarily removed. Evidence of Ms. Munn's copyright can be found in old online news articles such as http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3293982/Harawira-warned-over-making-money-on-flag and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10624124. The denial of the flag for use as the national flag is not well known, which explains why even some New Zealand journalists have called for it to be used for just that purpose. Proof of the denial can be found on page 36 of the PDF at http://www.silverfernflag.org/uploads/1/0/2/2/10222610/nz_flag_facts_malcolm_mulholland.pdf. There was also at least one online news article that mentioned this, but I have not been able to locate it, so as further proof I can only offer an excerpt from an e-mail that was courteously provided to me by the Flag Consideration Panel, shortly before it disbanded: "...Please also note that the Panel’s Waitangi engagement hui, held at Te Tiriti o Waitangi Marae on Sunday 5 July 2015, the Panel were informed that the Tino Rangatiratanga Flag should not be included in the process. On the basis of that understanding, Panel members met with the whānau of the Tino Rangatiratanga Flag designers and they confirmed this was their preference...NZ Flag Consideration Project Secretariat Team...27-9-2015". --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles about the Tino Rangatiratanga flag are strange. Copyright these days is obtained automatically when a work is created, you don't need to apply for it. One of the articles says the flag wouldn't be eligible for copyright. The file was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg but was kept on the grounds that its composed of simple geometrical shapes and so not copyrightable, although there was some disagreement. I've change the license template to say PD-ineligible as per that discussion. --ghouston (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also adjusted File:Rangi-Papa flag.svg a bit and moved it to the referendums category. --ghouston (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat disappointed by the reserved actions that you took in regards to the Tino Rangatiratanga flag ripoff, but I realise that you have probably based those actions on one or more Wiki 'essays', and that you do not profess to be an authority on New Zealand copyright law. I am unable to present any definitive proof as to whether Linda Munn holds a copyright, trust interest, or some other form of intellectual property right over the Tino Rangatiratanga flag design. The New Zealand Intellectual Property Office states clearly on its website that it maintains no searchable databases for such things, and I have been unable to find any way of simply contacting Linda Munn by e-mail to ask whether anything eventually came of the efforts that were made on her behalf to protect the design. However, given that you read the articles and that you learned such efforts had in fact been made, whether or not those efforts ever came to anything, would to my mind have justified the deletion suggestion that I made.

In regard to the notion that flag designs with 'simple geometric shapes' cannot be copyrighted, I would call your attention to the Wikipedia article 'Australian Aboriginal Flag' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_Flag, for which footnote 9 leads to verification that Harold Thomas, the flag's creator, holds an official copyright: https://web.archive.org/web/20050616091250/http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles/A97n07.pdf. Moreover, if you review the information at http://www.ausflag.com.au/replace_the_union_jack.asp and at http://www.ausflag.com.au/harold_thomas.asp, you will learn that Harold Thomas does not want the Aboriginal Flag to be the Australian national flag nor the canton of such a flag, and please keep any alternative parsing of his words to yourself. As an old Luritja man, Mr. Thomas has had a history of oppression at the hands of Australia's dominant culture that began when he was a mere child being torn from his family for utterly specious reasons. He is too polite and reserved to simply come out and say 'whitey, keep your damned exploitative hands off of my Aboriginal flag design', so if you can't read between the lines, don't read at all. If you then go to the Wikipedia article 'List of proposed Australian flags' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_Australian_flags, you will see that the second flag depicted is just the sort of thing that Mr. Thomas does not countenance, and if you click on the flag you will find that its uploader has apparently added insult to injury by flagging the image as a public domain item. To me, the ethical grounds for deleting both this image and the Tino Rangatiratanga flag ripoff are clear, but I am not going to try to make either case again. --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nominator: Howzbout requesting a withdrawal of your deletion request per: "The nominator may request early closure or withdrawal of a deletion request they started by adding a comment in the deletion request, for example when subsequent edits have corrected problems or missing details on the image page." Your nomination is over the 7-day limit already, and my image upload is nowhere near controversial enough to deserve a state of limbo. --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is off-topic for deciding whether your flag is actually within Commons scope. I've noticed in the three discussions I listed above where fictional flags were kept, the images are in use in Wikipedia articles, so they are automatically in scope. The NZ referenda flags are in scope because they can be used when discussing the referenda (the licenses may be questionable, but it's hard for me to work out which ones are actually eligible for copyright. The Aboriginal flag is a particularly strange example which has been discussed elsewhere, see Category:Australian Aboriginal flag related deletion requests.) Generally, I'd think a proposed flag would need to be recognised by somebody other than its designer. --ghouston (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recognised by somebody other than its designer? What, you mean by somebody on another website? By a national flag design contest, at a time when no such contests are being held? Would e-mails from several of my kiwi friends and acquaintances suffice? This last hoop that you want me to jump through is a catch 22: nobody can notice my proposed national flag design if it has not been widely published, but you don't think my proposed national flag design should be widely published until it has been noticed by somebody. And what is off-topic about pointing out what I regard to be your double standard? You have read for yourself that neither the creator of the Tino Rangatiratanga flag nor the creator of the Aboriginal flag want their designs to be considered for national flag status, and you have read for yourself that one of the designs is definitely copyrighted and that the creator of the other flag has at least sought intellectual property rights. You also know that there is no record of either designer giving permission for their design to be depicted on Commons in any category, not just in a category of proposed national flags. Yet after much hand-wringing you give both of those highly-questionable image uploads a pass, whilst for my image upload you are a dog with a bone. Mate, I think you might just be in this for the fun of trying to provoke me, so this really will be the very last thing that I will say on the matter: Administrator, do as you think best, Ghouston, go jump in a lake. --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. --Jcb (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Silver_Fern_Sunburn.png&oldid=875852761"