Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vice-Presidential Flag.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vice-Presidential_Flag.jpg

[edit]

There is no explanation of why this image is in the public domain in the Philippines (e.g., regarding age, source). As a government work, it may be used freely except for commercial purposes (Commons:Licensing#The Philippines), which is incompatible with Commons licensing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this isn't commercial use, it's educational. Philippine Copyright Law clearly states "Works by the government of the Philippines are not protected by copyright. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work was created is necessary for exploitation of such works for profit", which is not the case here.
Second, Philippine Copyright Law states that works are only protected for 50 years after first lawful publication (when the author is unknown. That applies here however, because the author and copyright holder is the Government of the Philippines, which can not "die"). The design of the Philippine sun from the flag, with a red triangle and sea lion on top of it, was first published in 1947, when the design was incorporated into the Presidential Seal. That is 64 years to date, which is 14 years past eligibility for protection.
Both are reasons (Government-stated ineligibility, and lawful passing of the age of eligibility) why this file can be on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 22:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images uploaded on the Commons must be able to be used for commercial and non-commercial purposes, so it has to be used commercially (for profit) such as for Commons DVDs. Now, I am not sure when this flag was designed but from everything I have found so far the pattern of the lion inside the triangle is from the 1940's but this specific flag is newer than 1999. I need to look up Philippine law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is from 2004 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index10.php?doctype=Executive%20Orders&docid=fa5fa4ace0a7b05a70d34da51cdf4cf6455a487b77ec6 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two absolutelyu clear and explicit exemptions from copyright above. What else could you possibly need? It's already past the age of eligibility so even if this non-commercial claim is true, it has no effect in law because the file is too old! Fry1989 eh? 01:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is still non-commercial, so we cannot have it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it's too old. That can not apply to something that has passed the age of copyright eligibility. Fry1989 eh? 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a government creation from 2004 this specific flag, so while the pattern itself might be older than the rules, it is a government work, which needs government permission, and overall it is not 25 years old. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe so. It's not from 2004 either, it's from 1998, and the only change was the number of stars. That's not enough of a change. It's still too old. Fry1989 eh? 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changes from the 1998 to the 2004 flag were the ratio of the flag (2x3 to 1:2), the colors of said symbols and the elimination of the stars around the flag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which especially makes this file exempt, because it is only the 1947 symbol (seal lion, triangle and sun) on a white background. Also, according to [1], this isn't even the VP's flag, it's missing a star in each corner. If that's true, this isn't copyrightable at all because it's not the flag as it's legally prescribed. Fry1989 eh? 02:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image up for deletion is the Vice Presidential flag as of 2004, when matched with the decree. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is rediculous. You can not apply restrictions to something that has passed the age of eligibility under your own laws. This file is free. Fry1989 eh? 02:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines is the strangest country when it comes to copyright laws; I remember dealing with a lot of their images years ago and it is still confusing then as now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Actually, I don't think it is. The requirement that a user obtain permission for commercial use does not have an expiration date -- it is perpetual. Therefore Commons will never be able to upload works of the Philippine government. See Commons:Licensing#The_Philippines Section 176.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to have an date of expiration, that is covered when the file is no longer protected by law. This file has explicitly passed that age. The idea that you can perpetually apply a restriction to something evn after it has passed copyright eligibility is absolute bullshit, and I would LOVE to see you try and defend that in any real court. Fry1989 eh? 02:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue; I checked en.wikipedia and there is no source for this file. Where did it even come from? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If File:Coat of Arms of the Philippines.svg can be on here, so can this work. They're both government works with a original design that is too old for eligibility. If you truly believe you can apply a restriction to something that is too old, then all the coats of arms of the Philippines must go too. Yes I'm going nuclear on this, because it's the exact same thing. I don't think either of you are willing to get ride of the Philippine coat of arms, when you both know it's too old under Philippine Law, which is the exact same situation this file and all the other presidential seals and flags of the Philippines are under. Fry1989 eh? 02:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the arms was deleted under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Philippines.svg but I am not sure exactly why I even restored it. Let me check my archives and I will get back to you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything on my talk page or anywhere on any request for restoration. I think what happened is after my image was deleted, a new version came up and I restored the earlier history. Anyways, the law RA 8491 has a blazon of the arms as "Paleways of two (2) pieces, azure and gules; a chief argent studded with three (3) mullets equidistant from each other; and, in point of honor, ovoid argent over all the sun rayonnant with eight minor and lesser rays. Beneath shall be the scroll with the words "REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS," inscribed thereon." My image appears to be of an historic arms, but if it has to go from the Commons, so be it. But this is also a good idea for a Commons wide discussion and perhaps get some experts involved. Yet, if we want to focus on this image, it has no source for where the original file came from. The Presidential flag also faces that issue, same with the seal. Even if we can figure out this license, we have to delete the images still for lacking image sources. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would literally weep if the Philippine coat of arms had to go. But I don't think you are ready to make that happen. You know as well as I that you can't place restrictions on something in perpetuity. That's absolute nonsense. The Philippine Arms have passed the age of protection, and so has the design of this file. Now, it not having a source is an issue, but that can be solved by having the original Presidential Seal fastracked to SVG, and then all the other seals and flags can be made based upon that. That way we can have everything on here, in SVG and sourced. But to suggest that the Philippine symbols can not be here because of a restriction that can not legally be placed upon it because it has passed the age of protection, I absolutely reject, and so does anybody with a sane mind. Fry1989 eh? 03:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arms was modified in 1998, but it was actually to subtract elements and not add anything (almost like a reverse of the Canadian arms change in 1994). But I know we have a lot of rules about blazons and in that same section " No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character." And the blazon can be found in Chapter 5, Section 41 of RA 8491. I know the Commons has specific rules about blazons, so that is another time and place. As for this image, I think it could be done in SVG but I will have to look at the EO 301 again to see if it is a basic description or something detailed to where the blazon policy could be used. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It you're refering to the removal of the eagle and lion, that is not official, and is only used on government vehicles. The arms remain as they were. As for this file, I do believe the blazon rules would apply, assuming you can find a description. But that still does not address Jim's theory that you can somehow place a restriction on something in perpetuity, even after it has passed the legal age of protection, which this design (sourced or not) has, which means if it was made by a Commons user and released to us in SVG, that version could stay. Fry1989 eh? 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language like "absolute bullshit" and "so does anybody with a sane mind" is not helpful to the discussion, particularly when your "absolute bullshit" is itself so thoroughly wrong.

A government can enact any law that it thinks appropriate and acceptable to its constituents. As an example of a perpetual copyright protection, we need look only to the King James Bible which has a perpetual Crown Copyright. If you doubt that a court would enforce this, I suggest you go to the UK and start printing Bibles.

Similarly, as I said above, the Philippines rule is that "prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit." That rule has no expiration. It is also incorrect to believe that a Philippine court would not uphold the rule.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's you're personal interpretation of the license as we have it on Commons. You have no proof it's perpetual, and it is a concept I thoroughly denounce and reject. In any case, we're not talking about a perpetual copyright, we're talking about a non-commercial use clause on a file which has passed the age (under the expressed laws of it's own jurisdiction) of protection. You have to prove that such a clause can and is in effect on a file which the law says is not protected. Fry1989 eh? 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I, and the others who believe we should delete this, don't have to prove anything. Commons policy is that when in doubt, we delete. It is up to you to prove that we can keep it. So far you have adamantly told us that the rule is not perpetual, but you have yet to cite anything to prove that.
You may not like this perpetual clause, but that doesn't change its existence. There are many copyright related rules I don't like, but I've volunteered here to enforce them as they exist, not as I wish they were.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YES I have, I have given two separate reasonings under Philippine law that this file is not a protected work. You're trying to claim it is, so you do have to prove that the law is wrong and you are right. Fry1989 eh? 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Flag is a government work, and government works are PD in the Philippines according to art. 176 of the copyright law--Antemister (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But of that same law "However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit." and any work on the Commons must be used for commercial and non-commercial uses. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But again, you're ignoring that the design is PD-Old according to Philippine law as well, and whether Jim likes it or not, there is zero proof that that clause remains in effect even after a work is too old to be protected anymore. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is protected in the Philippines under this perpetual copyright, we cannot host it here because the work must be PD in the source country and the US. This is why we cannot have the King James Bible on here because it is still copyrighted in the originating country, the United Kingdom. This is going nowhere honestly and we need outside sources to figure this out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it is going nowhere. This should be so simple and clear, but the Philippines make things so complicated. Fry1989 eh? 03:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at Philippines IP case law and see if I can find anything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have the same problem with that file as with practically any national insignia: The images are usually PD as a government work, but they must not used by anyone, because they're government insignia, and only government officials (in that case, the vice president) is allowed to use it outside an educational context (educational context includes publishing the image in a commercial book, for example) On Commons, we accept such restriction , and add Template:Insignia--Antemister (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per my little chit-chat with Zscout on his talk page, I would suggest we keep this ONLY for a couple days, and have one of our Commons users who are an expert in SVG recreate the sea lion for us. After that is done, we delete this, and make all the seals and flags of the Philippine President and VP using that. Surely that is an acceptable solution. Fry1989 eh? 21:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, I am a sysop here and at en.wikipedia. I can get the image anytime so I am not worried when it is deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. We just need someone to make a good work of the sea lion, scales and all. Fry1989 eh? 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Already deleted by Fastily Avi (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vice-Presidential_Flag.jpg&oldid=634700116"