Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the United Nations.svg
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.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Flags_and_logos_from_international_organizations The Flag of the UN, like the Olympic flag are copyrighted. Excerpting it does not make it public domain. DHeyward (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia weighed in. The UN explicitly states restrictions: https://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/maplib/flag.htm . Not sure how excerpting the image in violation of the terms makes it public domain. --DHeyward (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Mhmm, not sure, but we already nominated the UN logo in the past. Sorry, I don't have time by now. --F l a n k e r (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Many years ago before Wikilegal weighed in. The arguments seem very week to use the image outside the context of the report from which it is alleged to have been lifted. Nothing appears to grant the use of the logo/flag outside the official reports that are released. --DHeyward (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Mhmm, not sure, but we already nominated the UN logo in the past. Sorry, I don't have time by now. --F l a n k e r (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Withdraw based on discussion in various places with RP88. The presumption being that the annex was not adopted by the U.S. copyright office and the U.S. code that protects U.N. documents does not apply retroactively and lifting the image (and modifying it) does not violate U.S. copyright law. Also that future U.N. publications of the identical image that are afforded copyright status doesn't affect this image. --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep This file appears to be an excellent first test case of the recent deprecation of {{PD-UN}}, in which it was concluded that works of the U.N. are indeed eligible for copyright protection. Following the resolution of the Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UN and the discussion at Template talk:PD-UN the only U.N. works that are likely to be PD are trivial works ineligible for copyright (and thus these works can be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}) or works published by the U.N. in the U.S. before 17 September 1987 as prior to that date the U.N. had an official policy of deliberately not complying with U.S. copyright formalities (and thus these works can be tagged with {{PD-US-no notice-UN}}). I think it is obvious that the logo on this flag is sufficient to overcome the threshold of originality, so {{PD-ineligible}} is not available. However, the document "The United Nations flag code and regulations, as amended November 11, 1952" was published by the U.N. in the US in 1962. As can be seen from an online PDF of this document it contains the U.N. symbol and flag and, as expected, as a document not listed in the Annex it does not have a copyright notice. As such the flag and symbol of the U.N. are PD in the US. I've updated the license on the file to {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} instead of the deprecated {{PD-UN}} and added a citation to a 1962 U.S. publication. —RP88 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except it's a UN publication allowed to use the symbol. The symbol, as stated by Wikilegal, is not conferred public domain status simply because it's used in a document. In fact, the document itself contains prohibitions on its use (i.e. prohibited to be sewn onto pillows, etc). By your logic, that prohibition has no weight since they used the symbol in a non-copyrighted document that can be reproduced. That is not logical or comporting with the law of copyrights. The symbol enjoys copyright status even when it is used to identify the authority of non-copyrighted works. It would be a copyright and trademark violation to create a public domain work, and put the U.N. symbol on it as if it were public domain or imply that the U.N. endorsed it. For that reason, use of the symbol is restricted under law and not public domain. The document you cite for Public Domain in {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} has this clause "The publisher should also be advised that the use of the United Nations emblem is restricted to United Nations publications, unless, in exceptional circumstances, permission is granted by the Publications Board in consultation with the Office of Legal Affairs." --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are misinterpreting meta:Wikilegal/Flags and logos from international organizations. The conclusion of that page is that the mere international and extraterritorial status of organizations such as NATO and the U.N. does not place their works into the public domain. As I mention above, works of the U.N. are indeed eligible for copyright protection. With the adoption of UCC Paris by the U.S. works of the U.N. published in the U.S. are treated as if they were created and published by a U.S. national, so such works have a PD status in the U.S. if they can meet the qualifications of PD-1923, PD-US-no notice, PD-US-1978-89 or PD-US-not renewed. The line you highlight in bold is a non-copyright restriction, along the lines of {{Trademark}} and does not affect the public domain status of the work. You'll note that the file is tagged with the {{Insignia}} restriction template to indicate this restriction. Commons permits such content if the copyright for the work itself is in the public domain, despite legal restrictions in some jurisdictions limiting the re-use of the work (the classic example are Nazi symbols). —RP88 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except that the rules are adopted as treaty. Had this been a corporate logo, you would be correct. This is not a picture of the flag of the UN, rather it is a recreated image from the emblem specification. meta:Wikilegal/Flags and logos from international organizations is simply saying that it can be subject to copyright law even if not copyrighted and that symbols and emblems of government or quasi-government orgs have extra protection adopted through treaty even if the originating nation isn't a member/ the controlloing piece is codified though is 17 USC 104(b)(5) addressing UN documents. This isn't like the L'Oreal trademark, it's more like corporate guidelines for use of trademark being adopted as law through treaty. The U.S. is a participating member so UN resolutions regarding use have force of law. Here is another source from the UN saying it is not public domain in any fashion [1]. This is similar to impersonation. generally impersonation is not illegal (i.e. pretend you're a baker or plumber). Impersonation of a police officer though is regulated quite differently. The logo is an emblem of the U.N. and had it been not party of conventions and treaties, it would be jsut like any other trademark. But it isn't and the U.N. says it isn't. Not sure where that fits or how they would would prosecute it, but that is a different question. A picture would be more justifiable. Replication through svg software from spec seems to not fall under this. The classic example of Nazi symbols would not be allowed if U.S. law prevented it. We are in an area where U.S. law may prevent it's PD status through convention and treaty specifically because the U.N. says it is protected and not in the Public Domain. This isn't a PD document, it's the emblem and logo subject to restriction and treaty. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to several areas here where we are talking past each other, so I am going to try to tease them out. First, treaty obligations of the U.S. have to be enacted into U.S. law, proclamations of the U.N. are not treaties, and ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 is a U.N. administrative instruction that is binding on U.N. departments and not a treaty obligation of U.N. members. Second, your reference to 17 USC 104(b)(5) is indeed the change the U.S. enacted to its copyright law in order to comply with its UCC Paris treaty obligation. Prior to this change the U.S. (and the other UCC countries) offered no copyright protection to works of the U.N. (unlike the Berne countries, which always have). Note that all of the works offered protection under 104(b) are offered identical protection under U.S. copyright law, whether the author is a U.S. national (via 104(b)(1)), the work was published in the U.S. (via 104(b)(2)), the work was first published by the United Nations (via 104(b)(5)) or via Presidential proclamation (via 104(b)(6)). Works of the U.N. published in the U.S. receive no more, and no less, copyright protection in the U.S. than a work by a U.S. national. I'm not sure why you linked to the UNOG Bookshop, that link doesn't say anything dispositive about the U.S. copyright status of the U.N. logo. However, where I do agree with you is that is indeed true that a work of the United Nations could conceivabley have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. but nonetheless still be protected by other non-copyright laws. While this would not make the work non-public domain, such a law might prevent WMF from hosting the file. This, however, is not the case with the U.N. logo and even the criminal penalties in the U.S. regarding the use of the logo of the FBI are not sufficient to prevent us from hosting FBI logos (i.e. we host File:US-FBI-Seal.svg despite 18 U.S.C § 701, § 709, and § 712). We use {{Insignia}} for such cases. —RP88 01:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- We do have the FBI logo (and received a takedown notice, too, which we ignored), but the exception is derived from the premise that the of work was created by a Federal Government employee which presumes the work is public domain with or without the logo. U.N. works are not public domain by statute. Even if the publication is released public domain by the UN, the use of the emblem is still restricted meaning the product can be excerpted and cited but may not use the emblem in excerpts or republication. It seems very counter-intuitive that we use a "public domain" document to extract the seal, but would be prohibited by its use clause to place the symbol on an extracted piece of the document. It seems to me all the public domain uses of UN publications prohibit the use of the emblem without permission (and therefore violate the PD terms of the document we claim is the source of the public domain publication). In short, the UN releases the content under the condition that the seal not be used in extraction and republication and that condition is part of its public domain copyright release. How do we obtain the image of the emblem without violating the PD requirement of not using the image of the emblem or seal in excerpts (the image is an excerpt)? The image is not subject to the exceptions to copyright law such as works by the U.S. Government and U.N. docs are explicitly in the copyright section of US law, not trademarks. It also seems to violate the use restriction by using the U.N. symbol on the {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} template without permission. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, now I think I see the source of our miscommunication. The U.N. policy document ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 is not a license agreement, it is not a document in which the U.N. is saying (very roughly) "we license the following U.N. works under {{PD-self}}". In fact, it is not necessary to rely on any statement in it in order to declare the U.N. flag and logo PD in the United States. Before 1 March 1989 in the U.S. failure to comply with certain copyright formalities could cause a work to fall into the public domain in the U.S. despite the wishes and intentions of the author. Let us pretend, as a thought experiment, that U.N. copyright policy was "everything is all rights reserved, nothing is PD" and the U.N. aggressively enforced its copyrights to the maximum extent allowed by local law. Even in a world where the aforementioned thought experiment were true, because the U.N. published the U.N. flag and logo in the U.S. in a document without a copyright notice before 1978, the document and all its contents would still have fallen into the pubic domain in the U.S. at the moment of publication in the U.S. -- that is how {{PD-US-no notice}} works and {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} uses the same logic. —RP88 08:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see that but the template itself refers to a separate criteria ("the list"). Our template declares "(these documents were copyrighted under an exception to the general practice)" in ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1. It seems to me that if the list were not a licensing agreement, it would be unable to establish copyright for those publications and the list is meaningless. If the documents were properly marked, there would be no need for a list. If the list was created and adopted to allow for copyright protection under acceptance of the ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 measures, then it is indeed a licensing document. Why have a list at all if it were not to restrict use through copyright and how was the list adopted by the U.S.? I don't see how we make that document controlling the use of publications or reproducing them without explicitly treating it as a licensing agreement (or rather a restriction on public domain). We put the boiler plate notice from that document as the document states. But then we ignore the restriction on the emblem as if it were not part of the whole. If we believe that document controls the copyright status of the list of documents, why do we not believe it controls the extraction and use of the emblem? (I also don't see how we can use the UN emblem on the template as it was not created by the UN but that's tangential). --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, now I think I see the source of our miscommunication. The U.N. policy document ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 is not a license agreement, it is not a document in which the U.N. is saying (very roughly) "we license the following U.N. works under {{PD-self}}". In fact, it is not necessary to rely on any statement in it in order to declare the U.N. flag and logo PD in the United States. Before 1 March 1989 in the U.S. failure to comply with certain copyright formalities could cause a work to fall into the public domain in the U.S. despite the wishes and intentions of the author. Let us pretend, as a thought experiment, that U.N. copyright policy was "everything is all rights reserved, nothing is PD" and the U.N. aggressively enforced its copyrights to the maximum extent allowed by local law. Even in a world where the aforementioned thought experiment were true, because the U.N. published the U.N. flag and logo in the U.S. in a document without a copyright notice before 1978, the document and all its contents would still have fallen into the pubic domain in the U.S. at the moment of publication in the U.S. -- that is how {{PD-US-no notice}} works and {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} uses the same logic. —RP88 08:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- We do have the FBI logo (and received a takedown notice, too, which we ignored), but the exception is derived from the premise that the of work was created by a Federal Government employee which presumes the work is public domain with or without the logo. U.N. works are not public domain by statute. Even if the publication is released public domain by the UN, the use of the emblem is still restricted meaning the product can be excerpted and cited but may not use the emblem in excerpts or republication. It seems very counter-intuitive that we use a "public domain" document to extract the seal, but would be prohibited by its use clause to place the symbol on an extracted piece of the document. It seems to me all the public domain uses of UN publications prohibit the use of the emblem without permission (and therefore violate the PD terms of the document we claim is the source of the public domain publication). In short, the UN releases the content under the condition that the seal not be used in extraction and republication and that condition is part of its public domain copyright release. How do we obtain the image of the emblem without violating the PD requirement of not using the image of the emblem or seal in excerpts (the image is an excerpt)? The image is not subject to the exceptions to copyright law such as works by the U.S. Government and U.N. docs are explicitly in the copyright section of US law, not trademarks. It also seems to violate the use restriction by using the U.N. symbol on the {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} template without permission. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to several areas here where we are talking past each other, so I am going to try to tease them out. First, treaty obligations of the U.S. have to be enacted into U.S. law, proclamations of the U.N. are not treaties, and ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 is a U.N. administrative instruction that is binding on U.N. departments and not a treaty obligation of U.N. members. Second, your reference to 17 USC 104(b)(5) is indeed the change the U.S. enacted to its copyright law in order to comply with its UCC Paris treaty obligation. Prior to this change the U.S. (and the other UCC countries) offered no copyright protection to works of the U.N. (unlike the Berne countries, which always have). Note that all of the works offered protection under 104(b) are offered identical protection under U.S. copyright law, whether the author is a U.S. national (via 104(b)(1)), the work was published in the U.S. (via 104(b)(2)), the work was first published by the United Nations (via 104(b)(5)) or via Presidential proclamation (via 104(b)(6)). Works of the U.N. published in the U.S. receive no more, and no less, copyright protection in the U.S. than a work by a U.S. national. I'm not sure why you linked to the UNOG Bookshop, that link doesn't say anything dispositive about the U.S. copyright status of the U.N. logo. However, where I do agree with you is that is indeed true that a work of the United Nations could conceivabley have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. but nonetheless still be protected by other non-copyright laws. While this would not make the work non-public domain, such a law might prevent WMF from hosting the file. This, however, is not the case with the U.N. logo and even the criminal penalties in the U.S. regarding the use of the logo of the FBI are not sufficient to prevent us from hosting FBI logos (i.e. we host File:US-FBI-Seal.svg despite 18 U.S.C § 701, § 709, and § 712). We use {{Insignia}} for such cases. —RP88 01:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except that the rules are adopted as treaty. Had this been a corporate logo, you would be correct. This is not a picture of the flag of the UN, rather it is a recreated image from the emblem specification. meta:Wikilegal/Flags and logos from international organizations is simply saying that it can be subject to copyright law even if not copyrighted and that symbols and emblems of government or quasi-government orgs have extra protection adopted through treaty even if the originating nation isn't a member/ the controlloing piece is codified though is 17 USC 104(b)(5) addressing UN documents. This isn't like the L'Oreal trademark, it's more like corporate guidelines for use of trademark being adopted as law through treaty. The U.S. is a participating member so UN resolutions regarding use have force of law. Here is another source from the UN saying it is not public domain in any fashion [1]. This is similar to impersonation. generally impersonation is not illegal (i.e. pretend you're a baker or plumber). Impersonation of a police officer though is regulated quite differently. The logo is an emblem of the U.N. and had it been not party of conventions and treaties, it would be jsut like any other trademark. But it isn't and the U.N. says it isn't. Not sure where that fits or how they would would prosecute it, but that is a different question. A picture would be more justifiable. Replication through svg software from spec seems to not fall under this. The classic example of Nazi symbols would not be allowed if U.S. law prevented it. We are in an area where U.S. law may prevent it's PD status through convention and treaty specifically because the U.N. says it is protected and not in the Public Domain. This isn't a PD document, it's the emblem and logo subject to restriction and treaty. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are misinterpreting meta:Wikilegal/Flags and logos from international organizations. The conclusion of that page is that the mere international and extraterritorial status of organizations such as NATO and the U.N. does not place their works into the public domain. As I mention above, works of the U.N. are indeed eligible for copyright protection. With the adoption of UCC Paris by the U.S. works of the U.N. published in the U.S. are treated as if they were created and published by a U.S. national, so such works have a PD status in the U.S. if they can meet the qualifications of PD-1923, PD-US-no notice, PD-US-1978-89 or PD-US-not renewed. The line you highlight in bold is a non-copyright restriction, along the lines of {{Trademark}} and does not affect the public domain status of the work. You'll note that the file is tagged with the {{Insignia}} restriction template to indicate this restriction. Commons permits such content if the copyright for the work itself is in the public domain, despite legal restrictions in some jurisdictions limiting the re-use of the work (the classic example are Nazi symbols). —RP88 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except it's a UN publication allowed to use the symbol. The symbol, as stated by Wikilegal, is not conferred public domain status simply because it's used in a document. In fact, the document itself contains prohibitions on its use (i.e. prohibited to be sewn onto pillows, etc). By your logic, that prohibition has no weight since they used the symbol in a non-copyrighted document that can be reproduced. That is not logical or comporting with the law of copyrights. The symbol enjoys copyright status even when it is used to identify the authority of non-copyrighted works. It would be a copyright and trademark violation to create a public domain work, and put the U.N. symbol on it as if it were public domain or imply that the U.N. endorsed it. For that reason, use of the symbol is restricted under law and not public domain. The document you cite for Public Domain in {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} has this clause "The publisher should also be advised that the use of the United Nations emblem is restricted to United Nations publications, unless, in exceptional circumstances, permission is granted by the Publications Board in consultation with the Office of Legal Affairs." --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
See File_talk:Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg#PD_Arguments for more details/rationale. --DHeyward (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Source country: If the flag was published within multiple Berne Convention countries within 30 days after its initial publication, then the source country is the country out of those which grants the shortest term of protection. According to w:Flag of the United Nations, the flag was adopted on 20 October 1947. A reasonable guess is that the flag was published within 30 days from the first publication in all countries which were members of the United Nations at that point. Therefore, it should be enough to show that the copyright has expired in at least one country which was part of the United Nations on 20 October 1947. For example, Thailand joined the United Nations on 16 December 1946. According to {{PD-Thailand}}, the copyright to works by legal entities expires 50 years after publication. Therefore, the source country of the flag will have a copyright term of 50 years from publication or less. More than 50 years have passed since 20 October 1947, so the flag can therefore be assumed to be in the public domain in the source country.
- United States: A flag hanging on a public flagpole before 1978 would appear to count as published per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. A reasonable guess is that this was hanging on a flagpole at the UN office in New York on 20 October 1947. The flag is in the public domain in the United States unless there was a copyright notice on the flagpole, which sounds a bit unlikely. {{PD-URAA-Simul}} should apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's a clever argument Stefan, although I'm not sure it is safe to assume the flag was published within 30 days in all countries which were members of the United Nations when the flag was adopted. Per Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 when seeking copyright protection it was the policy of the U.N. that "the work must be placed on sale on the same day and at approximately the same time in the United States of America and in Switzerland or the United Kingdom" (unfortunately the document is silent about their publication polices for works for which they didn't seek copyright protection, so this statement isn't necessarily helpful in the case of the U.N. flag). It probably doesn't matter in this case, but generally for works previously tagged with the now deprecated {{PD-UN}} it might be best to track down actual records of publication. Given that The United Nations flag code and regulations, as amended November 11, 1952 was published in the U.S. in 1962 without notice, we know the flag fell into the public domain in the U.S. no later than 1962 (and probably a lot earlier), so the shortest copyright term is probably the U.S. —RP88 23:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that the U.N. flag was shown in newspapers or on television in almost every country after its adoption. A new flag sounds like a thing that the press generally would mention. Note that the Berne Convention talks specifically about the term of protection. In a ruling about w:His Girl Friday, the French Court of Cassation ruled that the rules in {{PD-US-not renewed}} do not constitute a "term" within the meaning of the Berne Convention. I would assume that this means that the rules in {{PD-US-no notice}} do not constitute a "term" either. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you referring to Editions Montparnasse v. Gaumont Columbia Tristar Home Vidéo, Cour de cassation, chambre civile 1, 17 décembre 2009? I find that case very interesting. That case hinged on Article 18.1 of the Berne convention, which restored copyright to works "fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection." In a case of "turnabout is fair play" likely to bring a smile to those frustrated by the URAA in the US, the French court ruled that a work that had fallen into the public domain in the U.S. in 1968 due to lack of renewal, nonetheless had its copyright restored in France due to the U.S. jointing the Berne convention in 1989. I agree that the logic of that case likely means that works that are PD in the US due to failure to comply with copyright formalities (i.e. {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}) are not PD in France. Unfortunately that case was not directly on point with regards to determining the country of origin as 18.1 explicitly refers to "expiry of the term" (which the French court ruled meant the end of a full term) and the limitation to only "expiry" does not appear in the Article 5.4(a) definition of the country of origin (where the clause is "the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection"). —RP88 (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, also, we probably can't regard the publication of the U.N. flag in newspapers or on television as "publication" for the purpose of copyright, as we have no evidence that those publications occurred with the consent of the copyright owner. News organizations are granted broad "fair use" provisions in most jurisdictions, it seems unlikely that they would have bothered to apply for U.N. permission before publicizing the flag. Fortunately, we don't need to refer to such publications, we have ample evidence that the U.N. itself published the U.N. flag in the U.S. —RP88 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that the U.N. flag was shown in newspapers or on television in almost every country after its adoption. A new flag sounds like a thing that the press generally would mention. Note that the Berne Convention talks specifically about the term of protection. In a ruling about w:His Girl Friday, the French Court of Cassation ruled that the rules in {{PD-US-not renewed}} do not constitute a "term" within the meaning of the Berne Convention. I would assume that this means that the rules in {{PD-US-no notice}} do not constitute a "term" either. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's a clever argument Stefan, although I'm not sure it is safe to assume the flag was published within 30 days in all countries which were members of the United Nations when the flag was adopted. Per Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 when seeking copyright protection it was the policy of the U.N. that "the work must be placed on sale on the same day and at approximately the same time in the United States of America and in Switzerland or the United Kingdom" (unfortunately the document is silent about their publication polices for works for which they didn't seek copyright protection, so this statement isn't necessarily helpful in the case of the U.N. flag). It probably doesn't matter in this case, but generally for works previously tagged with the now deprecated {{PD-UN}} it might be best to track down actual records of publication. Given that The United Nations flag code and regulations, as amended November 11, 1952 was published in the U.S. in 1962 without notice, we know the flag fell into the public domain in the U.S. no later than 1962 (and probably a lot earlier), so the shortest copyright term is probably the U.S. —RP88 23:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutral I am not sure on how exactly b 5; and all interact to be sure of the exact copyright protection this logo may or may not have in the US and without any good court based precedent I don't think we can be exactly sure. I also am not convinced with Stefan4's line, the Berne Convention says for works such as this protection should be for life of the author and fifty years after his death; only allowing a shorter term for cinematographic, photographic and works of applied art none of which seem to apply to the original logo. I expect that in most counties of the world this logo would be afforded copyright protection. LGA talkedits 04:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above all of the works offered protection under 17 USC § 104(b) are offered identical protection under U.S. copyright law. With regards to 17 U.S.C. § 104A, that is the URAA. Are you arguing that the URAA applies to the logo of the UN? The URAA only restored U.S. copyright to foreign publications (i.e. works first published abroad and not subsequently published in the U.S. within 30 days of the original foreign publication). We have ample evidence of U.S. publication to put that concern to rest. 17 U.S.C. § 402 is completely inapplicable, as that provision applies only to sound recordings. Assuming that you meant 17 U.S.C. § 401, that is the notice required in the U.S. before 1 March 1989 and (via 17 U.S. Code § 405) the reason for {{PD-US-no notice}}. —RP88 (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am arguing anything, probably the opposite, I am saying that I am still to be convinced on this one either way. LGA talkedits 06:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The source country is the country with the shortest term out of those where the work was published within 30 days. Commons policy, COM:L, only demands that we consider the laws of the United States and the source country, whereas it is irrelevant if it can be used anywhere else. Note, though, that Commons may not circumvent wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which says that Commons only may host so-called "Free Cultural Media", as defined by Freedomdefined:Definition. The definition states that one necessary condition is that there must not be a restriction on where a work can be used. Since Commons can't circumvent the licensing policy, this may mean that COM:L only applies in those cases where it doesn't conflict with the licensing policy. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am arguing anything, probably the opposite, I am saying that I am still to be convinced on this one either way. LGA talkedits 06:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above all of the works offered protection under 17 USC § 104(b) are offered identical protection under U.S. copyright law. With regards to 17 U.S.C. § 104A, that is the URAA. Are you arguing that the URAA applies to the logo of the UN? The URAA only restored U.S. copyright to foreign publications (i.e. works first published abroad and not subsequently published in the U.S. within 30 days of the original foreign publication). We have ample evidence of U.S. publication to put that concern to rest. 17 U.S.C. § 402 is completely inapplicable, as that provision applies only to sound recordings. Assuming that you meant 17 U.S.C. § 401, that is the notice required in the U.S. before 1 March 1989 and (via 17 U.S. Code § 405) the reason for {{PD-US-no notice}}. —RP88 (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn & keep was consensus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
