Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Austr.Aborig.png

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:Austr.Aborig.png edit

Fairly certain that this image (or at least what it is intended to be) is copyrighted under Aussie law. See this ruling. I would assume that this comes under the same license as w:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg (removed from commons under this discussion). Osiris (temp) (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! I think the Aussie law can't forbidden to a citizen, to draw an image, with a yellow circle in the center, and red/black areas aroud ! It's not an artistic plagiat, and the aboriginal peoples don't send their flag as a painture or a music ? Now, if the wiki community, and the aboriginal peoples, prefer to hide their flag, it's not my problem... Do for the best...--Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't believe any ruling could copyright a yellow circle over black and red bars. It's rediculous. Fry1989 eh? 01:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While ridiculous, there is a link above to exactly such ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - This is quite ridiculous.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the SVG should come back to Commons. I don't care what any Australian court says, because if you compare this with other Australian things of similar complexity, it simply is not copyrightable. Fry1989 eh? 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the design is explicitly ruled as being copyrighted, then clearly the courts thought differently. Even obvious derivitives are copyrighted, see for example here. Osiris (temp) (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say something this incredibly simple is copyrighted, and then that even more complicated things are not. It has no standing in reality. Fry1989 eh? 04:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what applies to other designs, this design has been specificly ruled as copyrighted under Australian law. It's fine in Florida, where that law doesn't apply, but it's non-free content in Australia. Osiris (temp) (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a tough one, and I think it requires some intricate knowledge of copyright laws. I've contacted Moonriddengirl, MER-C and Wizardman. Hopefully they can give some insight. Osiris (temp) (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive on this (will defer to MRG or MER-C), but I'm fairly sure that Template:PD-shape applies here, and that the flag is not copyrightable. Wizardman 03:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would agree that PD-shape would apply in the US and the image could be used as such on En Wikipedia, but am unsure if the content would be PD in Australia given the legal document to which User:Osiris links. :/ Particularly, I note the following statement from the justice, who is also President of the Copyright Tribunal and presumably quite familiar with copyright standards in Australia: "Having reflected on the matter at some length and given the weight to a number of matters which I have indicated I have, I have come to the conclusion that I should accept Mr Thomas's case and reject that of Mr Brown. That means that, subject to the next matter with which I deal concerning the copyright/designs overlap which exists in this case, Mr Thomas is entitled to succeed." If the flag were not entitled to copyright protection in Australia, I'd really hope that the Justice would say, "Regardless of who created it, as there will be no copyright/design overlap issue." I would strongly recommend trotting this one past Commons:Village pump/Copyright to encourage others to consider the situation in context of the legal decision to see whether they feel it complies with both US and local copyright laws. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notified. Osiris (temp) (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to me that this is suitable for en-wp as PD-shape, failing the threshold of originality in the US. However, Australia has been noted as having a very low threshold of originality (see [1] and [2]), based on a "sweat of the brow" doctrine (not surprising for a Commonwealth country), so it is not surprising that this might be copyrightable in Australia, and in this case it appears that an Australian court has confirmed the copyright (why would the court entertain a case about who holds the copyright if the work were uncopyrightable?!). So, since it is PD in the US, but copyrighted in the source country, I think it can remain at en-wp but must be deleted (including any derivate works) from Commons. cmadler (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yes, I also think it's ridiculous (as is the "Edge" decision in the UK, as well as the impact of the URAA restoration in the US without the rule of the shorter term -- see, every country has its own unique form of copyright silliness!), but that's what the law is. cmadler (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this comes nowhere close to the U.S. threshold of originality -- I don't think there's any way that PD-shape would not apply in the U.S. -- it has been explicitly ruled as copyrighted in Australia, as noted. There is another note on it here, which says there have been additional lawsuits or at least legal action against flag manufacturers who used the design without permission. I don't think it would be copyrightable in many countries, but the UK, Australia, and New Zealand are a bit different with an extremely low threshold. Probably even something with different colors would not be a derivative work. It can get thorny if the graphic is made by someone not in Australia (or countries with similar copyright laws) -- technically that country may be the "country of origin", and it is completely legal in that country. But, it would still be considered derivative in Australia, and we normally have not allowed similar copyright games (e.g. a derivative work of a musical composition which is still copyrights in its country of origin). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Per the previous deletion decisions about Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg and Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg. Even Google could not display an image of the flag because the copyright owner did not give his permission.[3] We may not like it, but that flag design is copyrighted in Australia, as that is how the court ruled in Thomas v Brown. So, as long as Commons has in its internal policy the requirement that works must be free in their country of origin, and if that requirement is interpreted in this case as applying not only to the derivative image but also to the flag design, then an image with this flag design can't be hosted on Commons. (I'm not convinced that that restriction in the internal policy of Commons is a good thing, and I'm not convinced that the restriction should be applied to anything other than the derivative, but those are other questions.) (However, according to Commons practice, we keep images where a copyrighted work is accessory in the whole image, like in File:Narrabullgan002 0002.jpg and Australiadayprotest.jpg.) The solution, like in all similar cases, is that files showing that flag can easily be hosted on the Wikimedia projects that do not have the same internal policy restriction as Commons. Assuming that design is not copyrightable in most countries, including the Unites States, images of it can be probably hosted on almost all the Wikimedia projects, even those that do not accept unfree media in fair use. For example, the file Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg is hosted on the German Wikipedia and on the French Wikipedia, where it is tagged as being in the public domain, but with a special note explaining that the tag does not apply to Australia where it is copyrighted, and a note that the file can't be moved to Commons. Like I said in a previous discussion on Commons:Bistro, the reason why File:Austr.Aborig.png was not yet deleted may perhaps be explained by the fact that many of us Commons users are not motivated for starting nominations for deletion about files that are free almost everywhere except in one country or in a handful of countries only. However, as this nomination has now been made, I suppose it should be treated in a manner consistent with the previous deletion decisions. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: Commons policy requires that an image be in the public domain in the United States and in the country of origin. This image may be {{PD-shape}} in the US, but there's a court ruling that states the image is copyrighted in the country of origin. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we can use File:Black and red flag with yellow disc.svg - described as "Black-red flag with yellow circle. Similar to "Australian Aboriginal Flag"." Bulwersator (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than "similar" - it's an exact duplicate of it. Should be deleted as well. Osiris (temp) (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It is just "similar". It's NOT an exact duplicate. Anyone who can analyze svg code (or more or less can recognize colour shades) of it, will see that there are differences from the discussed file. Moreover, is the original Australian Aboriginal Flag defined anywhere? Like lawfully and excactly defined? Masur (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty much a few pixels (and bytes) off from what I did on the English Wikipedia in 2010 (this other file was uploaded in 2011) and it is being used as the Aboriginal flag in everything but the filename. I see this a derivative work issues and I have included this in the DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Whatever australian law says, this figure is simply ineligible for copyright because of its simplicity. Don't get ridiculous. We have zillion of company logos, which are trademarked, but we claim their lack of originality and suddenly here we are getting overcautious? Masur (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand these "whatever Australian law says", "I don't care what Australian law says" comments. If commons policy requires that an image be free in both the U.S. and its country of origin, and this design has been explicitly ruled as copyrighted in Australia, then it's clearly a violation of our copyright policies. Since when do we try to overturn/disregard legal decisions. The law here is quite explicit. Osiris (temp) (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I see here is, that this pattern is protected in Australia, but certainly virtually nowhere else. And the uploader Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be French citizen, so I assume that the file was created in France as well; therefore for sure the discussed file is free both in the U.S. and its country of origin. If there is doubt about this file and its country of origin; here File:Black and red flag with yellow disc.svg - this one was created in Germany by a Polish citizen. Therefore for sure it is free in its country of origin and U.S. And the question: what excactly is copyrighted? Colours? Pattern? Or just idea? Is there a template of this flag, a lawful definition (including design, colour shades etc.)? If yes, how much the flag would need to deviate from this description not to be copyrighted anymore? File:Black and red flag with yellow disc.svg is different from the discussed file (I don't know though if different from the original AA Flag), as much as such simple pattern can. I believe that it would be more than enough to put {{Trademarked}} in it, where it says: contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Masur (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, per cmadler, Carl Lindberg, and Asclepias. There's no doubt the flag is under copyright in Australia. I don't believe that the author/uploader of the file being French matters, nor do quibbles over the particular colours used; the file is still a depiction of the Aboriginal Australian flag (and was described as such by the uploader), so the country of origin is really Australia. Our policy requires that content must be free in both the US and the source country, so this file should be deleted from Commons. (Like Asclepias, I'm not convinced this rule is wise, but that's a broader question.) Other Wikimedia projects can probably host this file if they want (although an SVG version might be better). --Avenue (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the source country is not Australia. The file was made (most probably) in France, by a french citizen. Also: quibbles over the particular colours used are important, because in a few more days, we will conclude that all bicolor flags, with 3:5 proportions and a disc half the height of flag, are derivative of very creative and original australian concept, and shall be deleted. I repeat: in my opinion, {{Trademarked}} regulates this case. Masur (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because Australian Aboriginal law says so!
 Keep PD-shape is global, if don't apply, Aboriginals could forbid all this in the world??? Ok Aboriginals have the strongest copyright in the world and You can support this. THE IMBECILITY!!!--91.42.174.34 02:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"PD-shape is global" - why and how? Bulwersator (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the same for w:Human rights. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 19:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Word "copyright" or term "public domain" is unused in linked article Bulwersator (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD-shape is not "global". As said above by Cmadler, each country has its own threshold of originality. Also, could you log in please? I'm assuming you're not a brand new user as your contribution history indicates. Osiris (temp) (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the Australian law is ultimately for us in Commons global!? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 12:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete If the rules of the Commons has to be followed, then we cannot have this image here. It is not free in the country of origin, Australia, and court cases have pointed it out. Of course I think the ruling by Australia is very stupid and a flag like this would be public domain in the US due to the simple design of it. However, if it is decided to make an exception for this flag through consensus, then I agree with Fry1989 to bring the SVG back. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep cause the uploader drawed it by him self and if he didn't measured exactly the radius and other measurements (I hope so) and with that it's a work by the uploader. Additionally the source country is no more Australia.--Sanandros (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you run into is derivative of a copyrighted work so even if it was not exactly, you are still drawing the flag, with the basic design. And this is regardless of where the user lives. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What if i tell my bro, or the next guy on the street if he could please draw two rectangles, one black one red and in the middle a yellow circle... how can then someone claim a derivate of the abg flag? Is there actually any australian definition of derivated work?--Sanandros (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, per Zscout370. It doesn't matter how stupid you think the Australian ruling is (and I agree that it is stupid), unless evidence is presented that this ruling is invalid or has been overturned, this flag is considered copyrighted in Australia. Commons:Licensing is quite clear that to be hosted on Commons media needs to be freely licensed by the copyright holder or public domain in both the US and the country of origin. —JeremyA (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info That is the precedent which leads Commons and copyright ad absurdum. It is similar to the patent for the wheel in Australia.[5] We are beginning to move Commons away... What kind of free world do you live? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 01:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per precedence of PD-art. There we - the community supported by the board of the foundation - decided to ignore the British interpretation of "originality" and allow faithful reproductions of out of copyright 2D images because we follow US's (and many other jurisdiction's) interpretation that a faithful reproduction is not original and therefore does not warrant copyright protection. Let's do the same here. --h-stt !? 13:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the idea behind PD-Art actually supports deletion here. When PD-Art applies, the original work is in the public domain. We disregard any copyright (in some jurisdictions) in direct copies of that work and say this means we can host the copy. Here, the original work is under copyright (at least in its source country, Australia), and we are discussing how to handle a simple reproduction of that work which exhibits no extra creative content. The idea behind PD-Art, if I understand it right, is that for simple reproductions we should follow the copyright status of the original work. It is not that British/Australian/etc copyright laws are stupid and should always be ignored (however tempting that conclusion might be). --Avenue (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No permission is required to fly that flag (see [6]) - could showing the image her be interpreted as flying a flag? --Hagman (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is only for display in a public square on a flag pole (like at your house or in a display of flags) but there are problems with displaying a graphic of the flag (ask Google) or trying to make this flag in your own shop (ask my friends). I am not going to lie, this is very confusing and still believe the ruling is idiotic. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black and red flag with yellow disc variations.gif

  • Question Has sealand declared blue copyright yet, I was planning to use it in a pic, so red, black and yellow is a no, what about a different aspect ratio or hue ? just where do you put the line for the slippery slope ? What part of this doesn't define slippery slope. Just what aspect ratio will allow it's usage ? 3:2 ? 5:2 ? 10:1 ? Penyulap ☏ 09:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Design is explicitly copyrighted in Australia; the country of origin for this work. That ruling may be stupid but it is a court ruling nonetheless. Commons rules require a work to be PD in the country of origin and the US to be hosted.

With regards to derivative works, consider the image Google was forced to take down - because they were unwilling to pay the fee wanted by the copyright holder. If an image is derived from the flag's design, then its a derivative work and therefore can't be hosted on Common. If its close enough to the original to be useful to illustrate the "Aboriginal Flag" it will be a derivative work, regardless of whether the design elements (colour, aspect ratio etc) are different to the original.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Austr.Aborig.png&oldid=634699599"