Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable

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 from http://www.europeanheraldry.org

[edit]

Files taken from http://www.europeanheraldry.org where they have been published with the mention "© 2016 European Heraldry. All the illustrations are original, designed and researched by the author. All Rights Reserved."

86.242.244.222 21:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 86.242.244.222,
Thank you for your notification above to which I have replied at User talk:86.242.244.222, viz :
"I notice that you have unilaterally decided to delete various coats of arms I have uploaded on to Wiki Commons, citing that they are copyright of European Heraldry! These COAs cannot be copyrighted by European Heraldry or anyone other than the bearer of such arms, who in all cases died so long ago that they were never subject to any copyright laws. In any event, the only legal body who has any control over such coats of arms is the College of Arms, and even this august institution is not empowered to issue legal sanction. Its role is, however, to advise on the appropriate use of heraldic images, and can recommend legal proceedings (but not authorise legal sanction) if COAs are inappropriately used, eg. relating to the wrong person. Any legal action could only be brought before the Court of Chivalry, but this is not the case here, because :
a) they are appropriately displayed;
b) the bearers of these arms are no longer alive.
Please bear this in mind & reverse your unjustified deletion of these heraldic images. Many thanks."
Yours, L'honorable (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete this DR refers to particular modern depictions of COAs, which have copyright as independent works regardless of the age or copyrightability of the blazon or the COAs qua COAs. Storkk (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agree with the nominator and with Storkk: the DR is about intellectual property of these specific depictions, not about the "usurpation" of the blazon by commons. The matter has been discussed many times and is part of commons official policy, see COM:COA. Kathisma (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathisma: who is the nominator to whom you refer svp?
Moreover, please see below wherein you will no doubt be pleased to note that consideration is being given to the legal standing of the COM:COA guidelines. Please advise - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct display of COAs vs. Erroneous deletions of various COAs

[edit]

With regards to the right to bear arms, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental principle of law here, so let me refer you to www.college-of-arms.gov.uk.

Unless anyone has any valid objection to Wiki displaying these arms "appropriately" - and this is the crucial point - then let me remedy the matter. I trust this is of help. Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. voir l'Armorial des Plantagenêt. Un grand merci.

We more or less ignore bearer's rights (or the law of arms) on Commons. It is not a matter of who has the right to display them -- use in some countries may be problematic if bearer's rights apply of course, but those are Commons:non-copyright restrictions for us, and are not a cause for deletion. We instead are mostly concerned about copyright, which will overlap. See Commons:Coats of arms for our treatment on them -- we do not consider the blazon or basic design copyrighted, but we do consider each individual drawing its own artistic work, and it will be evaluated as such. Much like photographs or other artistic works, we do not allow copying off of the Internet, unless the works are licensed with a free license. It is always possible to make a new, original drawing of a coat of arms and upload that (or use components from freely-licensed arms already uploaded).
It is unlikely that bearer's rights pre-empts copyright with respect to arms (rather both laws would apply in full), but even if it does, that is in relatively few countries; in particular in the United States (the law we have to follow most) there is no such thing as bearer's rights and each rendition will be treated as a copyrighted drawing like normal. If a particular drawing is basically a slavish copy (per the definitions in copyright law) of a very old drawing, then the copyright on that drawing may have expired due to age and can be uploaded, but this usually takes 100 years, plus or minus 30 or so. New drawings though have a new copyright (though cannot prevent other drawings being made of the same arms, of course). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Ermm.. Thank you for setting down what is so far the clearest description of Wiki's understanding regarding the correct display of coats of arms. Of course the whole point of coats of arms is to be an emblem / visual image of the relevant person / family, but I can appreciate that Wiki must apply safeguards so as not to get itself into trouble. Let me have a think & revert ref. Commons:Coats of arms svp. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the primary point -- but that does not mean that copyright can't apply. Trademark is a very similar situation, where the primary use is to identify a company or other entity, but copyright (in most countries) is allowed to overlap as well, and there have been cases which have been ruled both a trademark violation and a copyright violation, and it's also quite possible to be acquitted by the law of one type of intellectual property but convicted by the other type. I'm not so sure that even the bearer of an arms can simply take any depiction of it they like -- if use of that particular depiction violates copyright law, well, the UK joined the Berne Convention in 1886 and those laws would still seem likely to apply. As one example... the official Canadian coat of arms rendition was done in 1994. Canada claims Crown Copyright on that rendition, so we can only use it under a fair use rationale, and so it is hosted at en-wiki at en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. Canada is within its rights to use copyright law to prevent usage of that particular graphic, and that includes internationally (in any country of the Berne Convention). However, copyright cannot prevent someone else making their own independent drawing of the same blazon, so we *do* host File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg, which does not copy any copyrightable expression -- all the detailed contours etc. are completely different, and the new copyright for that drawing has been licensed freely. Using that image in Canada would still be restricted depending on use, but since copyright law itself could not be used to restrict use, we can host it. But Commons will not host the Canadian government version until 2045. Similarly, Commons will host trademarked files provided the copyright has expired, or been licensed, or does not qualify for copyright -- but will not host trademarked files which are also under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Je comprends! I can see it is a legal minefield & that (leaving you and me aside) Wiki must make rules which protect itself against those less au fait with what is (& what is not) proper representation of arms - which btw I can see all over the place on Wiki, but let's not go there! Let me study the guidelines and come back to you with my comments if that is okay? Many thanks indeed. Best L'honorable (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and thanks. If there are incorrect versions of arms, those should be noted, as that can be a scope issue (no educational use) -- but most often, they can be fixed as well. We have a {{Disputed coat of arms}} template which would be the first step on those. Look forward to any comments you may have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg, Storkk, and Rs-nourse: & Kathisma : the arms of the Howard family could do with correcting : viz.
for the correct depiction of these armorial bearings please see the 1st quartering à propos of the cross crosslets fitchy : .
Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the blazon for the first quarter in File:Arms of the Duke of Norfolk.svg... I admit I don't see what's incorrect in File:Thomas Howard Arms.svg. What am I missing? Is it the depiction of the demi-lion? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, Carl, insofar as the Howard COA blazon gives no strict definition of how the cross crosslets fitchy should be arranged on the field; accordingly it follows that any given herald painter could devise as many different layouts/visual interpretations of these arms (until they might become entirely unrecognisable); such artistry is of course fine, yet, at least in my view, Wiki should not allow such inventions/creations to be attributed as being the COA of a said individual/family, when it is quite clear how the said arms have for time immemorial been represented, qv : www.theheraldrysociety.com & www.college-of-arms.gov.uk. In this instance it is all the more puzzling because these arms are very famous ones - those of the Howard family, Dukes of Norfolk and Earls Marshal of England. I am sure that this is just an oversight but, nonetheless, some scrutiny of the guidelines is required so as to prohibit misappropriation of such famous COAs as these on Wiki? Look forward to finding a most practical/workable solution to instances like this. Till soon & all best wishes, L'honorable (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. the problem here derives from an misinterpretation/lack of understanding of the blazon, and especially so since even a cursory glance at customary practice (or precedent under English law), could have provided guidance otherwise.
PPS. so, let's treat the blazon, viz : Gules a Bend Argent between six Cross Crosslets of the same [also Argent] = De gueules à la bande d'argent de six croix recroisetées et fichées du même. In France an optional blazon of such a layout of cross crosslets could be en orle, whereas in English heraldry it is standard practice (ie. by default), thus not needing mention. L'honorable (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qv :

Deleted: Notwithstanding the extended discussion above, these representations of the COAs shown are apparently legitimately copyrighted and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from European Heraldry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 11 November 2016 (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.

Files uploaded by L'honorable (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Photographs of 3D objects. Therefore, the picture have their own copyright, which belongs to the photographer

Discasto talk 13:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agreed. This is a repeat offender. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I think these were all uploaded prior to the copyright discussions with this user -- so I don't think these are necessarily "repeat" problems. But yes, the photograph has an additional copyright here over and above the pictured object, and we do not appear to have licenses for those photos. To be fair, given some copyright rulings in France, those photos may very well not be copyrightable there at all, so these may not be an issue on fr-wiki or in the uploader's country. But the U.S. and many other countries (even in the EU like Germany), there are precedents which make it likely the photos are copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeat offender" is most inappropriate if that is truly meant for me! both offensive in itself and inapplicable! Truly inexplicable were how my own COA and a photo which I own could be deleted so willy-nilly. In order for Wiki's systems to work both the rules need to be set down properly and their application needs to be made fairly. I have long protested that that Wiki Commons' guidelines do not properly cover aspects of copyright fairly. And, I shan't be the fallguy but I do wish you would take notice to what I have previously advised. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I think I could go so far as to say that if it weren't for my pointing out some of the failings of the Wiki licensing system that none of this would have been scrutinised. I can also assure you that those Wiki Commons uploads which I have made will not result in Wiki being sued by any party. However, unless I have misunderstood, it seems to me that Discasto is undertaking a wholescale deletion of my uploads. This is both unwarranted an entirely misplaced.
By sticking my head "above the parapet" to complain about the lack of proficiency of Wiki's guidelines, I did not expect it to get shot off quite so summirarily. If need be, and I really do not feel inclined to do so, I SHALL submit a LONGLIST of Wiki Commons images which have no validity. But, this seems to me to be a tit-for-tat stupid way of going about things. Rest assured I shall be reverting anything untoward soonest - sorry but I shall explain why on each & every occasion. Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: I am not happy about being labelled as a repeat offender given that this is entirely wide of the mark. I have for a long time been trying to help Wiki Commons get its definitions correct. But it has become totally rubbish when certain deletionists assume that because I made the upload it has got to be rubbish. This has been proven more than once. Where is the objectivity, rationale, etc on Wiki Commons? L'honorable (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Discasto, Jameslwoodward, Jcb, and Clindberg: has iniciado una eliminación contra L'honorable. ¿Por qué? Estas imágenes que conciernen a la heráldica y temas relacionados tienen licencia pública, y se muestran correctamente. Un saludo, L'honorable (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. of the above proposed deletions (of which there is no benefit to me, only Wiki's loss) the only one which I will not contest is that of File:Blackburne COA.jpg. Feel free to delete that (ie. it is not a very good illustration). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. Please ask further about the law of Arms in England and Wales, and you will learn much. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Order of St Michael and St George

@Discasto: hablamos - por qué dificultar? File:GCMG breast star.jpg
L'honorable (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Carl, for pointing out that these images were uploaded before the images in the earlier DR above. I have retracted the remark above. However, the fact remains that these images are copyright violations because there is no evidence of a license from the photographer and no amount of ranting about unfair treatment is going to change that.

L'honorable has a choice to make. He can either:

A) continue to waste editor time with long, largely irrelevant discussions on perfectly cut and dried issues or,
B) stop ranting and learn from his mistakes so that he can become a useful contributor to Commons, which he claims to want to do.

I, and my colleagues here, are willing to bend over backwards to help newbies, but when they argue at great length about black letter law, there comes a point at which that willingness ends. I'm close to that point now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jim, it is not as if I know it all far from it, and I am trying very hard indeed to grapple with Wiki licensing policies, but I have already asked to be referred to the in-house counsel of Wiki, because I know for sure that certain aspects of Wiki's licensing policy is open to abuse whilst other areas are being applied incorrectly. I have made this point over and over and over again, yet nobody seems to care. The point is Wiki's guidelines on heraldry have loopholes and in some cases are incorrect. How can I get this point through without looking like Mr. Awkward. All I want to do is tighten the rules up & make Wiki exact? Please help - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. & I am sure you have to admit, it either takes a certain amount of bone-headedness, stoicism, or confidence to know one is absolutely correct to pursue this?
PPS. Who is Wiki's counsel please? L'honorable (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PPPS. I shouldn't have to highlight this comment :

L'honorable has a choice to make. He can either:

A) continue to waste editor time with long, largely irrelevant discussions on perfectly cut and dried issues or, B) stop ranting and learn from his mistakes so that he can become a useful contributor to Commons, which he claims to want to do.

but it does sum up why I should liaise with Wiki's counsel without delay, because I am not getting very far with the community, as much as I would like to, but there are some legal issues which need to be addressed & these clearly cannot be determined by popular vote or consensus since nobody seems to understand... Please ack - many tks L'honorable (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PPPPS. @Jameslwoodward: far from wasting everybody's time, quite the opposite one could say, this has been brought to all our attention because of Discasto's liberal application of deletionist policy, so in that sense he has done us all a favour. Let's therefore seek resolution. Awaiting yours. Best, L'honorable (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PPPPPS. please also copy me in on any useful Wiki copyright discussions - many thanks.

 Delete per nomination  : these are 3D objects and the photographs have not been taken by the uploader. Kathisma (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Discasto, Jameslwoodward, Jcb, Clindberg, Kathisma, and Boing! said Zebedee: the latest deletion by Discasto makes no sense to me. It is of the decoration of the OStJ and awarded to me by HRH The Duke of G, and I took the photo and I uploaded it. Ordinarily, I would not do this, but the actions of some on Wiki Commons seem to me to be getting beyond a joke. What on earth can be wrong with my photo, my decoration, my upload? I hate to use the word "witchhunt" but unless somebody can tell me otherwise what plausible reason has this Discaster for deleting many images uploaded by me & then trying to goad me into argument - simply put why can I not upload images owned by me? L'honorable (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. what remedies are available to prevent Discasto frustrating the improvement of Wiki - there could not be a more clear-cut case of over exuberance (& that is putting it mildly)...
If you took the photo, there is no issue. And that was indeed the claim on the upload, which was different to the others, so it should not have been in the same boat. But, once we see a user uploading images off the internet (i.e. not fully understanding the copyright implications, at least at the time of upload), we often do get suspicious of small images with no EXIF also uploaded -- as often "own work" becomes a dodge to avoid speedy deletion, and the source really is somewhere else. But, the other above uploads were documented as to their source and this was different, so this wasn't such a case, and should not have been lumped in (or at the very least noted that it had different circumstances). Looks like that was just a mistake, missing the "own work" claim (as I did as well the first time through). Taking your own photos is of course the best way to improve the free encyclopedia, and what we need -- at times the "free" part makes the "encyclopedia" part a lot harder. We generally require that people write their own text on a wikipedia entry, rather than copying from elsewhere, and the illustrations often need the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this file is a photo taken by you, could you upload the original with full EXIF data? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Info User L'honorable blocked 3 days for trying to delete this DR [1] --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:OStJ.jpg was an unfortunate addition to this list. The other files all show third party sources and no evidence of permission. On this one, L'honorable claims "own work" and while it is very small and lacking EXIF, the image does not show up in a Google search, so perhaps the claim is true. However, we have a variety of much better images of the medal in Category:Insignia of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, so it should be deleted as "not useful for any educational purpose". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of a group deletion request cannot be the same for all involved images. Given the low quality of File:OStJ.jpg I thought it was exactly the same case as with the remaining ones. I don't see any issue in keeping this file, assuming good faith and that the most Honorable is the author of the photograph. Best regards --Discasto talk 14:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have many "much better" ones. It's still useful for an educational purpose regardless (no matter how many others we have), and indeed is in use on several wikis, so it automatically passes the scope test anyways, so it's not deletable by that rationale either way. It would have to be deleted as "redundant", as opposed to "not useful for an educational purpose", but we should never delete an in-use (or formerly in-use) image on those grounds. And I think it's far from redundant anyways -- most other images are pretty low-resolution as well and others could always end up having copyright issues themselves. Only a few show the ribbon.  Keep if that photo was indeed taken by the uploader. It would be more useful to have a higher-resolution version of course -- we only have about one of those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete We have a much better one: File:Badge - Member.JPG. It's unfortunate that this user has replaced that image with his lower quality upload on several projects. Whaledad (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete just because we have a "better" image. We want all the freely licensed material we can -- other people decide which is "best" for their use -- that is subjective and can be different depending on the situation. Wikipedia articles are not the only uses. Maybe someone needs an image with a dark background, etc -- there are situations where this one is "better". Thus, we want as many versions as we can, usually. If the user has replaced article usages, those can be reverted if that other one is better for that article. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: deleted by Yann. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:OStJ.jpg kept per Carl Lindberg. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_L%27honorable&oldid=230606756"