Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg|year=2024|month=May|day=13}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg}} at the end of today's log.
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:Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg[edit]

Submitting these files for a deletion discussion and review as their copyright status has been questioned during an FAC discussion on English Wikipedia. Unlike File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (St Edward's Crown).svg, none of these works were published before 1974 so the "PD-UKGov" tag does not apply. Conversely, one of the users questioned the fact that whether vectorization alone would be a factor that could help pass the threshold for originality so that we could host them on the Commons. As a result, I would rather have the community make a decision regarding their status. Here are some of the sources for closer examination: Camilla as Duchess of Cornwall, and as Queen. Catherine as Miss Middleton, as Duchess of Cambridge, and her conjugal arms. For William, Harry, and Diana see this source. For Meghan 1, 2. For Sophie 3. --Keivan.fTalk 17:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I disagree with deleting any of these. We'd be deleting coat of arms for most of the British Royal Family to be replaced with what? Nothing. These arms have never been a problem before, why now? Respectfully, I believe it would be silly to delete any of these and should remain to serve as a record of past and present coat of arms. Best wishes. GandalfXLD (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GandalfXLD Thanks for your input. Please be mindful that I'm not in favor of deletion either, but I needed to address the issue formally, otherwise the users at FAC would not be satisfied. Keivan.fTalk 18:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I'm just glad to be involved. GandalfXLD (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment User:DrKay pointed out here that per Commons:Coats of arms Coats of arms should be OK as long as they are drawn from the blazon and not direct copies. I thought I should bring the existing guideline to everyone's attention. Keivan.fTalk 18:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Intellectual property in heraldry is regulated by the law of arms, which is different to that of conventional copyright law. It's a basic principle of heraldry that a coat of arms is defined by its blazon – the verbal description (which in a post-medieval coat is included in the grant of arms). Any artistic rendition that conforms to the blazon is accurate from a heraldic perspective. However, different artists may choose to interpret the blazon in subtly different ways. Any one specific artistic rendition, once published, is subject to normal copyright rules – but that has no bearing on another artistic impression based on the same blazon. As far as I can see, that principle applies in all these cases: all these svgs have been created by contributors to Commons and uploaded for free use: as long as they conform to the blazon, they are heraldically accurate, but they do not breach the "copyright" of the slightly variant renditions published by the College of Arms, Royal Household, or whoever. The principle is essentially the same as that of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Diagrams and other images: "User-made images can also include the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data, as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work" – a policy which in my opinion should be supplemented to include a specific mention of heraldry, because this isn't the first time this issue has come up. GrindtXX (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per GrindtXX. Technically these are not vectorizations of existing works of visual art, they are emblazonments of a written description. Each heraldic artist's rendition of a coat of arms is a work in its own right for copyright and licensing purposes (some surpassing the threshold of originality, some not). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep They're original works based on written description. Nford24 (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - As said above, these aren't vectorizations, but original pieces of art by Sodacan based of an existing blazon, a textual description which (per Commons:Coats of arms) aren't protected by copyright. So long as the depiction here is note derivative of an existing emblazonment, which the nominator hasn't shown, we should be fine (there are other non-copyright restrictions applied to CoA in various countries, but we generally aren't concerned about those here). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said a few times now, these are originals created directly from a blazon, using artistic interpretation, which does not infringe copyright, only a literal copy does. WiltedXXVI (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Coat_of_arms_of_Queen_Camilla.svg&oldid=875733246"