Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg
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.
It's unclear why this image would be PD, as we claim. The flag was only designed quite recently (in 1989). One of its creators is still alive (and is exploiting the design commercially; see e.g. the June 9 post on her Facebook page). So I think it should still be under copyright. Avenue (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep There's nothing copyrightable, it's basic geometry. Until there's a written proof of it being granted a copyright, there is zero reason to believe otherwise. Fry1989 eh? 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I think the geometry is more complex (if anything) than the w:Australian Aboriginal Flag, and there have been court decisions upholding the copyright on that. Perhaps we should distinguish between copyright in the flag's source country (New Zealand) and in the United States. If it's NZ-copyrightable but not US-copyrightable, then it could be copied to English Wikipedia (and some other wikis?) before being deleted here. --Avenue (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Australia and New Zealand are two different countries, their copyrights are not directly comparable. Furthermore it's incredibly unbelievable that Australia ever granted a copyright to the Aboriginal flag, and the only reason we are not hosting it here is because we have explicit written proof that it is deemed copyrighted. No such explicit proof exists for this file, and without such there is absolutely zero reason to believe this is copyrighted in New Zealand. Come up with some sort of evidence leaning in that direction, and perhaps I will reconsider. Until then, this is a very clear keep. Fry1989 eh? 01:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to agree that Australia and New Zealand are different countries, but their copyright laws have more in common with each other than with US law. The copyright claim has been reported seriously in the NZ press (e.g. Maori flag copyright not about money - designer in the New Zealand Herald).
- I'm also unconvinced that the geometry here is as simple as you say. We're looking at a couple of interlocking spirals linking the bands of colour, cleverly referencing the traditional use of fern frond designs (koru) in Maori art, but not following their typical form. Would this really fail to meet the US threshold of originality? --Avenue (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Commonality between countries is not enough, we need proof. The Herald's report of the designer's intent to claim copyright is not proof that it has been granted. However to answer your last question, yes it would absolutely fall under the United States' threshold of originality. Fry1989 eh? 02:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to have things backwards. We need proof that it's PD to keep it, not to delete it. Well, "proof" is probably too strong a word, but there should at least be no significant doubt about it being PD (see COM:PRP). I believe the Australian situation, plus the greater complexity of the Maori flag design, creates significant doubt about its PD status in NZ. Please show relevant NZ law or court decisions that would support your assertion that the flag is PD in New Zealand.
- It's your opinion, strongly held I'm sure, that the flag doesn't meet the US originality threshold. I would still like to hear views from others on this question. --Avenue (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, I do not have things backwards at all. While it is true that arguments must be made on why something is PD (which I actually have made, whether you agree or not), you can not simply say "I think this might be copyrighted" without any proof whatsoever and we delete it. Your link to the Herald is very interesting, because it says that the designer intends to claim copyright on the flag. However you acknowledge the flag was designed in 1989 which means it was not copyrighted until at least 2010 (the date of the story), if copyright has been granted at all. There simply is zero proof that the claim of copyright has been accepted. Fry1989 eh? 17:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Commonality between countries is not enough, we need proof. The Herald's report of the designer's intent to claim copyright is not proof that it has been granted. However to answer your last question, yes it would absolutely fall under the United States' threshold of originality. Fry1989 eh? 02:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Australia and New Zealand are two different countries, their copyrights are not directly comparable. Furthermore it's incredibly unbelievable that Australia ever granted a copyright to the Aboriginal flag, and the only reason we are not hosting it here is because we have explicit written proof that it is deemed copyrighted. No such explicit proof exists for this file, and without such there is absolutely zero reason to believe this is copyrighted in New Zealand. Come up with some sort of evidence leaning in that direction, and perhaps I will reconsider. Until then, this is a very clear keep. Fry1989 eh? 01:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I think the geometry is more complex (if anything) than the w:Australian Aboriginal Flag, and there have been court decisions upholding the copyright on that. Perhaps we should distinguish between copyright in the flag's source country (New Zealand) and in the United States. If it's NZ-copyrightable but not US-copyrightable, then it could be copied to English Wikipedia (and some other wikis?) before being deleted here. --Avenue (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Avenue that while New Zealand and Australia are different countries (very different in some respects), the Commonwealth countries tend to have similar laws and respect each other's court decisions. The TOO is lower throughout the Commonwealth than it is in the USA. I think it would be a close call in the USA. With that said, I note that the copyright registration was apparently initiated in 2010 (the date of the cited article) but I can find nothing on Google to suggest that it has been completed. That suggests to me that it was not successful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think the news story got that detail wrong (as they often do on technical topics). Here is some relevant commentary from specialists in intellectual property, practising in New Zealand: Can I copyright that? In particular, they say:
- "Contrary to the story as reported, Ms Munn does not have to take any steps to register the copyright and can assert ownership and any conditions of use."
- "So would copyright exist in the Tino Rangatiratanga flag? Based on the publicly available information it would appear that it would."
- --Avenue (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Normally creators do not need to assert copyright as their images are above the threshold of originality. In this case, there's no proof of that, so we need solid proof that it is copyrighted. The Herald's report is quite clear that the designer was attempting to assert her copyright, and that it hadn't been held up until then. There's no proof on the outcome of her attempt, so we have to assume it failed. You still have zero proof that this is above the threshold of originality and that it is held under copyright. What you have provided is a complete manipulation of the Herald's report in your favour without proof. Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- You continue to demand proof that the image is under copyright. That is not what our policy requires; all that is needed for deletion is significant doubt that the image is free. I have quoted an expert saying the flag appears to be under copyright (in NZ, presumably). That seems to me to raise plenty of doubt about its freedom. --Avenue (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's right I'm demanding it, and you've been told why. The flag was designed in 1989, and the designer only decided to assert her copyright over it in 2010. That means that no copyright restrictions were enforced over the flag for 21 years, in other words, it wasn't copyrighted. There's no proof the designer's decision was accepted, it quite easily could have been refused under threshold of originality concerns, there simply is no proof at this point of either direction. All you have is a rather foolish comparison of the Australian situation and a newspaper report of the designer's intent. That's hardly proof, and clearly Jameslwoodward agrees because he's saying the same thing. You have nothing so far that would cause us to delete this image. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Even those "rather foolish" things would be enough, in my view. But there was more. Did you miss the link I gave in my reply to Jim above, to an NZ lawyer's opinion on this flag? I'll quote it again: "So would copyright exist in the Tino Rangatiratanga flag? Based on the publicly available information it would appear that it would." --Avenue (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, they aren't. We have no idea what selective information you sent to "Can I copyright that?", or if you even sent it at all. I have my right to disagree as does Jameslwoodward, and we both currently do. So instead of whining and trying to bash us over the head with what little circumstantial evidence you currently have, why don't you work harder on convincing us with harder proof. Fry1989 eh? 18:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the problem is not with the proof I've offered, but that you continually misconstrue it. I would be happy to agree to disagree with you. I am not so happy to see each new misconception of yours stand here unanswered.
- To address the latest one, the "Can I copyright that?" page I've linked to is not based on any information I've sent to its author, because (a) I haven't contacted them, and (b) it was written long before this DR. When Jim said he was having trouble anything conclusive on Google, I looked again and found that page. Look at the bottom of the page and you will see that a version of it was published in 2010, around the time the story hit the news. --Avenue (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Look, two users disagree and you have yet to get anyone on board who does. Either you can keep getting confrontational about the "evidence" you already have and why we won't listen, or you can be constructive and try and convince us further with different more conclusive proof one way or the other. Your choice. Fry1989 eh? 17:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, they aren't. We have no idea what selective information you sent to "Can I copyright that?", or if you even sent it at all. I have my right to disagree as does Jameslwoodward, and we both currently do. So instead of whining and trying to bash us over the head with what little circumstantial evidence you currently have, why don't you work harder on convincing us with harder proof. Fry1989 eh? 18:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Even those "rather foolish" things would be enough, in my view. But there was more. Did you miss the link I gave in my reply to Jim above, to an NZ lawyer's opinion on this flag? I'll quote it again: "So would copyright exist in the Tino Rangatiratanga flag? Based on the publicly available information it would appear that it would." --Avenue (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's right I'm demanding it, and you've been told why. The flag was designed in 1989, and the designer only decided to assert her copyright over it in 2010. That means that no copyright restrictions were enforced over the flag for 21 years, in other words, it wasn't copyrighted. There's no proof the designer's decision was accepted, it quite easily could have been refused under threshold of originality concerns, there simply is no proof at this point of either direction. All you have is a rather foolish comparison of the Australian situation and a newspaper report of the designer's intent. That's hardly proof, and clearly Jameslwoodward agrees because he's saying the same thing. You have nothing so far that would cause us to delete this image. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- You continue to demand proof that the image is under copyright. That is not what our policy requires; all that is needed for deletion is significant doubt that the image is free. I have quoted an expert saying the flag appears to be under copyright (in NZ, presumably). That seems to me to raise plenty of doubt about its freedom. --Avenue (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Normally creators do not need to assert copyright as their images are above the threshold of originality. In this case, there's no proof of that, so we need solid proof that it is copyrighted. The Herald's report is quite clear that the designer was attempting to assert her copyright, and that it hadn't been held up until then. There's no proof on the outcome of her attempt, so we have to assume it failed. You still have zero proof that this is above the threshold of originality and that it is held under copyright. What you have provided is a complete manipulation of the Herald's report in your favour without proof. Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Question Is Harold Thomas still living? --84.61.150.155 13:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Harold Thomas is the designer of the Australian Aboriginal flag, we are talking about the Tino Rangatiratanga flag in New Zealand. Please pay attention. Fry1989 eh? 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Question Can this file moved to de.wikipedia.org, please? --84.61.150.155 18:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's something you have to ask there. darkweasel94 18:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Apparently permissible on Commons as PD-ineligible FASTILY 09:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
