User talk:Trackratte

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC) User:Trackratte/sandbox User:Trackratte/Canadian Crown Prerogative Copyright Res:LP

WTF are you doing?![edit]

Stop marking these images as copyvios, you don't know what you are doing. You marked File:Royal Canadian Air Force Ensign (1941-1968).svg as a copyvio even though it dates back to 1941 and it's copyright has expired under Canadian Law. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada.svg is also too old, it dates back to at least before 1964 which means it is over 50 years old and it's copyright has expired. Please do not mark images as speedy deletion copyvios any more unless you have 100% definitive proof they are actually violations. Fry1989 eh? 18:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fry1989: "Current CF flags are protected under copyright", A-AD-200-000/AG-000. Same manual states that DND maintains copyright on any CF flag used prior to 1968 in para 43. The RMC flag falls within both categories. Trackratte (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You can not claim copyright to an image which is too old under the law. Canadian Copyright Law states that images under Crown Copyright expire after 50 years, which would go back to 1964. Both of these are significantly older. Website disclaimers for images are complex and often hold mistakes, the actual copyright law of a country is what we are supposed to follow. Fry1989 eh? 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fry1989: What website disclaimer? The quote I used as justification was taken from a 332 page manual issued on the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in 2008. And I'm not claiming copyright to anything. Canadian copyright law has an exemption clause to the 50 year rule. "Current CF flags are protected under copyright" is pretty clear. Your personal layman's interpretation however, is not. Trackratte (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Not you personally, "you" any group or organisation or whatever else. My "layman's interpretation" is what the law actually says, while your strange and questionable interpretations have no backing. For example, you marked the Canadian Forces badge as PD because it's crown copyright has expired. That means that the Canadian Forces flag is also PD, but you marked it as a violation using this disclaimer. I don't think you understand any of this as well as you believe. Fry1989 eh? 20:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If I left PD tags while adding trademark tags, it was because I didn't want the template to automatically go to speedy deletion. Either that, or it was a copy and paste error. I can't say for sure as I don't know the specific case you're referring to. Trackratte (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion please[edit]

There's a discussion on a Canadian image atm Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sasseville Roy.jpeg for which I'd like your opinion. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Badge of the Canada Border Services Agency.svg[edit]

File in Question

Greetings! You have left a No permission tag on the File:Badge of the Canada Border Services Agency.svg page. Could you please elaborate further what you are looking for? Remember that this is a representation of the Badge of the Canada Boarder Services Agency made by me, as already stated in the Licensing section. Thank you. --Ng556 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ng556, thanks for opening up a dialogue. The reason I placed a no permission tag was that, as a copy/rendition of what I assume is from the Registry of Arms, Badges, and Flags, or the same image as placed on the CBSA website, it's not clear what the source is, and if that source has provided permission. As this is clearly not your own work, but your own derivation of a copyrighted work, the original source still needs to be placed (the source is not yourself, unless you mean to say that the Canadian Heraldic Authority/CBSA made their work based on your work here), and proof of permission included.
Also, keep in mind that the Registry states "The contents of this Register are intended for research purposes only. The heraldic emblems found in the Register may not be reproduced in any form or in any media without the written consent of the Canadian Heraldic Authority and/or the recipient."
As well, the CBSA states "We recognize that the Copyright Act protects the CBSA identifiers (such as badges, logos, branding images etc.) from illegitimate use, trade and sale."
It is quite a nice rendition, so good job and thanks for uploading it! Although, I do feel it should be transferred to Wikipedia where it can replace the JPG version. trackratte (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There was also this conversation that I had with an admin regarding this file, before I tagged the Commons file. trackratte (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. In regards with official depiction made by either the artists of the CHA or the CBSA, I am in full agreement. However, I was under the assumption that as long as any elements used in the image are either self made or attributed when necessary, the image then falls under the non-copyright-able fair use section. Since I made this rendition, with proper attribution to the necessary parties, that is original, faithful to the blazon to which I believe to be independent of copyright, all the while faithful to, but not copying, the official depiction made by the CHA/CBSA.
Now, at the same time, I see from your user history that you, at least from my perspective, seem to be much more familiar with Canadian Crown Copyright than I. I simply ask you to consider my side and see where I am coming from. How would I proceed? Could one potentially call fair use in this case?
I appreciate your attention and help in this regard. My goal is simply to further enrich the Wikis with content that is faithful yet original. Plus, I enjoy making coat of arms and stuff. It would be a so great a nuisance to have to always ask the CHA to make my own proper rendering that it would make it too great an inconvenience. Thanks again! --Ng556 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for replying. I would also like to add that your goal is admirable, and my last intent would be to make you feel 'under attack' or unappreciated. I appreciate very much your contribution. However, fair-use is not allowed on Commons, but it is allowed on English Wikipedia (ie for the article on the CBSA itself).
The problem is, in Canadian and British copyright law, the individual elements are not exactly what matters. There is a 3 part test use by the courts which ?is 1. Does the person have prior knowledge of the copyrighted work? 2. Is the user trying to mimic the copyrighted work, and 3. Is the resulting work stylistically similar to the copyrighted work? I'd have to dig for the link, but a court found that a person's photograph of a red bus in front of Parliament was a copyright infringement due to the above 3 part test. So, given that your image is an excellent rendition of the badge (ie is well done and not so far out there that it is not even apparent as the badge of the CBSA), then I can only assume that you knew about the official badge, and given the badge's name and its fidelity to the original, that you were "mimicking" the original, and it is obviously stylistically similar.
Another point is that it is credited as your 'own work', which is fine for creations that are original to you, however being that this work was clearly derived from another work (ie the Badge of the CBSA, and thus the same name for your image), then the source you used in creating this badge should be placed here, ie image drawn based on image at URL:X, with PD elements taken from images X, Y, and Z. You would then have to put it under the appropriate licence, which, as I mentioned, is where I think the sticking point is, as it is a copyrighted work. For example see the disclaimer at this website, where even though the artist is making her own original artistic works (painting), she still has to have permission to do so from the proper authorities. Or for example here for the RCMP, where signed permission for use has to be given. Or Crown Copyright Terms of Use, where "Permission is Required When the material is being revised, adapted, modified, or translated" for Crown (state or governmental) works. And even if permission was granted to use these works, as you can see from the RCMP "use of copyrighted material" letter, permissions given does not constitute a release into the public domain (only an order under the Surplus Crown Assets Act or an Order-in-Council can do that[1]), as there are a variety of conditions attached.
So, you don't necessarily have to ask permission to make a copy or rendition of the work, it's just that it must be posted properly attributed and under the proper licences, which you can absolutely do on English Wikipedia for example, such as here, or this user created SVG rendition uploaded to English Wikipedia. So you can still enrich wikis and enjoy making coats of arms, its just that official 'Crown'/Canadian government arms and badges are protected under the Copyright Act. And I've contacted Canadian government intellectual property offices, they have no problem with official symbols being placed on Wikipedia, as long as they are properly attributed and licensed, and are used in a respectful manner (and are not used to pretend to represent the organisation).
This also ensures that users, who likely know little to nothing of copyright, don't happen upon this image on Commons, see that it is 'free to do whatever I want with', and then get in trouble with legal take down notices ie. inappropriate or commercial use in Canada of the CBSA badge. While it may seem a bit of a stretch perhaps, COM:PCP makes it clear that we can't use 'but that probably won't happen' as an excuse or reason to keep files here under improper licences.
I apologise for my, probably overly long, reply! trackratte (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry for the delay writing back. I would again like to thank you for helping me better understand this topic. I am more encouraged with the news that I do not necessarily need to ask permission to make a rendering of the work. However, I have been reflecting on what you have written and I have a couple of follow up questions:
  1. Canadian and British Crown Copyright:
    Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
    (Side note, I was re-reading this section and it seemed as if I am whining and complaining. Please note that I was not trying to play the "If he can do it why can't I?" game). If I may assume that Canadian and British Crown copyright law are essentially the same, How come the infamous Sodacan was not flagged for multiple copyright infringements e.g.: File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg (Seen right)? As a prolific artist with several featured pictures, surely this was brought up at some point? When I look at his file descriptions on the Commons, they offer no such Non-free Crown Copyright tags. Am I missing something?
  2. Deletion: Assuming that the above question does not lead anywhere, the following step is what exactly? To my understanding, the Commons does not allow non-free images to be uploaded. If what you are saying is true, then these files are in violation of this rule. Would I then need to delete these files? Above, you stated that these files, with the appropriate licencing, sourcing, etc., could be uploaded to Wikipedia directly. Could I keep a thumbnail of the copyrighted renderings I made in my gallery page?
Thanks again! --Ng556 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speed Deletion[edit]

Do not push your luck with me, I will not allow an image to be speedily deleted when there is evidence that is it in the Public Domain. When you add a speed tag and it is rejected, you are supposed to convert it to a DR if you still believe it should be deleted. Edit warring to keep adding the speedy tag will get you nowhere. Fry1989 eh? 00:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This file has already been deleted on Commons. You brought to an UnDR and it left deleted. The proper way to proceed would be to file another UnDR request, and NOT upload the exact same image devoid of tags in an attempt to subvert the process. trackratte (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't even try and pretend this is the same image that was deleted and went through unDR as you claim in your edit summary, we both know it was this image, and admins have the ability to look back and see deleted images, so they will know you are lying if you try that. Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I shall not, you're actually right about the topic, since you argued about the tri-leaf file for nearly the entirety of the discussion despite my objections, I had it in my head that that was actually the topic of the discussion. I'll start a DR for you then. And once again, you failed to follow the appropriate process, which would be to place an 'upload to Commons' tag, instead of uploading the exact same image without its copyright tags to Commons. You then would have presented your evidence there. This image was improperly uploaded to Commons in the first place. trackratte (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There are no rules that an image must be transferred in that manner, and I will be more than happy to prove you wrong in your DR. Fry1989 eh? 00:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And I'd be more than happy to have such an image proven free if such proof is actually proof, and the one doing the arguing was willing to do so in a logical and neutral way. trackratte (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)