Commons:Deletion requests/File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg

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:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg

[edit]

No evidence that this representation of the coat of arms was published before 1923. Stefan4 (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's too old, the University was created in the 1200s. This is an interpretation of the blazon which is ancient.  Keep Fry1989 eh? 20:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source for your claim. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For which claim? That the university is nearly 1000 years old? Or that because of the extreme age, nearly any rendition of the coat of arms would be out of copyright? Fry1989 eh? 23:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that this rendition of the coat of arms is old. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is there any that it is not. So you have to make an educated guess, and with 900 years leaning on the side of "not", that's my guess. You don't have to agree but you're not gonna make me change my guess. Fry1989 eh? 22:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:PCP, we have to assume that this is a recent rendition unless you find evidence of the opposite. Compare with File:Cambridge shield.png by User:Lupin and File:Cambridge University Crest - flat.png by w:User:Prisonblues which are obviously recent renditions as the artists were still alive when Wikipedia was founded. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my vote based on known facts regarding the age of the university and the principle of probability, and it's not changing. Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The fact that this drawing is not a scan but a computer generated rendition makes the probability of a work old enough to be out of copyright very weak. Unless it can be proven that this file is PD, COM:PCP must apply. Kathisma (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no proof of that, it's heavily cropped and could just as easily be enhanced than not. Fry1989 eh? 00:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I'm closing this because it is stale. A keep position is suggested by the University of Cambridge's site which itself dates the coat of arms to 1573. Эlcobbola talk 21:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg

Invalid keep closure: the page https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/communications/services/trademark/about/coat.html only identifies the age of the textual representation of the coat of arms, not this graphical representation of the coat of arms. The age of the textual representation of a coat of arms is unrelated to the copyright status of a graphical representation of the coat of arms, see COM:COA. Stefan4 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep per closure. Text of "The University of Cambridge was granted its arms in 1573 by Robert Cooke, Clarenceux King of Arms and a graduate of St. John's College, for use by the Chancellor, Masters, Fellows and Scholars as a corporate body" does not apply to or say anything about the "textual representation". The textual description later in the page is a formality on how one would render the visual coat of arms into English, see here for example. See also the history here. Эlcobbola talk 21:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the linked pages write "the coat of arms", they refer to the textual representation, not to any graphical representation of it. The graphical representation is just a way to represent the coat of arms as an artwork and is not the form in which a coat of arms is granted. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per last DR, nothing new. Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per above. Yann (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg

[edit]

This file should actually be speedily deleted as clear copyright violation as it is taken from Cambridge University's logo that is trademarked, but I'm nominating it again because of the previous deletion nominations were closed as "kept" by admins who did not properly understand the guidelines on copyright of coats of arms, NOR did they understand the protection of United States copyright law, and there was no clear consensus. I apologize for the length, but there is clearly some confusion that this would be "kept" twice.

First, this violates Commons own policy per COM:COA:

Do not upload coats of arms or their derivatives directly from the web or official registries. Coats of arms drawn by users based solely on the definition (blazon) without any reference to the original drawing (representation) are usually safe for upload.

Second, putting this logo on Commons is a violation of United States law. Please see Wikipedia's own article, Law of heraldic arms with the section about the United States, which discusses this exact scenario:

A specific rendition of a coat of arms is protected through copyright law and a coat of arms can be used as a trademark and will thus be protected by trademark law. For example, the University of Texas at Austin has registered its emblem and coat of arms for use in its capacity as an institution of higher education. Moreover, such protection presumes a specific graphic design or work of art, while blazon is a description which may be widely interpreted artistically.

This is exactly the situation here. We have many other versions of the Cambridge arms created by users, but we cannot take arms that have been copyrighted as a specific work of art, no matter how old the blazon is.

I don't know the UK's copyright law on coats of arms but it is very safe to say it would also be a UK copyright violation to put this on Commons, as this is part of a trademarked logo. This SVG file is taken directly from the Cambridge University Press logo uploaded to Wikipedia in 2011 under the Non-free use rationale guideline, and it does not qualify to be on Commons. Simply cropping out the text does not make it eligible to be uploaded to Commons! The description of the logo on Wikipedia states it was taken from a PDF of an annual report, and note it is in vector format. This means it was a vector version created by a modern artist today somewhere on a computer for the University, and neither that artist nor the University of Cambridge have released it under a CC license that would make it eligible for Commons. To the contrary: The University has copyrighted this logo - look at their brand resources page and logo usage page and note that the actual page with the logo downloads is only accessible to people who have an online account with Cambridge. The copyright of their logo is VERY CLEAR on their Trademark and Licensing page:

"The University of Cambridge name and Coat of Arms not only form a key role in the internal branding of the University, but they also represent the reputation of the University externally and internationally. For example, they identify official publications, presentations and websites. As such they have significant commercial value. By trade-marking these assets, the University is able to protect itself against those who wish to benefit from its reputation by falsely implying association with the University through the use of the name and/or Coat of Arms. It also gives the University control over how its name is used on commercial products."

The general copyright rules about heraldry mean that artists are free to design THEIR OWN RENDITION of other people's coats of arms and upload it to Commons. It does not mean that OTHER PEOPLE's RENDITIONS of the coats of arms are not copyrighted to them, because they certainly are. Renditions of coats of arms that are still held under copyright (including as part of a logo) are not eligible to be on Commons. Think about it this way - blazons for coats of arms are just descriptions of what it would look like, ie color, items, placement. People create their own interpretation of these items (ie a rose, a cross, a lion). The Web is full of coats of arms that people have designed and put online that we would never be allowed to upload. Think about it this way: if Andy Warhol had painted his rendition of the Cambridge University's coat of arms, based on the university's blazon, would it be allowed on Commons? It would be speedily deleted in 2 seconds. The same applies here.

So to summarize, there are probably hundreds of versions of this coat of arms that various artists have created, and each version is copyrighted to those artists. We already have many versions on Commons that artists have designed and uploaded (see Category:Coats of arms of the University of Cambridge. Further examples of renditions of the coat of arms we can use:

But we can't even put this version on Commmons - please see page 4 of this booklet on the arms of Cambridge University, from 1931. Notice how it is the same arms, but tt's dramatically different. Even THAT version, from 1931, can't be uploaded to Commons under US-1923! So one that was designed much more recently and is very clearly and specifically held under strict copyright by the university of Cambridge, certainly fails the standard and should be speedily deleted. Wikimandia (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Same bollocks as the last 2 times. Fry1989 eh? 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite an actual Wikimedia policy to support your claim. Your previous argument was in direct conflict of COM:COA. It really could not be more clear: new renditions of old blazons cannot be taken from other sources. Cambridge University has clear copyright and trademark over its logo, including the coat of arms. We are not eligible to take THAT VERSION of their arms (and it certainly fails the claim that it was published prior to 1923). That's not how Commons Guidelines on heraldry work, and furthermore, it is a violation of U.S. law, which Wikimedia complies with. Wikimandia (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete WP:COA COM:COA is quite clear that renditions of a coat of arms have copyright attached, and this rendition is AFAIK recent (1990s, I think). The cross and book are arguably below COM:TOO, but the lions are very different from all other renditions of the University arms that I've seen. Declaration of interest: I'm an officer of the University, albeit nowhere near the relevant part. --bjh21 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've loaded this SVG into Inkscape alongside the official PDF version of the University identifier. The points on the various Bézier paths are in the same places on the two versions. This version and the official PDF must have come from the same vector source. --bjh21 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I've found a few different historical renditions of this coat of arms, and none of the old ones match this version. This is almost certainly recent and therefore copyrighted. It is indeed a close match to the fair use image on Wikipedia. --Guanaco (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:University_of_Cambridge_coat_of_arms_official.svg&oldid=262753078"