Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png
I don't see any proof that this coat of arms falls under any of the PD-Dominica clauses listed. If this version of the coat of arms was drawn for the state, it would have had to have been 70 years ago, but it was unquestionably no earlier than 1961 (per en:Coat of arms of Dominica). If it was drawn by a private citizen of Dominica, the author would have had to have died 70 years ago. If it was drawn by a private citizen of another country, then that country's laws apply. Even 70 years after 1961, it's unclear who drew this version of the coat of arms, and it isn't free per COM:COA Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read more thoroughly before you keep nominating files. This is the third file you have nominated where you claim it's not covered by it's license but it is. In this case, *"It is one of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof"" includes the coat of arms. Speedy Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't look like text to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- The blazon of the coat of arms is described in legal text, and the arms was adopted through legislative text. Your ignorance of that is not a reason to delete the file which is PD according to the law. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't look like text to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read more thoroughly before you keep nominating files. This is the third file you have nominated where you claim it's not covered by it's license but it is. In this case, *"It is one of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof"" includes the coat of arms. Speedy Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. What? Again? Does Magog not read the text of these PD templates? A country's CoA is in itself, and by its very nature, an official document partly because of what it is and partly because it appears on numerous public/official documents. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not it's not. See COM:COA. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point to a legal precedent which shows that? Because I've already pointed to page that shows it doesn't. Simply ignoring it when I point it out that doesn't change the fact either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are countless coats of arms on here that are allowed because they are Public Domain under national law because they are part of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof". The coat of arms is legally described in text, it is legally adopted in text, that makes it PD under the Law. Albania's coat of arms is licensed on Commons this way, so is the coats of arms of Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia..... Do I need to go on? . Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point to a legal precedent which shows that? Because I've already pointed to page that shows it doesn't. Simply ignoring it when I point it out that doesn't change the fact either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just want to comment a bit on law interpretation: I can tell you from Germany that CoAs in Germany count as "amtliches Werk" {{PD-Coa-Germany}} although the legal definition in the law sounds more like it is only about texts. Just as an example. ... which does nothing say about the law and courts in Dominica. What I want to say: It simply doesn't help much to try to read the law sometimes - but(!) it also doesn't help to claim (without a source or reasonable explanation) why CoAs are covered ... And until we know they are covered by any "official works" law COM:PRP and COM:PS#Evidence should be thought of. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Saibo, check the licensing of the coats of arms I listed above. They are all licensed under the same reasoning, because they are part of an official text. Show me a single country whose national emblem wasn't adopted via some sort of official text. The license is accurate and applies, per all the others I listed. Fry1989 eh? 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio of http://images.vector-images.com/117/dominica_coa_n1129.gif User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, probably grabbed off the net. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)