Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

[edit] Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

This is probably a unfree image. I assume that Hezbollah or someone affiliated with it holds the copyright on this flag, and there's no indication that they have put the flag under a free licence. The present licence tags seem to be intended to indicate that the SVG drawing of the flag is copyleft, but that does not make the flag it is based on copyleft. --Sandstein 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Rationale for deletion is completely baseless as SVG file was not produced by Hezbollah. There are plenty of similar images in Category:SVG flags, and there is no reason to treat this image any differently. -- 82.32.191.92 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the SVG, it's about the logo itself, which is copyrighted by Hezbollah (or whoever). If you make a SVG copy of a copyrighted image, you violate the copyright on the original image. The other items in Category:SVG flags are probably mostly public domain as flags of states, but if some are not, they should also be deleted. Sandstein 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand by what principle of copyright law national flags are said to be automatically copyright-free (as opposed to all other flags). I wonder if anyone could point to a specific unambiguous legal provision on this point. The rationale for having a Hezbollah flag is much the same as for any national government flag -- it conducts wars separately from the central government of Lebanon, and it has a foreign policy which is distinct from that of the central government of Lebanon, and it's convenient to have a shorthand graphic way of referring to it... AnonMoos 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The copyright status of flags varies according to the laws of the respective countries, but most countries have made their flags public domain or something like it; see e.g. Image:Flag of Austria.svg, and/or the flags are so simple they can't be copyrighted; see e.g. Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg. Neither is the case in this instance. The logo appears to be copyrightable and as far as we know the copyright owner hasn't released it into the public domain. Whether it's convenient for us to have the flag is not relevant. Sandstein 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hezbollah is not old enough for it to be PD-old, right? Most of the other flags on the commons are (though, many are improperly noted as GFDL-self). That being said, the use of flags is generally considered public domain by most people of their own countries, and Hezbollah freely distributes the use of the flag (it has no monetary purpose for it). I would assert this is fairly close to PD, even if not explictly stated (I know that's not good enough, but it's the best I can do). Patstuart 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, most national flags are NOT old enough for them to be PD-OLD, considering that the number of independent nations in the world has roughly quadrupled since WW2, and that the flags of many of the nations which were independent before WW2 have changed since then (the current U.S. flag only dates from 1960). And it's nonsense to say that "the use of flags is generally considered public domain by most people of their own countries" -- legally they're either in the public domain or not in the public domain, according to the laws of the particular country (regardless of what "most people" "consider" them to be), and many governments restrict commercial use of national symbols (which means that they're in fact NOT in the "public domain" as this is generally understood). I OPPOSE the deletion of this image until someone can demonstrate to me any significant difference between the legal status of the Hezbollah flag and a number of national flags. AnonMoos 12:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Hezbollah was founded in 1985, and at any rate, is not a country, but an organisation, so it's a logo at issue here, not a flag per se. We simply do not know whether "Hezbollah freely distributes the use of the flag" (as in, putting it under a free licence). Wikipedia, in Flag of Hezbollah, makes no such claim. They may distribute items with the logo on it, but that's obviously not the same. Whether or not they have a monetary interest in it may or may not be the case and is irrelevant for copyright purposes. Sandstein 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Let's look at another example: Image:Flag of the United Nations.svg. According to the United Nations flag code and regulations, commercial use of this emblem is forbidden. So we should delete this ~~flag~~ emblem too, right? -- 82.32.191.92 12:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, if it indeed fails Commons:Licensing, which requires that images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Would you like to open the deletion request, or should I? Sandstein 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either of them should be deleted, which is why I'm opposed to this request. Having a general policy is fine, but if it is only enforced to suppress minority views (like this for example), then people should consider very carefully what they are doing and why. If you want to start deleting things from Commons, then here are some more candidates for you to consider:

(Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, but it's something for you to get started on if you like) -- 82.32.191.92 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives06#Olympic_flags, which documents a previous decision to keep Image:Olympic flag.svg despite the fact that commercial use of this flag is prohibited by the IOC. -- 82.32.191.92 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These flags are not at issue here; you are free to list them for deletion also. Even though this is also irrelevant, this deletion request is also not intended to suppress anyone's point of view, as this logo is mostly used in a neutral fashion to illustrate encyclopedia articles. All of the above does not change the fact that this Hezbollah logo is in violation of Wikimedia Commons licencing policy. Sandstein 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that discussion reached a conclusion that is contrary to Commons' licensing policy and that it did so based on one part defiance of the policy and one part misunderstanding of copyright legislation (neglecting to differentiate between primary depiction and incidental inclusion and to consider the huge differences in freedom of panorama provisions in different jurisdictions). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, we're waiting for you to give us a good reason why you singled out the Hezbollah flag, when the Hezbollah flag is not any individual special problematic case, but is merely one random exemplification of an issue that could possibly affect many other images on Commons. If you want to start a discussion on the general issue, then you should start a discussion on the general issue, instead of merely picking on the Hezbollah flag. As long as you're not giving us a good reason why you specially singled out the Hezbollah flag in particular (among all the other possibilities), then I remain opposed to the deletion of this image... AnonMoos 08:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; maybe Sandstein simply came across the Hezbollah flag without seeing the others, rather than having "singled it out," dude. En masse nominations are the exception on COM:DEL, not the norm, because in general, there are very few "geral issues." For example, the F1 black flag would be ineligible for copyright protection, whereas most of the other flags listed are eligible, and some of those might in turn be found to have an acceptable licence. "But you have an article on this equally insignificant garage band" is not a valid argument for keeping articles that are not encyclopædically notable on Wikipedia. The same is true on Commons. The reason the others haven't been nominated is that they haven't been nominated yet; it's that simple. Putting your own assumptions of bad faith before the question of whether this image complies or violates the licensing policy is purely obstructive behaviour. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He came across it here (more specifically, here) -- i.e., by joining in the victimization of a Wikipedia user. -- 82.32.191.92 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's your conjecture and opinion. And it's still irrelevant. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have expressed no opinion about the appropriateness (or not) of the userbox at issue in the WP:ANI discussion mentioned above. I read the discussion, noticed the copyvio, and mentioned that I have issued this deletion request. I'll support any other deletion requests of other logos that we carry in violation of policy. Sandstein 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Either delete or change policy. But not keep, although against policy. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also some flags on the list are {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And what is your view on the precedent I referred to? -- 82.32.191.92 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is in my opinion a mistake by the closing admin. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

KeepYann 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell us why? Sandstein 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should we answer your questions when you won't answer our questions? AnonMoos 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume your polite reference is to Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives06#Olympic_flags? I thought this one was obvious: it obviously reached the wrong result, received virtually no in-depth discussion and appeared to hinge on a questionable interpretation of panorama freedom, an issue not relevant here. Even if it were, one deletion discussion cannot be precedential in the sense that it can override clearly applicable policy. For that, you'd need to gather consensus to change the policy itself. Sandstein 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unless someone can show that Hezbollah has placed their flag, which satisfies the requirements for copyright protection, under a GFDL or CC-by-SA licence. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is important to illustrate Hezabollah especially in light of recent conflict in Lebanon. -- Aivazovsky 12:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the image is useful. But it's also copyrighted. What is your opinion about it violating Commons:Licensing? Sandstein 12:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep and put {{PD-ineligible}} on all flags. Enricopedia ⇄ 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does the creation of the Hezbollah flag not contain original authorship or contain creativity? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think it's not only a question to keep this image or not. Many flags are more than just some arranged colors. Are we going to delete them all? This can't be the way to go, there must be some legal way to keep them. As long as we don't have a (semi-)professional statement about this, I think we should avoid copyright paranoia. Enricopedia ⇄ 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, an example of {{PD-ineligible}}. Kjetil _r 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not so. The flag contains original drawings of a weapon, an arm, a mosque and a globe; together they certainly qualify for copyright protection under any standard I'm aware of. Sandstein 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A German court has ruled that Image:SED-Logo.png has no Schöpfungshöhe. If this logo does not qualify for copyright protection, neither does this flag (in Germany at least). It is hard to judge some of these flags, but in my opinion is not the Hezbollah flag eligible for copyright protection. Kjetil _r 07:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a singular decision much criticised by scholarship; it is generally assumed to have been politically motivated. Note that that image is not actually tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} - that tag is not about lack of Schöpfungshöhe, but states "... consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." That's patently not the case here, if alone for the writing. Sandstein 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, than we have to create a template that fits for flags. Enricopedia ⇄ 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Any template you may want to create for flags does not solve the problem that this particular image is a copyrightable work that has not been released under a free licence, as required by Commons policy. Sandstein 17:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore Sandstein's confusing words and keep. Ineligble is lack of Schöpfungshöhe nothing else. I do not see enough originality in this flag. --Historiograf 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Pd-ineligible (I won't go into details about that the whole purpose of a flag is that it can be used wherever the entity it is meant to symbolize should be symbolized by a flag... Rule of thumb: if you want your copyright honored everytime your graphic design is displayed or used, don't design a flag.) --AndreasPraefcke 10:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept: {{PD-ineligible}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

Views

Personal tools

Search

Navigation

Participate

Toolbox