Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Proposed flags of Australia

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.

Files in Category:Proposed flags of Australia

[edit]

As per the deletion of This flag following Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg and other DR's such as this, this and this and the very low TOO in Australia, these are derivative works of images copyrighted in Australia and cant be hosted on Commons.

LGA talkedits 03:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them which are only the southern cross and basic rectangles. The Aboriginal flag case is currently being discussed elsewhere and there is evidence to suggest it is not a valid case of Australian threshold of originality. There are of course many here that are too complicated and will need to go. BTW, File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (blue).svg and File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (red).svg are over a 100 years old, it won a national flag competition in 1901. Not copyrighted by any stretch of the imagination and for that reason I have removed them from this DR. Fry1989 eh? 03:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The following are either on the same or below the level of geometric complexity as the Aboriginal flag, and in each case the Southern Cross constellation is a PD-old derivative from the current flag of Australia. Therefore they should be kept without question.  Keep

The following files are a combination of PD derivatives. They use the "Australian Pale" design which is PD, and their more complicated elements are borrowed from PD-old images (the state badges are from the current state flags, the map is a basic map, the kangaroo is from the RAAF roundel) and therefore should probably be ok.  Keep

The following must be deleted, there is no question of their complexity being too much.  Delete

The remainder are open to significant interpretation. It should also be noted that I am in a facebook group with the designers of File:Dr John Blaxland Proposal for Australia.svg & File:Flagoz.svg and have asked them how they license their designs. Those two, while undoubtedly complicated enough to be copyrighted, might be freely licensed and therefore I am awaiting their response. Fry1989 eh? 04:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, in the IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited judgement handed down by the en:High Court of Australia Paragraph 48 outlines what is needed with regard to the Copyrigh Act for work to be original :
"It may be that too much has been made, in the context of subsistence, of the kind of skill and labour which must be expended by an author for a work to be an “original” work. The requirement of the Act is only that the work originates with an author or joint authors from some independent intellectual effort."
as ALL of these have that "independent intellectual effort" they are indeed covered by copyright in Australia. It does not matter that PD items are taken and reused, if the new work is created by independent intellectual effort or showing some creative spark (see the same judgement par. 187) the resulting new work is covered by copyright. As for File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (blue).svg and File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (red).svg I am well aware of when they were created, which is not relevant for copyright, it is the date of death of the author that is relevent, so absent proof the author died before 1937 they are likely still in copyright. LGA talkedits 05:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that the "IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited" was nothing to do with images, but was all to do with synopsis and schedules for TV programs and that it was a case from TV network who was in financial difficultly who purchased HWW Pty Limted (which was IceTV's competitor)? The armchair lawyerism from overseas editors regarding Australian copyright and TOO needs to stop, the WMF should be using their legal team to define what is ok and what isn't. Also those two Melbourne Evening Herald flags are {{PD-Australia}}. Bidgee (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that the IceTV case as a whole was about schedules for TV programs; however the section I quote is relevant to images, it makes clear what the act requires with regard to what skill and labour is required for copyright protection; as for the two Melbourne Evening Herald flags; do we have a source for criteria C giving the creator death was before 1 January 1955 ? absent that they are still subject to copyright. LGA talkedits 06:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that you could even use that judgement to use as TOO status for images in Australia. Clearly "A Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown" applies, looking at the NAA, it never had a published author/creator (other than Melbourne Morning Herald). Bidgee (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing more digging around, File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (red).svg (which is known as the Herald Federal Flag) was created by Mr F. Thompson, who was a newsagent/bookseller. The flag was the winning flag for the competition the Melbourne Evening Herald had in 1900, Thompson won £25 sterling. Trying to find anything on the creator is near impossible. Bidgee (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the other case we can use is the Aboriginal Flag Case which found this flag copyrighted in Australia, we can also look at other common law jurisdictions where for example a UK court ruled that this very simple image was copyright. As for the Melbourne flags, absent proof the created died before 1955 we have to apply the precautionary principle and they should be deleted from commons and uploaded to enwp as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. LGA talkedits 08:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them (perhaps the majority) are reshufflings of PD design elements ((Union Jack, Southern Cross, Federation Star) with the addition of further simple geometric shapes, and so would definitely be ineligible for copyright under U.S. law... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the ToO may be very low in Australia, the flags listed above are made of simply geometric and universal convention elements (squares, stars, circles) and therefore ineligibles for copyright.
 Keep for all of these:

About the rest, I see elements that may have a grade of complexity that makes them not suitable for Commons. - Fma12 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin : Fma12 was canvassed by Fry1989 to comment here. LGA talkedits 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because it's so sinful to ask someone to join in a discussion! I ask two people who work on copryight-related DRs and in particular those regarding Australian content and suddenly I'm "canvassing". What tripe! I asked two people to join, I didn't ask them how to vote, and I didn't try and get a bunch of friends to all come to my aid. According to WP:Canvassing it is perfectly fine to ask people to join. Obviously you have no faith in any "keep" votes if you're so quick to call it canvassing when it's not! Fry1989 eh? 01:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
The use of simply geometric and universal convention elements is not relevant, see this flag which a court has ruled is afforded copyright protection. LGA talkedits 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald competition flags from 1901 are absolutely 100% too old to remain in copyright. According to PD-Australia for artistic works, the author must have died before 1955, not 1937. That includes works that are anonymous or under pseudonym. If the author was say...15 years old when he designed it which is fairly young, and he survived both the 1st and 2nd world wars (as a male, the chances of him being in one or other other conflict is also likely), he'd be 70 by the time 1955 had passed. Considering life expectancy at the time as well, the chances of him having lived past the current copyright deadline is extremely minuscule. The precautionary principle only applies when there is significant doubt. Fry1989 eh? 19:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate the author did die before 1955 otherwise they should be hosted on enwp and not here. LGA talkedits 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to! It's extremely likely he did, the precautionary principle is exactly that, a principle based on reasonable assumption, and for that reason it's almost absolutely certain to be not copyrighted. People pretend all the time that the precautionary principle means we have to have absolute proof one way or the other when that's not what it actually says. The precautionary principle states that it applies "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". There is no such significant doubt, in fact it's quite the opposite. Fry1989 eh? 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that ? For example, take the 16 Prime Ministers of Australia that were born in the 1800's, average age at death was over 75, and only 4 failed to have a 70th birthday. Of the 11 that were born before 1884 (your 15 year old above) 2 or 18% were alive in 1955 so I don't think we can assume anything. LGA talkedits 03:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Can I prove that he died before 1955? You know the answer to that. Can I provide a reasonable assumption of his time of death being before the current expiration of copyright? Absolutely. I'm being generous when I give the assumption the man was 15 at the time he designed it, the chances are he was older. Using the Australian Government's own records on life expectancy at time of birth, his is around late 50s to early 60s. That combined with two world wars where there is a high chance he may have joined the military, as well the fact this man was not a government official so it's hardly comparable the lifestyle he would have received compared to the PM, the chances of him living to his 70s (again starting at the generous youthful age of 15) is pretty low. Fry1989 eh? 03:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is what you are proposing that we decided questions of copyright based on actuarial tables rather than actual dates of death ? Since we know who created the flags, either find out for sure the person died prior to 1955 so it can be hosted on commons or uploaded it to enwp where it can be hosted with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and remove it form here. LGA talkedits 05:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying we institute the precautionary principle in the context it actual states it applies, rather than this fake idea that it demands we have conclusive evidence one way or the other which it does not. We know the guy had to have been born at least 10 years before 1900, they call him "Mr" and it's very unlikely at that time they would have addressed him as such if he was a child. We also have Australian Government statistics on life expectancy at the time, and that there were two world wars during the time this man would have been alive. All of that strongly suggests the chance of him having lived past 1955 is very very small. Now if all you have is "Idk, some prime ministers born around that time also lived pretty long lives" which ignores both the overall statistics and the major differences in health care and lifestyle the politicians would have received compared to a commoner, then you really have nothing to constitute "significant doubt". You have nothing that would require us to delete the Herald competition flags other than your own conclusion of "I think he might have lived longer", which doesn't even meat the bare minimum of the precautionary principle which you were so quick to invoke. There are flags here that need to be deleted, I've already listed several, but the case of the Herald competition flags is so obvious a keep it's almost laughable we're discussing it at all. Fry1989 eh? 19:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I - both - finished law studies and don't have a clue about australian copyrights, I have to say that that there are a few painters who lived in 18th century and whose date of death remains unknown. It doesn't make their pictures copyrighted. ARvєδuι + 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Life expectancy gives an average and not a maximum age, exactly half the population will live longer than that. You need to read the table fully, for example the life expectancy of someone aged 15 in 1901 was 64 so take a group of 100 15 yo boys in 1901 and half of them will still be alive in 1950. Life expectancy of a 65 yo in 1950 was a further 12 years, so of that group of 50, half will still be alive in 1962. So of the original 100 boys, one in four would have lived to 1962. LGA talkedits 09:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say this in so many ways. The precautionary principle, under which you think those flags should be deleted, requires "significant doubt". It does not require conclusive proof one way or the other, you can pretend in your head all you want that it does, but it explicitly does not because it's entire purpose is for situations when we don't have conclusive proof. You have no proof of anything that would give us significant doubt. You have the sole belief that he may have lived longer, it's an assumption based merely on chance without any other support whatsoever. The statistics suggest he died before the deadline, the circumstances of the time period suggest he died before the deadline. There is no evidence whatsoever that he lived longer, no obituaries, no other sorts of documentation with that name, there is nothing. There is no significant doubt, and if you aren't going to get over it and stop being overzealous and thinking everything has to go unless we 100% know it's PD, then I'm gonna stop fighting this with you because it's stupid to try and continue. Everyone else here though is gonna see what I see and say it should stay. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does not decide copyright on the "balance of probabilities", it is not unreasonable to assume that someone lived for 50 years after producing the works when knowing nothing other than the persons name and gender. LGA talkedits 19:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The precautionary principle disagrees. Read it, or don't, but do not pretend you can just rewrite what it actually says into what you wish it said. Fry1989 eh? 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user asked me to comment here. Sorry for the delay.
I note that there are some images which contain very complex elements. For example, File:Dylan Crawfoot Proposal for Tasmania.svg contains a lion passant which is clearly above the threshold of originality. However, this lion is taken from File:Flag of Tasmania.svg which is from 1876 (see w:Flag of Tasmania) and therefore assumed to be in the public domain because of age in every country worldwide. I do not think that all of the images have to be deleted, but it is hard to know where to draw the line. Starting with IceTV v Nine, something appears to have changed with the Australian threshold of originality, and I'm not sure if it has been established exactly how this affects artworks as most cases seem to be about literary works. I would like to note some cases in particular:
  • Cortis v Kitten: This case predates IceTV v Nine. A company created copyrighted computer software and wrote a licence. The case is largely about contractual issues in that licence. The computer software included a logo, but the court found that the logo was below the threshold of originality. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of the logo, so all I have is the text in the court ruling. The logo is briefly described in words in sections 31-33. If someone can find a copy of the logo, please upload it. The logo is possibly comparable to some of the flags here, but it is hard to tell from just the textual description..
  • VESA v ROV: A man produced this image out of an internet image of a hand and a superimposed spiral shape. I'm not sure if the man produced the spiral shape himself or not, but he placed the spiral shape there himself. It was found that this man had made an original creation. The image may look very complex, but you should keep in mind that it is based on existing images. This image appears to be comparable to some of the flags here, but it is hard to determine which ones.
  • Fairfax v Reed: 10 newspaper headlines were below the threshold of originality (quoted in section 12 of the court ruling). Other headlines might be copyrightable, but they were not presented in this case. Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice recently decided that certain unspecified sequences of 11 words are copyrighted. The England and Wales High Court later[1] decided that a service which quoted newspaper headlines resulted in copyright violations, partially because of EU rules. I don't know exactly how to compare these cases with each other. There were discussions about fair dealing and the British fair dealing criteria might be different to the Australian ones because of the w:InfoSoc Directive. I would still take it to mean that the threshold of originality of very short sequences of text is higher in Australia than in the UK. It is harder to make any threshold comparisons with the Danish ECJ case as that Danish case was about slightly longer sequences of words. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep --HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Some of these are probably okay for Commons, and some probably aren't. Either way, this images need to be reviewed on an indvidual basis, and not in a mass DR. FASTILY 08:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Proposed_flags_of_Australia&oldid=875838832"