Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aboriginal Flag.JPG

Contains the Australian Aboriginal flag, which is copyrighted in Australia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.167.13 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, done, if it's the rule. But all flags are in the same situation, no ? Each one have a first creator, I presume ?--Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether COM:FOP#Israel applies. --84.61.167.13 18:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. We've gone through numerous deletion debates for images of this flag, and except for de minimis cases, which this is clearly not, every single one of them has resulted in deletion. This is an obvious copyright violation (not free in the source country: Australia), and doesn't need to wait for a normal deletion discussion. cmadler (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Not so sure any more; I need to read more about Israel's FOP. cmadler (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep As per COM:FOP#Israel. --84.61.167.13 18:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question Is Harold Thomas still living? --84.61.167.13 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find is that he was still alive as of 2010. ([1]) cmadler (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It should be allowed because it is a circle and two rectangles and per COM:FOP#Israel

I riff-raffed through the discussions of previous Aboriginal Flag deletion requests and i have to agree with Fry1989 and Spiridon ([2]) that this is a RIDICULOUS idea.

Maybe if I want to get rich, I should copyright every simple geometric shape and sue the world.

I cannot even begin to comprehend how such a thing could be copyrighted.

Also, I'd like to add that I think Harold Thomas is detracting from the worth of the Aboriginal people with this stupid insistince on upholding the copyright on a circle an two rectangles. If he wouldn't of made the noise with Google, many more people in the world would be familiar with the Aboriginal flag, and through that might of learned about the people and culture.

Sadly and Sincerely, SuperJew (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep We all know my opinion on this. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Das is mal wieder so ypisch Deusche Elekom. Die Deusche Elekom beanspruch ja ein alleiniges Rech auf den zwanzigsen Buchsaben des laeinischen Alphabes, und ein alleiniges Rech auf die Farbe Magena. Ich versehe absolu nich, warum die Flagge der ausralischen Aborigines durch ausralisches Copyrigh (bzw. Urheberrech) geschüz is, obwohl sie angeblich einfacher gesale is, als alle anderen urheberrechlich geschüzen Werke? Muss Wikimedia Commons dann 70 Jahre nach dem Od von Harold Homas waren, bis wir diese Flagge wieder verwenden können? Falls Harold Homas 2042 sirb, dürfen wir sie also ers 2113 verwenden. --84.61.167.13 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question For those arguing for FOP-Israel, please can you explain why you consider this to be "applied art", even under Israel's supposed broader definition? And also why you consider it "permanently situated"? --99of9 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question More basically, why even talk about Israel's FoP at all in this discussion? Has anybody ever suggested anywhere that this flag is copyrighted in Israel? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Cause u can't use Australian Law--Sanandros (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Because of the wide variation in copyright rules (100 years pma in Mexico, for example), many of our images are under copyright in some countries. That is why we have the clear rule that an image must be only be free in its home country (Israel in this case) and in the USA. Since the flag does not pass the TOO in either the USA or Israel, the image is OK for Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question 1. is a flag hanging on a wall "permanent"? 2. is the interior of a zoo a "public place"? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It appears to be fastened at least semi-permanently. 2. For purposes of FOP, countries define "public place" in different ways. It appears to me that for Israel this includes publicly accessible places such as the interior of a zoo. However, this might all be irrelevant. FOP in Israel can only come into play if the work is copyrighted in Israel. I don't know where Israel draws the threshold of originality, but I'd guess that this is probably below it, therefore uncopyrightable in Israel, therefore Israeli FOP doesn't enter into it. cmadler (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete After thinking about this some more, the country of origin for the flag is still Australia, and no one has denied that it is copyrighted there. cmadler (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We did keep images of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Mario etc. because of FOP, how is this any different? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you link to the deletion discussion(s)? cmadler (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse - The Mad Doctor.png comes to my mind. I'll search for others. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since that was a large deletion request with various arguments for and against keeping the different issues, let's consider one of them: File:香港迪士尼樂園 (24).JPG. If we ignore the issue of character copyright, which is in-and-of-itself contentious, we have a sculpture placed, probably by the copyright owner (I'd guess that this was a work for hire for Disney) which also owns the item itself, in a country where FOP allows it to be photographed. Also, depending on the local laws, the statue might be either "unpublished" or may be first "published" in that country. In our case here, however, FOP probably doesn't enter into the matter because the flag is probably too simple for copyright in Israel (as it probably is in the US), but the Israeli copyright status is irrelevant because the country of origin for the flag copyright is Australia. cmadler (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We keep images of sculptures that were made in the USA but are now permanently installed in Germany and other places -- see Category:Alexander Calder and many others. In those cases, it is clear that the sculpture was made in the USA, but Germany is the country of origin of the image. The subject flag may have been made in Australia, in Israel, or someplace else, but the image was made in Israel, where the flag cannot have a copyright and since it also cannot have a copyright in the USA, it passes our test. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that, although Israel historically used a "skill and labor" test similar to that used by the UK (and by Australia, forming the basis for this flag to be copyrighted in Australia), for the last 20 years (since the 1989 Israeli Supreme Court's ruling in Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines Bros. SA) they have tended fairly close to a US-style originality=creativity requirement (see [3] for a 2007 paper on this shift; or see [4], which notes that "In Israel, the Supreme Court in the Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines Bros. SA decision adopted the Feist ruling with regards to both the interpretation of the originality requirement and the general rejection of the ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine and the labour theory as a legitimate interest for establishing a copyright claim."), under which this flag is most likely not copyrightable. Since the flag is not copyrightable in Israel, FOP doesn't enter into this case. cmadler (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought FOP was an issue here -- as you say, the Israeli TOO is well above this. I was responding to your comment above that the country of origin was Australia, which, as I said, I think is incorrect. If an image of a Calder work, fabricated in the USA, but photographed in Germany is, for our purposes, a German image, then how can you argue that an image of a flag in Israel is an Australian image, notwithstanding the fact that flag was designed there? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]