Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coat of arms

Hey, hope you are well. I noticed your edit to 2022 South Lanarkshire Council election and I had a wee query. I fully understand the reasons that File:Arms_slanarkshire.jpg was removed from the page, my query was in relation to what makes these non-free images. I know that files like File:Coat of arms of Aberdeenshire County Council 1890-1975.svg, another local authority coat of arms, is an image that can be used freely on Wikipedia but I wondered why they are different as they are essentially the same thing. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 10:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Stevie fae Scotland. My answer is going to be in multiple parts since your question is a bit more complicated than it might seem at first glance.
First, files aren't vetted or assessed prior to being uploaded either to (English) Wikipedia or (Wikimedia) Commons. It's assumed in good faith, at least at the beginning, that whoever is uploading a file is familiar enough with relevant policies and guidelines to understand the license they need to use. Obviously, mistakes are often made, but these usually only are noticed after (some times well after) the file has been uploaded and is being used somewhere. If the problem can be resolved without deleting the file, then that's preferable; however, it's not always possible to do so. So, basically, if you come across a file that you think has been mislicensed in some way and you're fairly confident that you can address the matter yourself, then you can be WP:BOLD and try and do so; if someone, however, disagrees with your assessment, you then may have to resolve things through discussion. File licensing can be changed after the fact if there's a good reason to do so, and many files are uploaded as non-free just because the uploader is being cautious or just doesn't know any better. File licensing can also be discussed at WP:MCQ or WP:FFD (or even perhaps WT:NFCC) to seek other opinions regarding their licensing. Files uploaded to Commons, however, will need to be resolved on Commons and input can be sought at c:COM:VPC.
Next, regarding coats of arms, my understanding is that their are two things that need to be considered. The first is the blazon (i.e. the written description/definition of the COA) and the second is the emblazon (i.e. the visual depiction or rendition of the COA). My understanding is that blazons are generally not eligible for coyright protection and thus can be freely used by anyone to create a visual representation of a COA; emblazons, on the other hand, are individual visual representations of blazons, and thus are considered to be creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection in their own right separately from the blazon. For example, two paintings of the same tree would each be likely eligible for copyright protection even though the tree itself is most likely not. Of course, copyright laws can and often vary quite a bit from country to country, but this seems to be how Commons treats COAs per c:COM:COA. If you find a COA somewhere online, download it to your computer, and then upload it to Wikipedia or Commons, you're essentially uploading someone else's emblazon which means you need to consider the copyright status of the emblazon. Unless it's no longer eligible or never was eligible for copyright protection (i.e. WP:PD) for some reason, or it has been clearly released under an acceptable free license by whomever created it, it's probably going to need to be treated as non-free content for local use on Wikipedia (Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any time per c:COM:FAIR) and thus each use will be subject to WP:NFCC. On the other hand, if you create your own 100% original emblazon of a COA based on its corresponding blazon, then you would its copyright holder and should, in principle, be able to upload it either to Wikipedia or Commons under an acceptable free license of your own choosing. The hurdle that needs to be cleared in such cases would be making sure the emblazon isn't simply a slavish reproduction of someone else's emblazon or doesn't too closely resemble or incorporate too much of someone else's emblazon so that it would be considered a WP:Derivative work. In either of those cases, the copyright status of the other person's emblazon would need to be taken into account.
Finally, in addition to copyright matters, the accuracy of an emblazon also needs to be considered. For this reason, often emblazons found on official websites are uploaded as non-free because they are considered to be the "official" version or at least as official of a version that can be found for Wikipedia's purposes. These are often considered to be OK for stand-alone articles about the COA itself or for perhaps a single use in a stand-alone article about whatever (e.g. town, person, organization) the COA is intended to represent. Other types of non-free uses tend to be harder to justify and in these cases you might find "less official" user created emblazons being used instead. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology because that where you're more likely to find people familiar with the subject matter who actually have created their own emblazons for use on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I just wanted to say thank you for the very full response. I didn't realise it was quite as complicated as that but that has helped my understanding of the subject. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 11:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Pati 29999444 (20:49, 10 June 2023)

Hello -- Pati 29999444 ( talk) 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Pati 29999444: Hello. Did you have a question about something related to Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2023/June&oldid=1163323141"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coat of arms

Hey, hope you are well. I noticed your edit to 2022 South Lanarkshire Council election and I had a wee query. I fully understand the reasons that File:Arms_slanarkshire.jpg was removed from the page, my query was in relation to what makes these non-free images. I know that files like File:Coat of arms of Aberdeenshire County Council 1890-1975.svg, another local authority coat of arms, is an image that can be used freely on Wikipedia but I wondered why they are different as they are essentially the same thing. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 10:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Stevie fae Scotland. My answer is going to be in multiple parts since your question is a bit more complicated than it might seem at first glance.
First, files aren't vetted or assessed prior to being uploaded either to (English) Wikipedia or (Wikimedia) Commons. It's assumed in good faith, at least at the beginning, that whoever is uploading a file is familiar enough with relevant policies and guidelines to understand the license they need to use. Obviously, mistakes are often made, but these usually only are noticed after (some times well after) the file has been uploaded and is being used somewhere. If the problem can be resolved without deleting the file, then that's preferable; however, it's not always possible to do so. So, basically, if you come across a file that you think has been mislicensed in some way and you're fairly confident that you can address the matter yourself, then you can be WP:BOLD and try and do so; if someone, however, disagrees with your assessment, you then may have to resolve things through discussion. File licensing can be changed after the fact if there's a good reason to do so, and many files are uploaded as non-free just because the uploader is being cautious or just doesn't know any better. File licensing can also be discussed at WP:MCQ or WP:FFD (or even perhaps WT:NFCC) to seek other opinions regarding their licensing. Files uploaded to Commons, however, will need to be resolved on Commons and input can be sought at c:COM:VPC.
Next, regarding coats of arms, my understanding is that their are two things that need to be considered. The first is the blazon (i.e. the written description/definition of the COA) and the second is the emblazon (i.e. the visual depiction or rendition of the COA). My understanding is that blazons are generally not eligible for coyright protection and thus can be freely used by anyone to create a visual representation of a COA; emblazons, on the other hand, are individual visual representations of blazons, and thus are considered to be creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection in their own right separately from the blazon. For example, two paintings of the same tree would each be likely eligible for copyright protection even though the tree itself is most likely not. Of course, copyright laws can and often vary quite a bit from country to country, but this seems to be how Commons treats COAs per c:COM:COA. If you find a COA somewhere online, download it to your computer, and then upload it to Wikipedia or Commons, you're essentially uploading someone else's emblazon which means you need to consider the copyright status of the emblazon. Unless it's no longer eligible or never was eligible for copyright protection (i.e. WP:PD) for some reason, or it has been clearly released under an acceptable free license by whomever created it, it's probably going to need to be treated as non-free content for local use on Wikipedia (Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any time per c:COM:FAIR) and thus each use will be subject to WP:NFCC. On the other hand, if you create your own 100% original emblazon of a COA based on its corresponding blazon, then you would its copyright holder and should, in principle, be able to upload it either to Wikipedia or Commons under an acceptable free license of your own choosing. The hurdle that needs to be cleared in such cases would be making sure the emblazon isn't simply a slavish reproduction of someone else's emblazon or doesn't too closely resemble or incorporate too much of someone else's emblazon so that it would be considered a WP:Derivative work. In either of those cases, the copyright status of the other person's emblazon would need to be taken into account.
Finally, in addition to copyright matters, the accuracy of an emblazon also needs to be considered. For this reason, often emblazons found on official websites are uploaded as non-free because they are considered to be the "official" version or at least as official of a version that can be found for Wikipedia's purposes. These are often considered to be OK for stand-alone articles about the COA itself or for perhaps a single use in a stand-alone article about whatever (e.g. town, person, organization) the COA is intended to represent. Other types of non-free uses tend to be harder to justify and in these cases you might find "less official" user created emblazons being used instead. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology because that where you're more likely to find people familiar with the subject matter who actually have created their own emblazons for use on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I just wanted to say thank you for the very full response. I didn't realise it was quite as complicated as that but that has helped my understanding of the subject. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 11:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Pati 29999444 (20:49, 10 June 2023)

Hello -- Pati 29999444 ( talk) 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Pati 29999444: Hello. Did you have a question about something related to Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2023/June&oldid=1163323141"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE