Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable

European Heraldry

Hi Jim : thanks for your consideration to the serious matter of copyright in relation to heraldic images posted at www.europeanheraldry.org. I certainly appreciate that erring on the side of caution is better than reckless behaviour on the part of Wiki and by extension its contributors too. However, what confounds me is on what basis does European Heraldry believe it has any entitlement to "copyright" someone else's coat of arms? This website specifically attributes the display of individual arms to a particular person or family and in so doing automatically nullifies any copyright - I would be able to agree with you were the heraldic artist(s) of European Heraldry simply creating pretty pictures but by their own admission they are most definitely not - in fact they are attempting to usurp the rights under English law (which is reciprocally recognised in most countries worldwide) of those genuinely entitled to respective armorial bearings. In short, European Heraldry's claim is bogus and I simply cannot see how this website's owners could begin to mount a credible legal action of image copyright when it is so patently obvious - they make no bones about it - that they are using someone else's coat of arms. I do hope I have explained this well enough - but a bogus copyright logo is absolutely worthless. Anyway let's work through any apprehensions or misunderstandings - looking forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, L'honorable (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

By everyone's best guess, and our current policy, they have the ability to copyright their particular rendition of the coat of arms, not the coat of arms in general. They are basically drawings, which are the subject matter for copyright. Someone else can make their own drawing, with the same elements etc., and they would own the copyright on their drawing. It is unlikely that bearer's rights would pre-empt copyright law (and we would need an actual court precedent to assume otherwise), and even if it did, that would not apply in the United States (and most other non-European countries) where there is no such thing as bearer's rights, but the copyright would apply in full. We can certainly use their research as to the basic content of the arms, but we cannot copy their specific drawings (or parts of their drawings) -- we'd have to draw our own versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Clindberg: thank you to everybody who has taken part in this discussion, and Carl thank you for your response above. It is quite clear to me - rather all of us - that since noone has ever been so cavalier as to test the law before the highest courts throughout the world (let's say, in the grand scheme of things, a rather pointless, academic, time-wasting and ludicrously expensive exercise) over coats of arms we must take a common sense approach. I thank you for having given thought to this, and it is also my best guess that the likes of European Heraldry calculate that nobody would actually have the bottle to mount such a legal challenge. Even the judges would no doubt think this a bizarre case!

So let's work with what we have got. Carl, perhaps you would be so kind as to recommend two or three heraldic artist/graphic designer Wikipedians with whom I could liaise so as to get Wiki's armorials up to scratch? So far I have been in contact with User:Bear17 who is fantastic, but just out of consideration, I would not wish to deluge him with constant requests (unless of course that is no problem). Thank you again & looking forward to hearing. Best wishes, L'honorable (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, where you could make some requests. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this & is it worth investigating who 90.96.166.154 might be? L'honorable (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Enough !

This case has been discussed and settled by official policy and community consent after a speedy deletion and an appeal. But still, you discuss and whine to the admins. Do we have to recall you that you have already been permanently blocked on the English wiki because of your "inability to collaborate or admit errors" ? Sorry if I sound agressive, but your permanent arguments are really annoying. Kathisma (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Aggression : David & Goliath

@Kathisma: hey, YOU WIN, I have no probs whatsoever about community consent - in fact I enjoyed being part of such an educated discussion (with various Wiki experts ....) - so why make such a provocative proclamation as this? Please explain.

If your proclamation above is supposed to be a "put up & shut up" I'm not impressed. The previous discussions were well informed and reached the right conclusion so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Please clarify what you mean. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

PS. if you don't want me here, just say so outright - it would be much easier - thank you.