Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms Grand Duchy of Luxembourg large.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unfree for comercial use abf /talk to me/ 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- KEEPIt seems a reason is given that the coat of arms is freely usable.--TonyTheTiger 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- What nut has posted this again? We had this discussion endless times already on German Wikipedia. Just because people refuse to read and use their brains occasionally. I am starting to get sick and tired about this.
PS: Really! Spanish Inquisition 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep. This image can clearly be used commercially as long as no claim of official government sanction or similar is made. Note, I just had to restore Spanish Inquisition's original licence which had been stripped by Polarlys, which action had been pointed out as inappropriate in various discussions at the time.--Caranorn 13:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep as images of coats of arms are generally accepted to be in the public domain. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment The decision would apply to all files in Category:Coats of arms of Luxembourg + subcats, too. Btw: If we accept that permission by law as free, a template should be created. + There is no meaning in the fact that you redraw that coa. The original work must be free. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete; "the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg can be used without restraint if not for the following cases ... commercial, industrial, professional, adverstising purposes with exception of those defined by law". Latter emphasis mine. From the template on the image page. This goes against COM:L which requires freedom for commercial use. Giggy (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Art. 232bis claims that this is not a free image. However, I'm not convinced yet that this image should be deleted, because there's a chance it qualifies as PD-old. And anyway, Commons policy on coats of arms isn't very clear to me. If I'm reading en:Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems and User:Michelet's Commons:Coat of Arms correctly, the definition is necessarily PD, so all we care about is whether the representation is free (it is). Pruneautalk 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- See also {{Coat of Arms}}. Apparently, this should be kept. Pruneautalk 09:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- See also {{Coat of Arms}}. Apparently, this should be
Kept. It's the old ambiguity over what constitutes "use". Insignia and COAs are subject to restrictions outside the realm of copyright. If you use it to imply an official endorsement where there is none, or to otherwise misrepresent an involvement of the official authorities, then you'll get into conflict with these insignia laws. As long as you only show them, there shouldn't be a problem. To put it differently: showing the COA in articles is no problem. Using it instead of our Commons-logo would be a problem. So, either we delete all flags and COAs, which somehow seems ridiculous, or we keep them unless their graphic representation (the precise drawing itself) was someone else's copyrighted work. But that isn't the case here.
The description of this COA in the law of Luxembourg is PD per article 10(8). (Though the phrasing is strange: "L'auteur ne peut interdire...les actes officiels"? Someone lost it there. But it's clearly intended as a provision stating that laws and such are not copyrighted, like it exists in many other countries.) I don't know whether the original image reproduced in the annex of the insignia law would also be PD, but in any case this image here was created by a Wikipedian.
See also Template:Insignia. Lupo 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: I forgot: read 18 USC 33 for the insignia laws of the U.S. It forbids just about any use of any official symbols, and of the flag of the Red Cross, and even of the Swiss flag! We just have to live with the fact that "free" in the sense of copyright does not mean you can do with it whatever you like. This also is true for other "free" images: consider images of people. Try using an image of Queen Elizabeth in an advertisement! Lupo 11:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
