Template talk:PD-Flag
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
The claim made by this template is incorrect - I know of no principle of law that makes flags uncopyrightable, and I do not believe there is any. This template was originally copied from :en; however, after a subsequent discussion on en:Template talk:Flagimage, :en has abandoned the claim that all flags are ineligible for copyright[1], and now relies on a catch-all justification of fair use instead (See also the guidelines for tagging on en:Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#General public domain images, which assume that flags are copyrighted). Since commons does not allow fair use, this could present a serious problem, as most recently designed flags (which would include most countries that became independent after WW-II) are likely to be in copyright (except where a country has specifically placed its flag in the public domain). -- Vadakkan 22:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- In many countries (at least the US and Germany), the contents of laws and other official publications of the government are public domain automatically. Official flags are usually defined by such laws, and thus the flag is PD in those countries, both the design and the picture published in the law. This may not be true for all countries, though, which this template should probably make clear. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough, but in that case, they are public domain because they are part of a public domain document, not because they are flags. This template says (incorrectly) that there is something special about flags that makes them public domain. That isn't right. Where a flag is public domain, it is so because of some other rule of law (such as its copyright having expired due to age, or it being part of a document which is in the public domain, or it being a government work and thus ineligible for copyright, and so on). Until we know exactly what it is about a particular flag that places it in the public domain, shouldn't its status should be treated as indeterminate?
-
- Here's my suggested replacement for this template (based on Dbenbenn's version):
 |
National flags are subject to copyright as original works of art.
Certain flags may be in the public domain because their copyright has expired, or because they are ineligible for copyright under their national law. If so, please replace this tag with the relevant tag. Images with only this tag will be treated as being of unknown copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted. |
-
-
-
- It would make no sense to have state flag copyrighted. The risks of hosting flags on the wikimedia commons -- which is what the concern is all about -- are none. I, at least, have never heard of anyone being sued for publishing a flag in a relevant context, such as in a newspaper article on the country. So certainly they can be hosted on Commons.
- Unless someone can produce a legal principle that makes national flags public domain, they are legally subject to copyright. If we want to take the call that we are comfortable making an exception for hosting copyrighted content, I'm quite fine with that - I agree that the chance of being sued for having images of flags is quite close to zero - but we will need to take that decision. But in that case the template should make clear that the flag could be subject to copyright, and the ground on which we are using it (fair use?). -- Vadakkan 17:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I had thought the issue was that, regardless of the copyright status of a flag's design, a specific representation of the flag has its own copyright. That's what the template currently says. So if, for example, User:Zscout370 uploads Image:Flag of Belarus.svg, which he drew himself, there's no problem with him tagging it {{GFDL}}. The problem is with flags pushed from the English Wikipedia, where the uploader used {{PD-flag}} without identifying where they got the flag. dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Debatable. The question would be if a re-creation by hand would count as creative work or just as a reproduction. That may depend on how complex the flag is, and how much room there is for interpretation. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- There are two issues. The first is whether the .png or .jpg we use is copyrighted. As Duesentrieb says, the question of whether or not a reproduction qualifies for copyright depends very much on the flag in question. The second is whether the flag design itself is subject to copyright. If either is the case, we can't tag the image PD as we are currently doing, and will have to find a more appropriate wording. -- Vadakkan 22:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I had thought the issue was that, regardless of the copyright status of a flag's design, a specific representation of the flag has its own copyright. That's what the template currently says. So if, for example, User:Zscout370 uploads Image:Flag of Belarus.svg, which he drew himself, there's no problem with him tagging it {{GFDL}}. The problem is with flags pushed from the English Wikipedia, where the uploader used {{PD-flag}} without identifying where they got the flag. dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Unless someone can produce a legal principle that makes national flags public domain, they are legally subject to copyright. If we want to take the call that we are comfortable making an exception for hosting copyrighted content, I'm quite fine with that - I agree that the chance of being sued for having images of flags is quite close to zero - but we will need to take that decision. But in that case the template should make clear that the flag could be subject to copyright, and the ground on which we are using it (fair use?). -- Vadakkan 17:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Secondly: should flags be lumped together with all other coat of arms? Why not created Template:Flag and use that instead? // Fred Chess 10:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand. The template I've proposed only deals with flags. Are you saying you want it to also deal with coats of arms? Isn't it better to have separate templates, as we do now? -- Vadakkan 17:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- It would make no sense to have state flag copyrighted. The risks of hosting flags on the wikimedia commons -- which is what the concern is all about -- are none. I, at least, have never heard of anyone being sued for publishing a flag in a relevant context, such as in a newspaper article on the country. So certainly they can be hosted on Commons.
-
-
[edit] Moving forward
Right, how about this as a solution:
- We require two templates to be added for every flag The first is a special flag-specific template, which confirms that a particular flag itself is in the public domain. This template sits under Template:Flag, and reads something like this:
 |
This flag is in the public domain
Its design is either ineligible for copyright, or its copyright has expired, or has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide. Please note that the use of a flag may be restricted under the relevant national flag code, or other applicable law. This restriction is independent of its copyright status. |
- This template does not determine the status of the image. For that, the uploader will have to add a tag clarifying the status of the particular representation they have uploaded. These will be the same tags that are to be used for all other images:
- PD if it is a US government work, or if it is ineligible for copyright as the flag is simple and there is no room for creative interpretation, etc.
- GDFL, CC-by, CC-self etc., if it is subject to copyright and has been released as such by its creator.
- For the present, we replace this template with the following template:
|
National flags are subject to copyright as original works of art. In addition, representations of certain flags may also be subject to copyright.
Some flags may be in the public domain because their copyright has expired, or because they are ineligible for copyright under their national law. If so, please replace this tag with the tag {{Flag}}. Please also add a tag clarifying the copyright status of this individual representation. Images with only this tag will be treated as being of unknown copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted. |
-- Vadakkan 20:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Deprecated tag - request to admin
{{Editprotected}} Hi,
please some admin can add the category:Deprecated templates (in the noincludes) to this template and some red bold text on it to prevent users continuing to use it?
This template is marked as deprecated/obsolete on Commons:Copyright tags and other pages (just have a look at [2])
Thanks in advance and best regards from France.
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 08:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- It would also be good if it through a colour change or otherwise became more clear that the template was deprecated. /Lokal_Profil 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Done It's unprotected now so feel free to make it better. [edit] Update template from English Wikipedia
The old statement, copied from English Wikipedia in 2005, is inaccurate and now it is replaced with new version from the same template of English Wikipedia. HenryLi (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
