Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Vector-Images.com[edit]

Notice

This should finish the discussion once and for all. Sent an e-mail to VI asking: 

Hi
Acording to the page http://vector-images.com/about.php under the heading "Copyright & disclaimer" it says that:
"Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be freely used on other web sites or any 
media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to www.vector-images.com) only. "
I was just wondering what is meant by "freely used". Does this mean that if I trace the raster preview images
into vector format I'm allowed to sell it?

The reply that I got was: 

Thank you for your e-mail and interest in our services.
We do not allow to resell our images in any way. All the cliparts on our web server are copyrighted. We do not
provide the rights to revectorize our images.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
--
Best regards,
Yuri
Vector-Images.com
support@vector-images.com

So with "use freely" VI does not allow commercial use and limits derivative use hence not making this license free enough for Commons. /Lokal_Profil 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this means this discussion is no longer about whether to delete this template and all images tagged with it. It is about the best way to proceed with this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 1.1.1 in their term of use states: "For the purpose of this Agreement, "Licensed Material" shall mean any illustration, visual representation or other product protected by copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights, which is delivered in any format to Licensee by Licensor under the terms of this Agreement.", thus what states on the about page isn't really true. →AzaToth 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all images tagged with it. "Vector versions are not permitted" (as the tag says) is an unacceptable restriction. Two other unacceptable restrictions from the linked page:
"Licensee may not sell, license or distribute its work in such a way that Licensee's customer can extract or access the Licensed Material as a stand-alone file."
"You may modify and publish all images as you wish in any personal, commercial or professional project for decoration or illustration purposes even if you resell your work. You can not in any way make the images available for download or distribution, or give permission to download or save the images from your project as clipart or graphics."
Not good enough for Commons. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been deletion debates about this template before; each time there was, a Russian user has manage to come up with a solution by talking to the owners of the website. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never felt comfortable with the notion that we should be trusting a third party for our copyright decisions, rather than directly addressing the copyright holders for clarifications on their licenses. This situation is murky at best; did VI create all of them? Hard to know. But, I found this diff asserting VI stole images to be quite troubling indeed. I don't think we should necessarily delete these images, as there are a huge number of them, but perhaps we should make a special case for these; delete this template, put the images in a special category, and wait six months then delete any that have not been resolved as to their copyright status. Whatever trust I had in VI is now shattered. Further, their license agreement is more restrictive than we accept. In particular they do NOT want their images to be placed on "any other type of project that would encourage visitors to download or save images." Commons actively ENCOURAGES visitors to download, save, use, etc. images. This just doesn't work. We are talking about a lot of images, but we should have the courage to move forward, away from this highly problematic source. --Durin 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAfter looking at the terms page and looking at the points Durin made, he makes a good suggestion. Yes, some of the images at the website are under a public domain license due to Russian law. Many of the images that might need deletion will occur from non CIS countries. We don't need to do this quickly, but I can understand the frustration that Durin expresses that dealing with this website is a hassle, especially with out ever increasing policies on "what is considered free" for Wikimedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment What is "considered free" on Commons is not "ever increasing". The restrictions given above would have been unacceptable right from the start. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know their terms have been changing too, but what I tried to get at is almost each deletion debate with regards to this template in the past, there has been at least some change in what kind of images we accept on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have trouble believeing that VI wouldn't mind if I download a raster image from them, trace it into vector format and then sell it on my own competing webpage. If they explicitly say that thats acceptable then fine but I'm guessing that non of the questions to them has been that direct. As a sidecomment, yes they might not own the rights to all of their images but the same applies to every other wrongfully licensed user created derive work on Commons. Just like then we have to look at the image and ask ourselves does this license apply for this specific instance. /Lokal_Profil 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment You're right, they would mind; the terms explicitly say that "[y]ou can not in any way make the images available for download or distribution". Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the first sentence of vector-images terms of use "When you purchase vector image from...". Template is about bitmap images. --EugeneZelenko 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be a valid point; purchase vs. use of preview images. It's unclear from the terms exactly whether the terms explicitly apply to only purchase items or everything on the site, as the terms.php file is linked from the copyright statement at the bottom of the page. That aside, I'm still quite troubled by the evidence that VI has been stealing images. Allowing a third party that we know to be stealing images to be making decisions on copyright status of something is fraught with trouble. --Durin 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that this template relies on the statement: "Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be freely used on other web sites or any media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to www.vector-images.com) only. Please read also our Terms of use." So parts of the Terms of Use might not apply. Still however I repeat that I think VI would mind I download a raster image from them, trace it into vector format and then sold it on my own competing webpage. And this is one of the freedoms that we require from images on Commons. /Lokal_Profil 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, I think. The terms linked to here are only for the vector images which are downloaded (or anything else which becomes available after a user has explicitly agreed to the license, as 1.1.1 states); obviously we can't use those but that is not what the template is for. They may have a problem with others tracing one of the bitmap images, but they don't say that -- they say "any use", at least currently. These terms apply only to purchased vector images, or any other material which comes on purchased CDs. The making available of wikipedia material is troubling, but didn't they take it down once notified? If they get their material from uploaders, they are in the same situation as Commons, having to assume good faith unless shown otherwise. If they did not take it down, or if they themselves took it from Commons knowing it was a copyright violation, that would be much worse. Carl Lindberg 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, we use bitmap, not vector images. --jed 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like somebody who's voting to keep to explain why it's okay for us to delegate copyright decisions to a company that has stolen images from Wikipedia and passed them off as their own. Ipankonin 08:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are near 3000 images of Russian municipal insignia, uploaded by me. They are not stolen from Wikipedia. Maybe you should discuss individual images, not the template or company? --Panther 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's entirely appropriate to discuss the company. If the company has a record of stealing work from Wikimedia contributors (or anyone else) and claiming it as their own, then that's a damned good reason to mistrust any images that come from that site. That their license terms are confusing AND the tag explicitly forbids making vector versions of their raster images, which is a completely unacceptable restriction makes it worse. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In same way as users of Commons content delegate copyright decisions on Commons community. What is the difference? Are number of errors in Commons (false licenses, derivative works, freedom of panorama violations, images without author info claimed to be in PD as anonymous work) significantly less then in case of Vector-Images? --EugeneZelenko 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly appropriate to discuss, if it's a common occurrence. I'm not going to vote to delete over one mistake though; I'm usually more interested in how they handled the mistake. It sounds like they get (contract for?) artwork from many people around the globe. I assume they have to trust those people to deliver original artwork, legally derived... it is inevitable though that mistakes may be made from time to time. If one of those people was trying to get paid for your work, certainly that's not very cool, but I'm not sure you can blame vector-images management directly. It's also quite possible that that person mistakenly thought it was a PD license, made some tweaks to it, then called it his own. That's a bit more innocent, and happens all the time from people unfamiliar with copyright law. Commons itself is probably far worse in those types of mistakes, so it seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black to condemn all of vector-images over single mistakes. All Commons can do is fix any such situations as we become aware of them, and it sounds like that is what vector-images did in your case. In looking over some of their stuff, most of the items I've looked at seem original to me... their versions of U.S. Government symbols in general seem to be noticeably different than artwork available either here or on U.S. Government websites. For example, I have not found a vector version of the reverse of the Great Seal anywhere, but they have one. I'd hope that is original, as it has a mistake on the "Annuit Cœptis" inscription.
As for the license, it's pretty clear that it only is for the small-scale bitmap preview images, and the terms of use is for the vector and large-scale-bitmap versions which you pay for. The talk page indicates that using the small bitmap images to create our own vector versions is allowed; that was specifically asked before. It sounds like they are only concerned with making sure that someone does not download a vector version from their site then upload that (or a derived work) here, and the tag needs to make that explicit -- probably it could be worded better.
For an example of Commons licensing issues... there is this image, recently uploaded by Ipankonin. It was his own work combined with elements taken from four other SVGs, as it notes. Two of those SVGs are PD, but one is CC-BY-SA and the other is dual-licensed CC-BY-SA and GFDL. However, the final result was also multilicensed as CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which could be a problem. While the issue is being worked on, currently the two licenses are incompatible -- you can not relicense GFDL into CC-BY-SA, and going the other way is uncertain at best. So, saying that someone else's CC-BY-SA work can be used under the terms of the GFDL can be construed as a copyright violation (it can be CC-BY-SA in this case, but not both). Furthermore, the "Author" section does not credit the original authors, which it should to comply with CC-BY-SA, as they own part of the copyright on the derived work. Of course, it gets better... the phrygian cap was the only element taken from this image, which is the one dual-licensed. That in turn was a simple extraction from this flag image, which is marked as PD -- so the user probably had no right to add those licenses in the first place, as all of the creative artwork was from the flag SVG. Even better, the phrygian cap on the flag image itself was changed by that same user from its original look (which may have been more appropriate, as it is more consistent with the look of the rest of the image) to the one from this image, without even noting the source and author (and at this point, who knows if that was the original place). At least that last original is PD, but it is still a good idea to note authorship of sources, as moral rights often exist even if copyright does not. Carl Lindberg 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference would be that I did attribute the original authors by linking to their images. Maybe a better explanation of the copyright is to say that the elements that came from the other images go under their licenses, and all original work is dual-licensed. That is what I was implying by linking to the other images. As far as I know there is not a template on Commons that adequately explains that sort of situation, and including all of the license templates on the page would be really cumbersome. Ipankonin 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did link the sources, so most people can figure out the authorship -- more than many folks do. However, the author's names themselves are not listed in the "Author" section on your image page, which is a very basic requirement of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA -- they need to be named on the page. Furthermore, through no fault of your own, you did not name or link to the author of the phrygian cap (since the image you pulled it from took it from somewhere else without any attribution at all). The cumulative result is that you have an image claimed as your own, with your own license stating you are the only copyright holder, without crediting any other authors, even the one who does (I think) hold a portion of the copyright. It's impossible to say whether there were multiple similar stages of your image on its way to vector-image's website, or if they knowingly stole it directly (which is obviously worse).
As for the license, you really can't have a partial license -- that is why there is no tag ;-) The only license acceptable for your Senate seal image is CC-BY-SA, since that is the license of one of the components (the fasces) and your image counts as a derivative work. I suppose you could add a note saying that your portions can also be licensed GFDL, which may well aid future derivative works, but that image as a whole cannot be licensed that way I don't think. Due to the incompatibilities, you cannot combine GFDL-licensed and CC-BY-SA-licensed components into the same derivative work unfortunately (I have seen some deleted under that reasoning), since both licenses require you to use its same license for any derivative works. It sounds like people are working to resolve the incompatibilities in future versions of the licenses, but right now they are technically incompatible I believe. Carl Lindberg 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very curious. I'll keep that in mind, and thank you for pointing it out to me. I've said before that copyright ignorance is a bigger problem on Wikipedia than copyright paranoia, and it looks like I've been guilty of it. Ipankonin 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should finish the discussion once and for all. Sent an e-mail to VI asking:
Hi
Acording to the page http://vector-images.com/about.php under the heading "Copyright & disclaimer" it says that:
"Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be freely used on other web sites or any media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to www.vector-images.com) only. "
I was just wondering what is meant by "freely used". Does this mean that if I trace the raster preview images into vector format I'm allowed to sell it?

The reply that I got was:
Thank you for your e-mail and interest in our services.
We do not allow to resell our images in any way. All the cliparts on our web server are copyrighted. We do not provide the rights to revectorize our images.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

So with "use freely" VI does not allow commercial use and limits derivative use hence not making this license free enough for Commons. Delete /Lokal_Profil 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modify then Delete template only I say at first, edit the template to require a new one be put up (such as the english wikipedia "Non-free image" template), and then delete it after a few months, once the changeover has been complete. Don't delete the images, as some may be quite valid, and simply have an improper tag, where another one may be more suitable/appropriate. RingtailedFox 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Stop any new uploads. Add tips about possible other suitable licenses (such as for russian CoAs). Set a definite end date by which time all images still tagged get deleted. Without the end date the images are just going to be forgotten and nothing new will happen. BEfore this end date images can be deleted via deletion requests and similar. Also remember that many images are derived from VI images so before deleting an image we must check "what links here" and then mark any derivatives for deletion (or if it's a minor part of an image ask the creator to replace it with a free image instead). /Lokal_Profil 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. If this came from Vector-Images.com then they're not freely reusable and need to be deleted. Why on earth should we give images that came from this site more of a chance than we do the other copyvios that come along? Is Commons here to give them free advertising or what? Also bear in mind that if an image is (say) a Russian CoA, then while the CoA itself may not be copyrighted, a particular expression of it might be. I'm not familiar with Russian copyright law on this count (in Britain, the image would be copyrightable even if the CoA itself was PD), and really, I don't care enough to find out. Nevertheless, if you want to go through them, go through them now. I'm not waiting for several months before deleting them. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The different with the russian ones is that VIs versions are often identical to the official ones (hence giving them no new copyright), same thing might apply for other places where the official CoAs are by law free. Also the difference between this and other copyvios is that this one affects 4000-5000 images which has for several years been free. There might be other free alternatives currently on Commons but if we just delete all in one go then non will be replaced with free ones. Also deleting all in one go means that we'll miss all derivative images which need to be tagged/author informed. Don't worry you don't have to go through them since this is a wiki and you don't have to do anything. Also you don't have to wait several months to delete them, you can let someone else do it when the time runs out. /Lokal_Profil 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that you're volunteering to go through them? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, "I'm not waiting several months" means "I think any images with this license tag are likely to be shot on sight". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the above is (and remains) their answer, then certainly at the very least we can not allow any new images using the tag. Reading the talk page though, the very same question was asked just this past May, and apparently got a very different answer (which was a follow-up to an earlier response that looked more like the one you got). So, I'm not sure if they have just changed your mind, or if there was something misunderstood last time, or if there is someone not familiar with the past communication (and maybe just giving a stock answer). Also the tag is specific to coats of arms and flag images from their site, not all preview images -- not sure if that makes a difference.
The template has been discussed several times from the looks of it, and kept following clarifying statements from them. In good faith afterwards, many images were uploaded, and we should not be in any kind of a rush to delete those. Their status is uncertain to be sure, but it can easily argued that they were used by permission before, so this would constitute a change in terms which we cannot use going forward. It may be a good idea to correspond again, including the past emails and contact addresses, to clarify the situation. It may be better to ask in Russian as well, so there is nothing lost in communication. This is far from a normal copyvio situation though, so I would not treat it like one. Carl Lindberg 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't going to be a rush for deletion. The only exception is for new images from this site. We need to figure out how many images we have from this site, stop new uploads, then sort things out. While I trust Eugene and the other emailers who sent messages before, I have no clear idea of what was said, mostly because the emails are in Russian. If it needs to be clarified about the preview images, then I will send another email and see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now with the toolserver being down now, most of these deletions will need to be done by hand or wait to see if our delinker bots will still work. I personally deleted 2 or 3 images from this bunch, mostly for false sourcing (image claimed to be from VI, but the images differ by many factors). Also keep in mind that some of the images from VI have SVG replacements on en.wikipedia, but they are not on here yet. One example is the reverse of the Oregon flag. I did a vector version of the flag, just too lazy to put it on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but when explicitly asked about supposedly free raster preview images (not about for sale images) VI has explicitly said "We do not allow to resell our images in any way. All the cliparts on our web server are copyrighted. We do not provide the rights to revectorize our images." That is, Non Commercial and Non Derivative. So... what's the purpose of this discussion? I mean, if the licensing conditions were compatible before, existing images may be kept (but foreseeing tor replace them ASAP) but new ones cannot be accepted. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This message (in Russian) was received by me from vector-images in May 2007. (Now it was forwarded to OTRS).
    The key words here are (written by Yuri Rosich, Vector-Images.com Marketing manager):
    "никаких ограничений на использование растровых файлов превью мы вообще не накладываем кроме требования указания на источник."
    which means:
    "We do not limit any use of our preview images except the right source indication"
    and
    "Все изложенное выше является официальной позицией представляемой мной компании и может быть цитируемо и публикуемо без изъятий"
    which means:
    "this is the official position of the company represented by me, and may be cited and published without any reduction"
    --Panther 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough of them. The "whether to delete" discussion is over. If they can't even decide among themselves what the license terms of their images are then why should we bother? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who told the discussion is over? Did you do it? I cited the official position of the company. Whose the text from this "notice"? What is his name? Let ask Mr. Rosich, but not the opinion of the unknown person. --Panther 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, Panther, thanks for sending it to OTRS and reading my message and second, I sent an email addressed to Yuri specifically. The email is at User:Zscout370/viemail. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason I sent the new e-mail (sent to support@vector-images.com and answered by Yuri) was so that I could ask the question bluntly using the most extreme case of a free license (as required by Commons). /Lokal_Profil 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I also sent it to the same address you sent it to Lokal, and I addressed it to specifically to Yuri. I also included examples of derivative works that I did, so we can show what we mean by derivative works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • But did you ask about selling (commercial use) vectorisations (derivative works) of their images. I asked about this since it was the thing that they were most likely to object to. After all why would they want to allow anyone to set up a competing website selling "their" vector images. /Lokal_Profil 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The first two sentences of the second paragraph mentioned about the commercial uses of the images, such as our CD and DVD versions the Germans are cranking out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't know if this was made clear by other context, but I don't see in your email that you specify that we are talking only about the low-scale bitmap preview images. If I was in business selling images, my assumption would be that "your images" would refer to the ones being sold :-) Also, the tag currently specifies coat of arms and flag images only, not all preview images -- not sure if that distinction is important to them either (it may be; I assume the tag says it that way for a reason). Carl Lindberg 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Don't know if you are reffereing to my e-mail or Zscout370's. If your reffering to mine then "Raster preview images" is quite clear and the page "http://vector-images.com/about.php under the heading "Copyright & disclaimer" is exactly the one we use in the template as a motivation for why the images were allowed. /Lokal_Profil 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I was referring to Zscout370's. My main concern with yours is perhaps it was a stock answer to a misunderstood question... "raster" may be lost in translation to a Russian reader. Given the history behind this template, it seems like a good idea to at least try to get a reply from a more authoritative person from there. Of course if we keep pestering them every few months when it's listed for deletion again, they may just give up and say "no" ;-) Carl Lindberg 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have more images from them other than flags and coat of arms. I have seen medal images from them appear on the website. I have seen logos and emblems of military forces and ministries of the Russian Government. So it is more than just the flags and coat of arms. Plus, I showed them raster images as the examples, so they know what I am speaking of. I haven't got anything tonight, so I will see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete You are all missing the point, whether or not they drew the images themselves they do not own the copyright to the images, despite what they may claim. This is a common problem with copyright, people think "I took the time to draw this therefore I own the copyright", however the copyrights are actually help by the people (or a governmental organ) of the country that created the insignia in the first official document containing it. It can get pretty annoying here on the commons sometimes, there is no accurate way of labelling national insignia, so people use PD-Self, or other weird licenses like this one. There is no way a website holds the copyright to half the national insignia in the world, especially as most were created years before the internet even existed. What you are not understanding here is that if I take a PD image such as the flag of the USA, redraw it, and upload it to a website I own, I don't magically acquire the copyright to it! And if the image was not PD to start with then redrawing it myself is copyright infringement. So this license is entirely bogus, as are all the other flags, and coats of arms uploaded as GFDL, or PD-Self. Just stick your heads back in the sand and move along, or else tag all flags and insignia on the commons for deletion. The phrase I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: is simply not true, a commons user has never owned the rights to national insignia, and never will, they are copyrighted by the governments or in the public domain, but definitely not copyrighted by some random website, or commons user. So my advice, is to just go on ignoring the problem, and pretending all is good, just label everything GFDL, or PD-Self like we always do. Jackaranga 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that the above isn't always true. Anyone who draws a Coat of arms based soly on the blasoning (i.e. not just redrawing the official interpretation) will be the copyright holder of that image. Now as far as the blasoning since a good blasoning describes the Coat of arms in very general terms (i.e. "a castle" not "the Windsor castle") graphical interpretations of it are generally considered be original works. /Lokal_Profil 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, this is not necessarily true. Usually, a blazon leaves a lot of room for artistic interpretation, and each individual emblazon or rendition may very easily have enough original artwork to qualify for copyright. This does not prevent any other artist from making their own interpretation, which would be an entirely separate work (and neither of them would be a derivative work of the textual description; each would be an original work). For example, both this image and this image are both independent emblazons of the reverse of the U.S. Great Seal; they both qualify as being the seal but artistically they are not derivative of each other in any way, so the each artist held copyright on their version (which has lapsed for both of them... and technically, the first one may have been a derivative of an 1850s version). If a version does not add enough original expression to qualify for copyright, then it would carry the same license as the original, which in many cases is PD due to how long some versions have existed. If that is the case for any of these, then tag with PD-old, instead of or in addition to the vector-images tag. If the design is very simple, then PD-ineligible may apply as well. It is common courtesy to identify the source though even in these cases. If they were generated from a vector-images owned vector version, then it seems reasonable to credit them in any case. Carl Lindberg 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-upload images to the projects as fair-use. VI's license is very similar to the UK government's Crown copyright. Any images that can't be re-licensed can be freely uploaded to those projects that accept less-than-free images (I think we can assume good faith most of the time as to their ownership as long as there's no evidence to the contrary). The projects that don't use fair-use are still screwed, but it's better than every project being screwed. Ipankonin 06:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually these images don't qualify for fair use on most projects for the simple reason that there are free alternatives available. Since coats of arms can always be created freely from the blasoning there, by default, always exists free alternatives. /Lokal_Profil 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: Alot of these images have been superseded by free SVGs. The problem could be reduced (As far as the number of disputed images) by aggressively migrating all other projects to these SVGs and then deleting the VI-rasters. Wont completely solve the problem, but will reduce the apparent inflation. 68.39.174.238 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we create a list of which VI images have alternatives then CommonsDelinker can fix it, even raster -> vector if it's a one of thing. I've already created such a list for the Swedish VI coat of arms. /Lokal_Profil 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found 220 VI images which are tagged with vector version available or superseded. They can be found here
  • Keep! Many flags and coats of arms are PD, for example, Russia. Vector-Images no has any copyrights for those pics! --Pauk 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those images should be marked as PD for whichever other reason, the other ones need to go. Also note that only the officially produced CoAs of Russia are PD. If I draw my own interpretation (that is one that looks different from the official one) then I can still copyright it. However most (all?) of VI.com's russian CoAs are based on the official ones exactly for the reason that these re PD. /Lokal_Profil 20:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.Vector-Images could not forbid revectorization of their free Bitmaps. Most of the COAs are PD-old or PD-ineligible. It's only forbidden to sell V-I's original Vector Images. That don't mean that's the same with repainted vector versions. The preview images in PNG, GIF or JPG are still free, so the can stay at commons. ChristianBier 13:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opened[edit]

And re-opened. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're PD-old or PD-ineligible then we should delete this template and relicense those. I like how people project onto VI's license what they want it to say instead of what it actually says, and the fact is it's too restrictive and/or ambiguous. That's the reason we're sending emails, but we get contradictory answers. I hope this gets sorted out. Ipankonin 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I start retagging the COAs of Belarus, Russia and Estonia with the correct Licences with the help of my AWB. But we have to speak about the others. What should we do? Search for Alternatives? Redraw as SVG? Want to here your Ideas and maybe we could coordinate the work here together. ChristianBier 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many have SVG alternatives already here or on other projects. Once we get toolserv back up and running, this job will be a ton easier. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay attention to Russian municipal symbols, containing "proposed" in their's names. They are not PD-RU-exempt and must be locally reuploaded under fair use conditions. --Panther 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only flag, coat of arms are exempted by {{PD-BY-exempt}}. So cities and regions COAs and flags status are still unknown. Book about Belarusian heraldry (С.Я. Рассадзін. А.М. Міхальчанка. Гербы і сцягі гарадоў і раёнаў Беларусі, ISBN 985-01-0530-5) claims official cities COAs are copyrighted by one of state organizations. Most COAs and flags are redesigned in modern times so such claims have merit. --EugeneZelenko 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also not that only offical coat of arms are covered by PD-RU etc. If VI have made their own interpretations of the blasoning then they do own the copyright of the image, even if it is russian. Same thing goes for PD-old claims, new interpreations give new copyright. /Lokal_Profil 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in Russia, Belarus or Estonia for example (also in Germany too). When the law does forbid own copyright on COAs,no one can get copyright on self-made COAs based on blasoning etc. Please read the laws (in the most of the cases the paragraphs are mentioned in the license-tag). ChristianBier 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-RU-exempt}} mentiones only state symbols and flags which I would interpret to mean official state symbols and flags. {{PD-Coa-Germany}} mentions official works like coats of arms limiting the copyright of official interpretations only. I expect that the wording is similar for Estonia, Belarus and other countries. I don't actually believe the states could make other peoples non-derivtive works public domain, at least not if outside their own country. That is if I'm in the US and I draw an image which I name CoA of Russia (but which doesn't look like the official one) then Russian law wouldn't apply to the image. If I on the other hand draw an image based on the official one then Russian law comes into play since my image is a derivative of a official russian image. Anyhow own interpretations would have to be own interpretations of the blasoning not interpretations of the official coat of arms, which (since the official coat of arms is PD) wouldn't be very usefull to us. And the above comment was more a general warning to not blindly assume that all VI CoAs for specific countries are by default PD (although most of them will in fact be derivatives). /Lokal_Profil 11:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for the most appropriate solution[edit]

Dear friends. I'm not the Commons-administrator. But I suggest I could give the most appropriate solution for our problem. I don't say - this is result. I say - this is the most appropriate solution for present. Alex Spade 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First. The template[edit]

The template must be kept, but redesigned. The first variant of such redesign was offered on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com#Third proposed new template content. It took into account the possible freedom of exclusive VI.com images (via {{Attribution}} as default). The my variant was supported, but wasn't applied. Now VI.com says, that their exclusive drawnings are not free (in definition of FCW). Therefore, I have proposed the Fourth proposed new template content - {{Vector-Images.com/proposal (2nd)}} - this is variant - we can enchance it, but template is very necessary.

Unknown status - {{Vector-Images.com}}

Total unfree status - {{Vector-Images.com|copyvio}}

Free status - for examples {{Vector-Images.com|PD-RU-exempt}}, {{Vector-Images.com|PD-ineligible}}, {{Vector-Images.com|PD-old}}

Second. Vectorization[edit]
  1. Could we use vector version of official COA and flags (real official, without distortions) from VI.com? The VI.com deprecates such action. It is possible, that they couldn't - it's possible that in ru-law vectorization is trivial action, which doen's create new and independent copyright. But such promblem is still unarbitrated, so I suugest, we cann't risk and there is no special necessity to use exactly vector versions, exactly from VI.com. And previous discussions support such POV - don't use the vector images from VI.com
  2. Could we create own vector version? I suggest - we could - VI.com cann't prohibited sush action. If image is trivial - its vectorization is also trivial and cann't be copyrigted. If image is untrivial - its vecorization is also untrivial and can be copyrigted, but our vecorizations in most cases could be different from VI.com in SVG-code.
Third. Copyright status[edit]

There are five primary types of images on VI.com.

  1. Non-heraldic arts. Clear situation. VI.com always depractes to use them and we never have been using them.
  2. Proposal heraldic arts, for example Image:Coat of Arms of Zelenograd-Silino (municipality in Moscow) proposal.png. Early we were using them, but now VI.com says, that they are not free in definition of FCW.
    • Could VI.com deprecate to use them? Yes, because these images are proposal - they aren't PD-exempt.
    • And what we must do with them? I suggest - we must check, can such images fall under other PD tags: PD-old, PD-Russia or other. If they cann't - unfortunately we must delete them - we have no chance to leave them on Commons.
    • This is not very large problem fot Wikipedia-evolution. These images are proposals, they are not official ones - their concernment is smaller than concernment of official ones.
  3. Green Heraldic arts (а) based on official ones, (b) primordially fall under PD-exempt, PD-ineligible, PD-old, PD-Russia, PD-USGov, PD-GermanGov and etc., (c) without distortions - for example Image:Russia coa.svg (don't put attention, that this image is vector one, think that it is raster one). Clear situation - we can tag sush images as {{Vector-Images.com|respective tag}} or even just {{respective tag}}, but I recommend first variant. Any work of VI.com artists is trivial for such raster images.
  4. Yellow Heraldic arts (а) based on official ones, (b) primordially fall under PD-exempt, PD-ineligible, PD-old, PD-Russia, PD-USGov, PD-GermanGov and etc., (c) with distortions - for example variant form VI.com vs. official one. Not so clear situation - I recommend to tag sush images as {{Vector-Images.com|respective tag}}. Work of VI.com artists can be copyrighted for such raster images. I suggest, such work cann't be copyrighted - it's too unoriginal and uncreative, the Russian Supreme Court and Supereme Arbitral Court repeatedly say that, only original and creative work can be copyrighted. But this is my POV - I offer to keep these images on commons for present, and to rediscuss them later.
  5. Red Heraldic arts (а) based on official ones, (b) don't fall under PD-exempt, PD-ineligible, PD-old, PD-Russia, PD-USGov, PD-GermanGov and etc. - i.e. primordially copyrighted, (c) with/without disortions (this point is unimpotant). For example en:Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (don't put attention, that this image is not from VI.com, think that it is from VI.com and raster one). Unfortunately we must delete them - they are not originally free - the works of VI.com is just der.works from unfree works.
    • Yes, all official flags and COAs are uncopyrighted in Russia, even if they are copyrighted in country of origin. Yes, VI.com can freely make vector version of them. But for Commons - these work are still primordially unfree.
    • And this is real problem fot Wikipedia-evolution.

Alex Spade 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Template kept, but remade as obsolete without first parameter {{{1}}}. Alex Spade 11:59, March 15, 2008 (UTC)

I know it's been open for awhile but please wait until an admin closes this. It's not a clear cut issue and you're too involved to close it anyway. Also, this isn't the place to discuss the details of new templates (a link to the template's talk page is all you need - our DR pages are big enough already). - Rocket000 05:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is 53 kilobytes long. This is not problem of this page - this common problem of WikiCommons del.req. page, which included other subpages. Don't shift general problem of WikiCommons organization to particular case. Alex Spade 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was talking about. This page is transcluded. - Rocket000 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything specific that we are waiting for which means the discussion can't be closed? /Lokal_Profil 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have liked to hear others' input (like those admins that closed/reopened/protected this), but I guess this doesn't need to remain open. The discussion has moved to a more suitable place: Template talk:Vector-Images.com. I admit I was acting more for the sake of formality and closure than any real issues. Will a non-admin please close this? :) - Rocket000 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of Wikipedia and Wikicommons discussion is looking-for reasoned consensus. I suggest we have found it - Section Third. Copyright status is summary with some my additional comments/explanations. Since Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com nothing was chaned except that VI.com have clearly deprecated to use its own independent works. The situation with this template is complex. If smb still want to discuss the template, he must to choose which point of possible freedom does he want to discuss #3 (Green Heraldic arts) or #4 (Yellow Heraldic arts) - the other ways (#1,#2 and #5) is closed by VI.com or/and laws of respecive countries. Because, I suggest, that User:Lokal Profil and User:Rocket000 aren't objecting to found consensus, I have asked User:Collard for any additional commnets. I think, we can close this discussion after his final comment - the other problems of this template are subject of other discussions. Alex Spade 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I just wanted to make sure everyone was happy. :) - Rocket000 10:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept but semi-obsoleted as per the Alex solution but obsolete without the parameter. And now for the clean-up.. :\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Vector-Images.com_(2nd_request)&oldid=303775295"