Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the United States Secret Service.png
The flag would be public domain. There is no evidence that this graphic is a creation of the US Government. It is from a private website. No evidence that they didn't generate the graphic themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Strenuously keep That is irrelevant. It is a derivative reproduction of a work that is already irrevocably in the public domain. Thus, it is not copyrightable. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not irrelevant. If I paint a picture of the White House and display it on my Facebook page, you can't claim it as public domain. If I go to the National Archives and take a picture of the Constitution, you can't claim my photo is public domain. Likewise, if a website renders a graphic of a flag, that doesn't make it up for grabs. It is their creation. Nor is this a derivative work. It is a flat out copy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- And why can't I find it on a reliable source? A google search for the Secret Service flag doesn't show this anywhere, but here. I'm not even convinced this rendering you lifted is accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- "It is a flat out copy". All the more reason to keep it, since it is identical to the actual subject in question, absent of any distinguishing features that denote it as being another discrete work. Also, here's a photograph of the actual flag. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. You can claim it's a derivative work, then claim it's an accurate copy. They are opposing points of view. Either it's a faithful reproduction or a derivative. It can't be both. Second, your "proof" isn't going to pass WP:RS. The lack of a reliable source is troubling. Lastly, this isn't a government product. It is a private party product. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never claimed it was an exact copy; you were the one that made the claim to that effect. The linked photograph of an actual production of the flag was in response to your claim that you didn't think the flag was real. Also, I believe the NAVA counts as a reliable source, as far as vexillology is concerned. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- You said "since it is identical to the actual subject". What do you think identical means? Identical means exact copy. The linked photo is worthless. It's not a reliable source and while you're claiming it is an "actual production", you fail to establish who produced it. Anyone could make that flag. NAVA isn't looking reliable. They're a hobbyist organization with a low-rent looking website. How is it that this modern, functioning agency has a flag and no reliable sources know what it looks like? Further, NAVA produced that graphic, not the US Govt, so you can't claim it as PD. You claim it is in the public domain, yet can't show evidence of it in the public domain. But you did bring the fact that no reliable source is being used to establish the flag's legitimacy, so thanks for that? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question for Illegitimate Barrister : Firstly; was the file you uploaded created by a employee of the federal government of the US and if so was the underling flag created by a employee of the federal government ? If the answer to both is YES can you provide proof ? If the answer to either is NO then the file should not be hosted here. LGA talkedits 01:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As absent any verifiable proof of licence status. Will change to keep if any is provided. LGA talkedits 05:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 07:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Recreation of the deleted http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Secret_Service.png This image file was NOT created by the US Govt. The flag may have been (or it may have been contracted out) but this computer file is an actual creation of the website is was stolen from. There is no license from them Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Uploader offers DHS directive 0040 as evidence of the flag. However, the directive, which can be viewed here [1] describes a flag for the DHS, not the USSS. The DHS flag described is different than this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, the uploader has claimed it was created by the DHS, then changed it to Treasury. Has claimed the source was loeser.us, then badgecards.com. What we do know is that all of that can't be true. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The flag itself is a work of the United States Government, and by US law these works are in the Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 18:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The flag, which we've never confirmed is actually accurate, may be public domain, but this computer representation of it is not. It is a product of that website. The government didn't produce it. It was taken from a private site, without permission. This is like me painting a picture of the White House, then you take it and claim it's public domain. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you don't understand copyright very well, and it's a shame it was deleted the first time because of that, but you are mistaken. US copyright law explicitly excludes government works from copyright. That means that this image as a derivative, can not be copyrighted under US law. Fry1989 eh? 01:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The flag itself may not be copyrighted, but this image may be because it was not created by the federal govt. If I took a photo of this flag, I could copyright that photo. The govt. produced the subject of that photo, but not the photo. In this case, the government may have produced this flag, but they did not produce the image that was uploaded here. Also, US copyright law doesn't exclude anything from a government, it excluded the Federal government.....who (allegedly) made the flag, but did not make this graphic. Who made this graphic? THAT is who holds the copyright to the image we have here. Additionally, the uploader links [2] as a source. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can not copyright something in the United States which the American Government explicitly forbids being copyrighted. It's that simple. Fry1989 eh? 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not always the case, if it is a 2D copy of a PD work then yes, however a photo of three-dimensional PD object can have a separate copyright, the badge the uploader has picked looks like it is indeed a photo of a 3D badge, then the skill to light the frame, to edit out the background etc allows for the creation of a copyright. LGA talkedits 09:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you CAN copyright something the USG created. If Time magazine takes a picture of the Oval office and publishes it, you can't go lift it and put it here. Taxpayers may own the Oval Office, but we don't own that picture of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you can't. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, yes, you can. The picture example I gave you is spot on. You could take all the pictures you want, but you don't have the rights to pictures someone else takes. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks so. BTW, note how I responded without making my entire response bold text. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you can not. As for how I choose to respond, that is none of your concern. If you don't like things being bolded, SAD DAY FOR YOU! Fry1989 eh? 21:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The manner can be my concern. Since you are responding directly to me, the manner is "my concern". However, I also recognize that I can't really change how you respond and if you decide to respond in a manner that looks so inappropriate and like you're yelling, you can do that. So really, not such a sad day for me.....just me being sad for you. BTW, your last 3 responses have been pretty much just you saying 'no you can't'. Very persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have to be persuasive to someone who clearly doesn't understand government exemption from copyright. I will reply to people as I wish and if you don't like how I choose to do so, it's a sad day for you. Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, you don't have to be persuasive. You are free to adopt the "nuh uh" method of debate that is popular on grade school playgrounds everywhere. There is no sad day for me (no matter how many times you say it). The only sadness I feel is for you and your belief that your chosen method of debate is actually effective. Either way, my position clearly isn't a lone one, so pretending like I 'just don't understand it' is really silly. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have to be persuasive to someone who clearly doesn't understand government exemption from copyright. I will reply to people as I wish and if you don't like how I choose to do so, it's a sad day for you. Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- The manner can be my concern. Since you are responding directly to me, the manner is "my concern". However, I also recognize that I can't really change how you respond and if you decide to respond in a manner that looks so inappropriate and like you're yelling, you can do that. So really, not such a sad day for me.....just me being sad for you. BTW, your last 3 responses have been pretty much just you saying 'no you can't'. Very persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you can not. As for how I choose to respond, that is none of your concern. If you don't like things being bolded, SAD DAY FOR YOU! Fry1989 eh? 21:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Um, yes, you can. The picture example I gave you is spot on. You could take all the pictures you want, but you don't have the rights to pictures someone else takes. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks so. BTW, note how I responded without making my entire response bold text. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, you can't. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you CAN copyright something the USG created. If Time magazine takes a picture of the Oval office and publishes it, you can't go lift it and put it here. Taxpayers may own the Oval Office, but we don't own that picture of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not always the case, if it is a 2D copy of a PD work then yes, however a photo of three-dimensional PD object can have a separate copyright, the badge the uploader has picked looks like it is indeed a photo of a 3D badge, then the skill to light the frame, to edit out the background etc allows for the creation of a copyright. LGA talkedits 09:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can not copyright something in the United States which the American Government explicitly forbids being copyrighted. It's that simple. Fry1989 eh? 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The flag itself may not be copyrighted, but this image may be because it was not created by the federal govt. If I took a photo of this flag, I could copyright that photo. The govt. produced the subject of that photo, but not the photo. In this case, the government may have produced this flag, but they did not produce the image that was uploaded here. Also, US copyright law doesn't exclude anything from a government, it excluded the Federal government.....who (allegedly) made the flag, but did not make this graphic. Who made this graphic? THAT is who holds the copyright to the image we have here. Additionally, the uploader links [2] as a source. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you don't understand copyright very well, and it's a shame it was deleted the first time because of that, but you are mistaken. US copyright law explicitly excludes government works from copyright. That means that this image as a derivative, can not be copyrighted under US law. Fry1989 eh? 01:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Firstly the photo of a 3D badge is copyrightable and as there is no proof that the photo of the 3D badge taken from badgecards.com is a work of the US Federal Government this is not correctly licensed. Second this is not the flag of the United States Secret Service is a a mock-up of the flag and the use of the badge photo makes the image incorrect, fine for a grade 1 school project but no here. LGA talkedits 09:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Modify. Replace the badge section with File:US-SecretService-StarLogo.svg and delete the older version. I feel the photograph of the badge is of a 3D object. The photograph therefore is copyrightable. US.gov sites probably have a PD photo of the silver badge that can be used instead of the one that has source not licensed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Found one.Two. Still looking....Grayscale I made from the gold svg.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- That first one is a fake. The "junior secret service" agent badge isn't real. Second one doesn't seem usable. And can I ask again, where is the evidence that this representation of the flag is an accurate representation of the official flag? Aside from copyright, there is a WP:V issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Best Practices for Seizing Electronic Evidence book was printed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, so I would assume the copyright is probably theirs. The cufflinks and US Flag with SS logo on it were a gift from the CISO of Bank of America, and are genuine. If better photos of those would be useful to you folks, just let me know. --xrayspx
- My drop box failed. I tried my version with the grayscale I made above. How does it look now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As it stands it is still a mock up, what editors think it should look like - have a look at this actual picture of a flag; nothing like this. As the flag is still in use, and the flag it's self is PD just take a picture of the one flying outside any of their offices. LGA talkedits 08:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If it is flying outside the office, we could presume it's an official flag (though not 100% accurate method). Otherwise, we have no evidence that it isn't locally produced. IF the flag is legit, then yes, you could take a picture and donate it to Wikipedia.....because you took the picture. It's yours.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep but modify - The star should be replaced with a non-photorealistic image like the one in User:LGA's photo. This should be a free image since it's a US Government flag. FOX 52 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is it? We've never seen a reliable source stating that this is an official flag. The closest we saw was a partial picture of one and nothing telling us that it's an official version. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep but modify - The star should be replaced with a non-photorealistic image like the one in User:LGA's photo. This should be a free image since it's a US Government flag. FOX 52 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
There is this photo from the US Secret Service website media section (5th one from top) FOX 52 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- That would certainly suffice. That doesn't make this file free though. The USG didn't make this file. The licensing claim is false.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I contacted a friend in DC to take a picture of a flag there. He will need a windy day or someone holding the flag to get a good flat shot. He may also ask for a shot of a silver badge.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- And nobody would contest those as long as he (the owner) released them. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a SVG version of this file which I created, hopefully this may fix the issue FOX 52 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Consensus appears to be in favor of keeping and modifying the image, which has already been done. -FASTILY 02:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)