Template talk:PD-NL-gemeentewapen

Small change in text of this license, as Dutch municipalities do not use seals, but use a coat of arms or a logo for official documents. Knorrepoes 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The template NL-gemeentevlag also refers to this template, which is incorrect as flags are under another license. Can someone undo this redirect and add the text from the Dutch site ?Knorrepoes 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Link gives 404

The link to the notice from the MiBiZa gives a 404 error. Deadstar (msg) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the hyperlink --Bouwe Brouwer 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

copyright status

I am not sure if the template is correct, that is, whether the image is actually free of copyright. The text of the ministry clearly states that the municipality holds no copyright and that the municipality can not stop the use of images of the coat of arms. So far clear. But then remains the fact, who ownd the copyright of the images ? To my opinion the person who made the actual drawing. The images that are in the official register are free of copyright when they are handed to the municipality, the heraldic designer releases the copyright at that stage. But other images showing the same arms, but drawn by someone else, are therefore not automatically free of copyright. The copyright is at the author of the image. It is like making a photograph of the arms, the photographer has the copyright of the picture of the arms... So only those images that are directly taken from the official diploma and/or the official register are truly free of copyright, not any image created by another artist/designer. Of course also those images may be used with the same restrictions as in the letter from the minister, but only with approval of the copyright holder. So the use is free, the copyright is not. I propose to change the status accordingly.Knorrepoes (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As there were no reaction on the above, I changed the template. This has been discussed with some specialised trade mark lawyers at the Dutch Patent office and is in agreement with the Ministerial Notice as mentioned in the template. Knorrepoes (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A coat of arms is nota trademark! You have an opinion of your own, and talked with a lot of people, until you met someone who confirmed your opinion. - Quistnix (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a trademark, certainly not ! That is why the use by anyone is allowed. That is the whole point...The use is free, but still the author of each image made an original work and that is part of the copyright. That has nothing to do with derivative work. Yes I talked to experts, as in many discussions among editors and moderators on Wikipedia there was no one with proper background knowledge. It has nothing to do with my images, I am not changing the ngw template, it is just the law, whether you like it or not, and the images of any heraldic artist should be honoured and protected....

You also mention derivative work can not be copyrighted; that is not true, see [[1]] and O quote "For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The later work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the later work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.". According to the law if you make a drawing in your own style with for example a heraldic lion in your style, it is copyrighted. If you use different colours it may be copyrighted, but there you have a problem with heraldry, that the blason names it just 'red' so all colours red are allowed. So, sorry that you don;t agree, but it is the law... (see also the German template, where it is stated that the arms are PD, regardless teh copyright status. They recognise a difference. For Holland also, they can be used freely, thus are in PD, but are still copyrighted !Knorrepoes (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Overused (?) for medieval coats of arms

I came to this page from File:Gelre-4 wapen.svg, which depicts the coat of arms of the Duchy of Guelders. Is the use of this template for such files correct? Does Wiegels' letter concerning coats of arms of Dutch municipalities apply to medieval and early modern heraldry? Qwertyus (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)