File talk:Flag of al-Qaeda in Iraq.svg

  FOTW is the best resource for vexillology on the internet. Basically all flags hosted on wikimedia commons are derived from that site.

What is it that makes people think that

• (a) they can just rip off the work of the people at FOTW without even giving attribution?
• (b) FOTW is always correct whether or not the entry in question provides any references?

Flag designs can often be argued to be free of copyright, and in such cases, the design can be lifted off FOTW without copyright violation. But before you can argue a design is free of copyright, you need to present a referenced case that either the design predates 1915, or alternatively some other rationale.

This works out with FOTW files rather often, because such is the quality of that website, that contributors typically present perfectly valid references that can be used by us. Attribution to FOTW is still a nice gesture in such cases.

But nothing excuses the ripping off of FOTW content when it is unreferenced:

• you are ripping off an unreferenced image from a website.
• you cannot propose to use the image in any encyclopedic article, because you have no evidence that it isn't a hoax.

In this particular case, we even have positive (albeit circumstantial) evidence that this is a hoax. What on earth makes people think they can just use this file? Or say things like "FOTW has it in yellow - if you want to make one with white, upload to new file"? Commons isn't a mirror of FOTW. Commons is dedicated to (a) images that have some potential use, and (b) images that are free. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)