Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo de la République française.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Logo de la République française.svg

[edit]

Licence states that This document is a facsimile from an official text (law, regulation, etc.) published in the Journal officiel de la République Française, the official gazette of the French Republic. As such, it is not eligible for copyright.. It's not a law, facscimile or otherwise, it's an image, and I see no reason to believe it is free of copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Too strict of an interpretation of the law. As a work of the French Government, this is PD. Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The factual question is whether it was published in the "Journal officiel de la République Française". This doesn't seem to me to be an automatic deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being in the Gazette is a form of being published. As the official logo of the French Government, it most certainly would have been countless times. Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep as Fry said 174.95.44.225 19:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Apparently PD FASTILY 23:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Logo de la République française.svg

[edit]
et File:LogoAmb-EspagneCMJNHD.jpg

Doubtfully in public domain in France, copyright law exception concerns only laws text, and is certainly not appliable to a logo. Je n'ai pas confiance dans le raisonnement de Fastily ou de Fry1789 (qui semble confondre le domaine public gouvernemental américain avec celui français), ni en la conservation de Fastily qui utilise l'adverbe apparently, faute de savoir pourquoi il conserve le logo. Quelqu'un pourrait-il nous offrir un réel raisonnement juridique valable en France, selon lequel ce logo est dans le domaine public ? Dereckson (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per the last DR, as a work of the French Government this is PD. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it's not. This is applicable for US federal governement work, not for the French governement. --Dereckson (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it is. As far as I am concerned, as far as Fastily was concerned, regarding the fact that it was published in the Journal officiel de la République Française would make it so. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what legal grounds? Actually, this is exactly the question I would like to have an answer to: the legal grounds of the public domain of informations published in Journal Officiel, other than the text of acts and judgments excerpt. --Dereckson (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained on what grounds. I can not force you to accept it, but I find it acceptable. Fry1989 eh? 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you invoked a argumentation ex nihilo. I would like to see a legal rationale, not a conjurer spell. --Dereckson (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will make my arguments on my own terms and basis, not under your expectations and demands. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Work of french government is not PD, there is no such thing as PD-gov. Basically {{PD-JORF}} was intended as a case of PD-text-law, i.e. copyright cannot be enforced on a text of law. It is the point of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-JORF. Even if unclear, the template states it only applies to official text such as laws and regulations. It has never been intended for picture. I would really like to have an admin versed in french copyright to close this one. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works of the French Government which are published in the Journal are PD, as the law does not restrict it to text but instead is extremely broad to include all published works. If it was restricted to text alone it would say so but it does not, it is broadened enough to include all "laws, regulations, etc". As the logo of the French Government, this work would have been published and defined within regulations pertaining to how the French Government is represented. The license applies without question. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Comment Tous que je vois ici est des opinions exprimé par des utilisateurs anonyme. Qu’est-ce qu’on a besoin ici est de l’évidence (en fait des liens donné afin qu’on peut voir c’est quoi les lois ou commentaires experts donné au sujet). C’est ça les politiques officiels du Commons. En addition, c’est vraiment la responsabilité du monde qui veut que cette image reste ici d’offrir de la preuve que cette image-là est vraiment dans la domaine commune. Alors, s’il n’y a pas d’évidence introduit pour le prouver comme dans le domaine public, je m’en vais plus vers l’option de le supprimer. trackratte (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the closing admin and those concerned, contrary to PierreSelim;s claim that the PD-JORF license can only apply to texts, all documents and their related images that have been published in the Journal are considered eligible for the license including images such as banknotes and electoral cards bearing this logo. That would clearly support the license being applicable to this image. Fry1989 eh? 19:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is what the template says This document is a facsimile from an official text. I'm sorry it was never applied correctly here, but that's it. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it at all, you are deliberately excluding the entire sentence and it's original context which is significantly broader. Fry1989 eh? 19:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Trackratte says supra, we need evidence (doctrine comments, law excerpt), not an opinion. You can't use a template as a refuge. --Dereckson (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm interpreting the text of the law differently than you and it's getting under your skin because you're trying to command me into explaining my stance in a manner of which you approve. Fry1989 eh? 00:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ça me semble d'ici qu’il y a deux catégories : une avec une réutilisation avec des conditions particulières, et l’autre qui signale une licence ouverte. C’est laquelle qui s’applique à cette image-là? trackratte (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Money should be tagged with {{Money-FR}} and yet I confirm that this template only applied to text even if it seems to be used as {{PD-magic}} by some editors --PierreSelim (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I see no reason why this would be free in the US and agree with PierreSelim it s very big stretch of the law to consider it a "facsimile from an official text (law, regulation, etc.)" for it to be free in France. LGA talkedits 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Work by artist Isabelle Bauret (1959-2010). This is obviously not the text of a law or regulation. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
adding this category is neither helpful or correct. Supposing this file is copyrighted, basing it's expiration on the death of the designer does not apply when the designer is the State or it is a work for hire by the State. Fry1989 eh? 00:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is true in US, per http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105.
There is no such provision in France. Copyright regular rules apply here, like in virtually every country of the Continent. Welcome to the sad copyright world outside the US :( --Dereckson (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They can not apply when an image is a work of the State because the State by it's very nature never "dies". Fry1989 eh? 18:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Compte-tenu de l'absence totale de risque juridique. - Bzh-99 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't on this basis. Commons is a Wikimedia project. So the exemption doctrine policy (EDP) applies.
    As Commons hasn't taken an EDP, by the core rule 'in public domain or freely licensed' you have to create a discussion and make the community validate the idea to add an EDP for any picture with no « risque juridique ». --Dereckson (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dereckson, tu me réponds procédure et politique. Ce que je dis simplement, c'est que l'on peut quelquefois s'abstenir d'appliquer des procédures quand elles sont inutiles (dit plus trivialement : on est en train de couper les cheveux en quatre, là). Je ne demande pas que l'on crée de nouvelles exceptions. - Bzh-99 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Avant de penser d’appliquer ou de ne pas appliquer un politique, ça devrait être assez simple de montrer une source qui dise si des symboles de même sont protégés par le droit d’auteur ou non. Un fois on sait le status de l’image pour certain, on peut discuter comment de le traiter plus facilement. trackratte (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ce ne sera pas forcément évident. En effet, soit il y a un texte réglementaire qui définit ce logo (j'en doute) et alors on aura une source sur legifrance.gouv.fr (bon courage avec leur moteur de recherche pourri) et dans tous les cas, on n'aura pas d'image. Soit le logo est issu d'une directive interne à un ministère, et là on n'aura rien sur internet. - Bzh-99 (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah kk. Au Canada par exemple, on a des lois et des règlements spécifiques aux symboles de l’état (droit d'auteur de la Couronne). Alors j’ai pensé que la France aurait la même chose ou qqch similaire. Entk, s’il y a une absence totale de preuve qui démontre le domaine publique, techniquement selon les règles de Commons l’image devrait être supprimée. trackratte (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Les pays du continent européen sont très peu enclins à déroger aux principes généraux du droit d'auteur pour les productions de l'état. Je lisais hier un rapport de débat parlementaire, et en dessous, la mention « © Assemblée nationale  » était notée. Et de me rappeller que la seule exception que le code de la propriété intellectuelle français prévoit est la rediffusion de CERTAINS textes parlementaires (par exemple les « discours destinés au public prononcés dans les assemblées politiques »), sans qu'ils soient pour autant dans le domaine public, droit limité à la presse, à des fins d'actualité. Ce qui montre que l'état français n'est pas du tout partant pour renoncer au droit d'auteur sur ce qui lui appartient. --Dereckson (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai ajouté File:LogoAmb-EspagneCMJNHD.jpg, pour ne pas faire une deuxième DR sur le même sujet. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English: Deleted, per above. Protected by copyright. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 04:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Français : Supprimé, per above. Couvert par le droit d'auteur. -FASTILY 07:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_de_la_République_française.svg&oldid=174861510"