Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Royal Arms of the United Kingdom

Royal Arms of the United Kingdom[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 01:18:57 (UTC)

Reason: visually stunning representation of a very widely used image on wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears: See Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (St Edward's Crown).svg here
FP category for this image: link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
Creator: Sodacan

Support as nominator --Thanks, Hadseys 01:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not happy with the copyright information here. It would need to be demonstrated that the design was public domain, and then, as far as Commons is concerned, the file would be public domain, as per the usual. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this version was a picture of the day on wikipedia at one point so I don't think that the coat of arms are copyrighted else they would surely never have been allowed on the main page, would they? --Thanks, Hadseys 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. This document provides more information on Crown Copyright regarding the use of the Royal Arms. It would appear that we need the consent of the Lord Chamberlain's office. --Thanks, Hadseys 23:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of a prior version of this Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom in 2008 - seems the same discussion was had then. --jjron (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on copyright, I don't think. Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems was written by Lupo, who has a very long history of being extremely thorough about this sort of thing (and also being upheld as right), and I think that essay pretty well describes the situation here: it's not under copyright, and any use that is clearly illustration would not fall under the usage restrictions. I note also that, though we have previously considered a similar image, this one certainly seems sufficiently different to be considered. So with that said, I think we can begin the discussion about featuring it, on which I have no opinion. Chick Bowen 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you are going to hold that the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom belongs to Sodacan and has been released under the GFDL and various CC licenses, then you must surely accept that the copyright information on the file page is incorrect. Pointing at other pictures with questionable copyright statuses and essays (and, as an aside, I really don't see the purpose or relevance of that essay- while a few issues may crop up in the copyright status of emblems, each is going to have to be considered alone, as with any type of image) is all well and good, but while this image has such clearly incorrect and incomplete licensing, it is very clearly not eligible for featured picture status. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The license information on the file description page is accurate: Sodacan holds the copyright to his interpretation of the CoA definition. Trademark is separate from copyright: the image is subject to trademark restrictions, but the original definition of the CoA is in the public domain, as it is very old. Jujutacular ^talk 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me reiterate, J Milburn: I see no problem with the copyright status of this image. Since it is not a contentless copy, the author can indeed copyright a vector trace of it. He does not, of course, possess the underlying rights to the image, but it doesn't matter: as an image, it is in the public domain. As an emblem, rights are restricted, but that is not relevant under US law as long as we remain within the purposes of illustration. So, no, I don't think the licensing is "clearly incorrect." Chick Bowen 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The documentation should provide evidence that "as an image, it is in the public domain". If the image is in the public domain, then, surely, any reproduction of it is, too, as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. What am I missing here? J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bridgeman v Corel "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States". This is not an exact copy of a public domain image. It is an original artistic interpretation of a public domain CoA definition. Jujutacular ^talk 01:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, fair enough, but so far as I understand, Wikimedia policy on the matter that "A mere mechanical reproduction of some other image, such as an unmodified photocopy or scan of a drawing, cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more." "Sweat of the brow" does not confer copyright in the US- would you not consider this a "mere mechanical reproduction of some other image"? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        See also this. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't see it as a "mere mechanical reproduction". Artistic choices were involved. Jujutacular ^talk 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In that case, I would not feel comfortable supporting it, as we should use the same version as is used by the royal family, not a version created by a Wikipedian. And, to reiterate, evidence that the underlying design is public domain is still needed on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support like I did in the Commons POTY.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White on white is a bad choice --Niabot (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]