Template talk:PD-Coa-Norway

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

Discussion copied from deleted Category talk:Norwegian coats of arms[edit]

Copied by me because the discussion on this talk page is easier to understand if you read the deleted discussion --MGA73 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we or should we not keep the Norwegian coat of arms, and why?[edit]

OK, I have been doing some reading on this matter, and here is what I come up with.

  1. Those images were put up for deletion, as stated here, and the decision was to KEEP them. I reckon Twthmoses either had not been aware of the ongoing discussion, and added the delete tag after that decision was made, or overlooked it.
  2. This said, Egil did not address Twthmoses' concern, who asked for an author's name for these images, which is not provided on the image descriptions.

As I understand it, you are battling on two aspects of the copyright tags, that are not the same. Egil says the image can be used on the commons, and has been approved through the consultation on Deletion requests, Twthmoses says they can't be kept because their author (the one who actually MADE the file) has not been credited and has not agreed to release them under the same conditions that the Norwegian law requests.

I say to resolve this matter that Egil has to provide the author's name and agreement for those images to be kept on the Commons. Does that sum it up, or am I way out of it? notafish }<';> 09:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you had even bothered to check, the source of these images is clealy stated for each and every image. Or what is it with Ralf Hartemink you do not understand? It is also stated that Ralf Hartemink gave permission. What is it with that you do not understand? That said, permission from the author is not required, because these images are not eligible for copyright. (Which was stated clearly, but which was deleted.) What is it with not eligible for copyright you do not understand?
Anyway, this just add to my general impression over time that clearly have demonstrated that the commons is yet far from mature enough. I will thus refrain from uploading anything more material to the commons, and I will also put these images on the 3 or probably more Wikipedias that uses them. Perhaps in a year or so the situation may have improved. Lets hope so. I've wasted enough time now... -- Egil 09:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My mistake. Author name was provided. Then for me, the issue is resolved, these images should stay on Commons, according to the decision made on Deletion requests. All tags should be removed that say unknown copyright status. This said, keeping civil when I am trying to find a suitable solution is the least you could do. notafish }<';> 09:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Twthmoses altered the content of at least 500 pages, removing the copyright status information I put there, saying he/she didn't believe in it. He/she has also put the template where I explained the copyright status up on speedy deletion. All of this without informing or asking, and quite obviosuly without any enquiries beforehand. I found that behaviour totally unacctable, crossing the border of vandalism. I will also add that if such behaviour is tolerated, the commons will remain immature. Regretfully, it is difficult for me to fit civil into this. -- Egil 10:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the way to do it was not civil, but there is no need to direct your frustration (which I perfectly understand) at me. If I have well read User:Twthmoses' claims, he/she will revert his/her doings providing right information is given, which seems to be the case. I hope this will be done shortly. notafish }<';> 10:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hmm... Something very scary is happening here. So let me now demonstrate instead, it often works better. I will use exactly the same way, as the Norwegian images were original tagged. Here are 4 examples, specified upload to demonstrate this. Note that not a single of them is tagged with an actual legal Wiki common copyright tag for use – just like none of the Norwegian images was/is. They are simply tagged with a national law, exactly like the Norwegian images.
- - 50px -
Are these legal and sufficient tagged to keep here? If so or not so, why? And which ones, if any? What is more importantly can these legally be used other places by other users?
Now I’m not judging or anything, but do take a serious thinking about it before answering. If I can use a national law and thereby avoid an actual Wiki common copyright tag…. Hmmm now that should be funny. Twthmoses 11:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As long as the law in the country where the arms originate specifically makes them exempt from copyright, one should in countries which has no particular restrictions on use of official insigna of other countries, be able to regard them as public domain My understanding is that these can be regarded as pure public domain in the US. What regards images that has artistic content in addition to the official form of the arms (like the crown of 4th image) this assumption can be questionable, presuambly based on the extent and value of the additional content. So I would advice that this is only applied to arms shown in their official form. -- Egil 13:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Well I would like wait with my view to see if anyone else will take a swing at it. Case I want it in wrtiting. Twthmoses 17:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Well I became quite curious now, to the actual source listed for the Norwegian CoA’s E.g. “used by permission of Ralf Hartemink”.
Well first of all I contest the very wording of this. “used by permission” grants a right to the uploader, but does not specify any sort s of right to 3rd party users, which is the whole purpose of the files existing on Wiki. 2nd what rights are we talking about here? (e.g. missing a standard Wiki common copyright tag). But let that now be.
In order for Ralf Hartemink to grant anything he has to be the actual creator of the files/images (not the CoA but the file it is on), right? If he is not we are back to start. Missing a clear Wiki common copyright tag.
Now I surfed around on his server and looked at some Danish and some of the more exclusive (lots of details) Norwegian counties and municipally CoA’s. … and wow.. here is but a few of what I found.
Take this Image:Kristiansand komm.png. This is the CoA of the municipality of Kristiansand. 100% copyright violation. This image is found identical (not just the CoA but the same image) on the homepage of Kristiansand 1. It is highly unlikely that he (Ralf Hartemink) is the creator of this image for the Kristiansand municipality. Ergo he is in no position to grant anything to anybody.
2nd we are in luck on this page. Here is Kristiansand’s policy on use of the CoA I remind, All files uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons must be available under a free license. This is not a free CoA. It clearly stats that the general use of the CoA is it must only be used by municipality services doing official business. There are some smaller rules, but none of them makes this CoA free.
Image:Oslo komm.png. Also not free and also not in any way the property of Ralf Hartemink to grant. 1. While it has no restriction on who can use it, it has quite hard restriction on how to use it. It must ALWAYS be placed top on the page it is displayed on “no text or graphic must be placed equal or higher on the page it is displayed on”. Impossible to do here, as it would have to replace the wiki logo. 100% use violation.
Image:Trondheim komm.png. This CoA is not a all free. 1. Right at the bottom “may not be used without the permission from the municipality”.
These images are not Ralf Hartemink’s to grant unless he has made them himself, which might well be the case with some of them. 2nd there is restriction to these Norwegian CoA’s. They are not free! – at least some of them. There MUST be applying a standard wiki copyright tag to these images, so one can see how they might be used.
This is simply not right! If need be I could mail every single municipality to ask if there CoA are free or not. And let me remind you that this is actually the responsibility of the uploader! And after that we are still left with who made these files (not the CoA), cause surely some of them tagged with “Ralf Hartemink” is not his work.
I still retain that I tagged these images correct under “All files uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons must be available under a free license”, and some of them are not and cannot just be uniformed tagged with the Norwegian CoA law. Twthmoses 17:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have evidently not understood I word I have written. Let me try in boldface and make the wording a bit simpler and see if that helps: Copyright law does not apply for these images. As long as the municipality has made an image that represents the official coat of arms, they cannot claim copyright: Copyright law does not apply for these images. If someone else makes such an image, the same thing applies: Copyright law does not apply for these images
Under Norwegian penal law, to the degree it applies for various people, one cannot use this arms as one pleases, as explained earlier. This restriction has nothing to do with copyright. For use in an encyclopedia, there is no problem, and one does not have to ask anyones permission.
Wrt. Mr Hartemink, he also has no copyright for these images. And for his type of collection, he didn't have to ask for permission. But just as much as one cannot claim copyright for pure facts, it is under various terms possible to claim copyright for a catalogue of facts. For Hartemink, we erred on the side of caution, and asked for permission in case he would want to claim copyright for his excellent collection per se. -- Egil 18:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Egil it is you who does not understand. There is a different between a ‘pattern’ and the author that actually uses the pattern in his works.
So here is your challenge.
Point me to official statement that specified deals with that Norwegian coats of arms are FREE to use as you see fit – regardless of who the author of the media on which it is displayed on it, is.
This is an author copyright violation if I have very seen one.
If I sat down and painted a new Oslo CoA. Then it is my work! And you do NOT have the right to publish my works as you see fit, without ME granting you these rights. And this has nothing to do with that I painted a free CoA. The law you quote on the Norway coats of arms page, the copyright law, is SPECIFIED made to preserve these rights to me!
And btw you link to åndsverkloven (copyright law). Then please scroll to §10 and see that there is a separate law on designs (Mønsterlov), a 30-year-old law that has just been renewed in the new Design law.
So don’t tell me that Norwegian CoA’s is free per default, because they are not. They are the intellectual property of the author – who can grant them free, like designing for a company or a county or something like that. These people then have the rights to the design (which expires on some point).
Now this is completely unrelated to that another person takes a maybe expired design and then makes his own creation out of it (and that can even mean direct copy). Then it is HIS intellectual property. This very work is now his property and there is no way it is legal or intended to just take HIS deigns and uploads on Wiki as “Free work”.
This is a gross misuse and violation of Wiki and it is unbelievable to me that it is that easy accepted.
You know what? I know I’m right! But you also know what? If you get the statement that Ralf Hartemink is the creator of all these images and the premisson to publish it under some form of free license, it goes away like this……….
The Norweigen and Danish copyright law are nearly identical. So I can use this too. I can infact take knowenlige copyright works (just don’t tell it) and upload under the very same statement.
There is something completely wrong here…..Twthmoses 19:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I give up. You either have not read what I wrote, you do not understand it or you do not believe it. It is obvious there is no sense in continuing. -- Egil 07:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Egil. It doesn't matter who the creator of the particular images is. If there's no creative difference between Hartemink's versions and the actual coats of arms, then Hartemink gets no copyright. Twthmoses, the consensus here appears to be that you are wrong. You are free to continue to try to convince people, but until then I'm going to remove whatever deletion tags remain on these images. Cheers, Dbenbenn 14:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I’m aware I’m considered wrong. And that ok. Under the guideline established I’m practical free to upload whatever under the national copyright law. I will remember that! I’m not tagging any more images here as violation or unknown, because there is no need for.Twthmoses 15:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It is indeed correct; it serves no purpose to continue. Let me try to sum up what it is you offer. You offer a blunt statement in a tag that simply stats that Norwegian coat of arms is ineligible for copyright. Which now have added that they are not PD?? They are ineligible for copyright but not PD?? What the hell are they then?

Anyway there is not even a link to the source of such a statement in the tag. I essentially have to take it on pure fait!

The only place I find a source to this statement is on the Norwegian coat of arms category page, which links to the National Norwegian copyright law §9 – which does not even cover Coats of arms, as they are covered in §10 – and this points to a separate law, that is not included in the document! (The Design law).

2nd apparently Norwegian coat of arms as soooooo ineligible for copyright that even if I sat down a painted my own style of one of these CoA, this work would automatically be ineligible for copyright too!!!! – Even though the very same law you link to, specified stats in §1 that I have the copyright of whatever I create – the very foundation of the copyright law, the very reason for its existents.

It means I can get someone to download ANY CoA from the Internet and then upload it here, tagging it with the national copyright law and “Used by permission” I just use the name of the downloader, not the author –and it would be ok. Yeah right!!! The copyright law is specified made to deal with this kind of plagurism, and I would now be using is as the “proof” that this is legal. That would just be so funny…. Now that I think of it, I can take ANY image of anything done by anyone (Nationality), and upload it here under the national copyright law, and it would be ok (not!), since the copyright law covers hordes of other things, including television, radio etc..

So do you think I ask too much when asking for a little proof?

Btw are you also aware that CoA’s are cover in the Marketing law §1, and thereby cannot be misused? And that goes for both private and public CoA’s. Twthmoses 15:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sub category?[edit]

Since I’m obviously not going to edit anything in the Norwegian CoA’s cat., cause then I’m just gonna be accused of vandalism again, may I then ask for a bit of improvement, that maybe someone else can do?

  • Does the template have to link everything into the main cat? Making any sub cat useless?
  • Does the huge header lists have to be in the category? I moved them to lists, if anybody did not notice, I did not delete them.

-- Twthmoses 03:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although I think your ideas about copyright are mistaken, your category work here has been quite valuable. Please feel free to improve the category structure however you see fit. Dbenbenn 21:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Heheh this is a bit funny :) This cat. Is un-improvable! The bogus Norway COA tag, and yes it is bogus, links everything caring this tag into the main cat. making any sub-cat useless. And yes the sub cats DO exist, cause I actually created them back then, putting the different coa’s in their respective cats – but you reversed all of it! I find that a tad bit funny :D
What you should have done, since you don’t believe it was right for me to put them up for deletions (even though they DO carry a bogus tag) - yes if you wonder I simultaneously cat them properly and put them up for deletion - , was to simply remove the delete tag. But you choice to revert instead, forcing the whole lot into the main cat again. But that does not really matter since you reverted the tag itself, instantly making any sub cat of the Norway Coa’s impossible, because it fills directly into the main cat. The cat is un-improvable as long as the bogus tag links everything into the main cat.
The enormous header that exists in this cat likewise exists as lists in the very cat, because I put them there. But you also reversed that! So now the enormous header is back but the list with the same info simultaneously exists as pages in the cat :D
Lastly I have actually proven to you that the tag IS bogus, you can write to the very people that actually administrates them and get the info yourself. And now you even removed the dispute tag I put on the tag! What can I do or say ??….What is it with this Norwegian tag? How come this tag is so universal true? Where is the proof that it is true? Egils §9 claim is not true, - write yourself and ask!! Twthmoses 20:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Status of the Norwegian CoA, from riksarkivet.no[edit]

It took a while, but I finally got the info. Here is the definitely status of the Norwegian CoA.

I wrote to www.Norway.no and asked about the who, when and what about these Coa. They sent me to “National Archive Services”, which is the Norwegian public agency responsible for providing information on municipal and counties coats of arms.

They said; municipal and counties coats of arms are approved by the Council of State (Statsraad), but that municipalities and counties regulate the use of these coats of arms themselves. They are not covered under §9 of the national Norwegian law (which is where Egil gets his eligible for copyright claim from) but are like any other work the copyright of the author/owner.

Some municipalities and counties have written rules for the use, some has not. However, there is a general guideline that if coats of arms are to be used for general informative, non-commercial purposes, then no permission needs to be sought. Any other use and permission is a requirement.

The Norwegian Royal coat of arms is regulated by the Royal resolution of 27. May 1927, and cannot be used in any way, by others then the state authorities, without permission.

Conclusion: The Norwegian tag is a bogus tag. It is not true. Theses Coa are not eligible for copyright nor are they PD. As per Commons requirement, stated in Commons:Criteria for inclusion - "all files uploaded on Commons must allow commercial use. Also, images usable under the fair use clause only are not accepted on the commons." - all these Norwegian municipalities and counties images require a written permission from ever single municipality and county that owns them. All of them can be on Wikipedia under fair use or general informative, non-commercial purposes, but they can’t be here without permission - from the municipalities and counties that has the rights and rules for them.


If anybody want to check the info, go right ahead, you can write right here;

Postal address : Postboks 4013 Ullevål Stadion 0806 Oslo Visiting address : Folke Bernadottes vei 21 Telephone : 22 02 26 00 Fax : 22 23 74 89 Web site : http://www.riksarkivet.no E-mail : riksarkivet@riksarkivaren.dep.no


Well you can do with this info whatever you like, I anit doing anything about it. I only tagged the Norwegian tag with a dispute tag, because currently it anit true what it says. Other then that I will do nothing else.

You know what is the scariest part in all this is? The ease with which unsupported tags are accepted. It must be the tag creator’s job to prove that a tag is as it stats, beyond a shred of doubt, and not people that disagree having to prove that the tag is not true. This backward logic does not seem appropriate for a place that is ALL about copyright. Might want to give that a thought once in a while. Twthmoses 19:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion from Template_talk:PD-Coa-Norway[edit]

Sorry, but I've given up on the commons. User:Twthmoses has gone ahead and removed all references to this template in around 500 images, thereby removing the copyright and source status of all of these images on the basis that he doesn't believe it. He/she then adds an "unknown" tag to all those images because he says there is no source information, although solurce information was readily displayed. He/she also claims that even if these images were ineligible for copyright (which he/she doesn't really believe anyway), the images themselves has some strange sort of copyright. Wow! -- Egil 08:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For more information on this rant, please look here Twthmoses 00:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See #Discussion copied from deleted Category talk:Norwegian coats of arms --MGA73 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disputed tag[edit]

Twthmoses added some text about this tag being disputed. I'm going to remove it. If someone else wants to second Twthmoses's opinion, they should feel free to re-add it. Dbenbenn 21:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I have discussed the matter with Knut Johannessen at Riksarkivet and the conclusion User:Twthmoses makes are correct. That includes specifically that it is not acceptable to use these insignias for any commercial use. They (Riksarkivet) assumes that it is okey to keep the insignias in low resolution. Johannessen referred to 72dpi as maximum resolution. In addition they are not in the public domain, but they are neither copyrighted by ordinary means. They are approved by «kongen i statsråd», that is, they are noted as accepted by the regent after they are proposed by the government. The statement «the images themselves has some strange sort of copyright» seems to be right as they are not copyrighted in the usual sense.

In addition, a vectorized version of the is assumed by Johannessen to be outside acceptable use, as this will allow reproduction of the Coa for commersial use. He was very clear on this.

The phone call for this update was done after request of User:Red devil 666. A note is made at the norwegian equivalent of Village pump, Tinget/Arkiv 16#Spørsmål om korrekt lisens for norske våpen.

The template is not reverted to the previous version by User:Twthmoses, this should be done by an admin on commons. Likewise the content of the copyright should be updated, and it should be veryfied that the size and resolution of the image files are acceptable.

John Erling Blad (jeb) 09:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

JEB, we don't read norwegian. Well, maybe Nynorsk but definitely not the other one. Of course, I have reverted it to the previous version. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
After seeing JEB's post on no:, I remembered reading something about copyright and municipal coats of arms, and found a reference in the newsletter (# 1/2001) of BONO (Norwegian Visual Artists Copyright Society). The story relates that Hammerfest municipality had to alter their coa. The municipality had altered it several times, without consulting the heirs of the artist Ole Valle (who died less than 70 years ago). In 1996, BONO demanded that it had to be altered back to its original state, and that any changes must be approved by said heirs. In 2001, this was accepted by the municipality after a lenghty process. [1] The case did not go to court, and I can find no example of similar cases being tried in the justice system, but since the municipality fought it for several years and then gave in (with considerable loss of prestige and a considerable cost for reprinting all their letterheads, information materials etc.) it seems that it was accepted that municipal coats of arms are protected by Norwegian copyright law.
I can find no reference to any special form of copyright status for such arms; they do have a special protection against misuse (Norwegian Penal Code § 328 nr 4, against posing as a government official through the use of official symbols) but there is no mention of a special status in copyright law or in the penal code. Reading through the discussions here, I can see no reference to such a status other than the claims that "it is so". Many of them are clearly not protected due to age, but a lot of municipalities have arms from the second half of the 20th century. We asked for legal advice concerning this on no:, and it was made clear that for purposes of information, they could be freely used, but based on that advice our template says that they may be copyrighted. The royal approval is quite irrelevant to the question of copyright; it confirms that a design is an official symbol and therefore protected against misuse, but says nothing about copyright.
I could be wrong, but seeing that BONO has already used considerable resources to protect a municipal coat of arms, I believe that those who have made claims of a special copyright status need to back those claims up with references; otherwise, the ones that are still protected need to be removed from Commons – preferably after a grace period to allow transfer to individual projects, as they can legally be displayed on all our projects; it's a question of whether or not they fall within the rules here at Commons. Cnyborg 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
If the Norwegian Riksarkivet are aware of the heraldic laws, they ought to know that heraldic shields are drawn according to a w:blazon, which in itself is not subject to copyright. There does exist an artistical copyright of images but this is independant of the blazon. / Fred Chess 09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We need clarification[edit]

Perhaps it would be best to list this template for deletion. Then more people would give inputs to the current impasse. __meco 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue has now been brought before Tinget on the Norwegian Wikipedia as well as Tinget here on Commons. __meco 20:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization Category:Coats of arms of Norway [edit]

The autocategorization is a mess. Category:Coats of arms of Norway contains all files and many files are also in the appropriate subcategories. Also Category:Coats of arms of Norway is a subcat of Category:Public domain althoug it may contain other files (texts related to coas from norway, dont know).

I will break up the autocategorization. All images without a subcategory will have Category:Coats of arms of Norway added by hand in the first step. Then the template will categorize into an appropriate, separated, hidden license category Category:PD Coa Norway and the images are manually collected in the symbols of norway content category tree. --Martin H. (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And ✓ Done, only a few files, see my edits and please check this files and add them to better subcategories. We now have a content category(tree) Category:Coats of arms of Norway like every other country and a plain license category Category:PD Coa Norway. --Martin H. (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)