File talk:Coat of arms of Vatican City (2001–2023).svg

No-permission tag

Placing of this tag seems to be completely without foundation: the creator of the image has released it into the public domain, and see Commons:Coats of arms. Esoglou (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Tag removed. Attribution of originating file and work has been added.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring, file protection

Please state the reasons for

1. stated copyright concerns
2. the source of the improved file

if not all elements of the improved file are free it would compromise the whole file. --Denniss (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The file has been created by the Italian Graphic Lab Project, based on the CoA used by Vatican. The version has been designed in accordance to Commons's policies regarding the coat of arms; copyright issues cannot be held towards a symbol designed in 1929, almost 85 years ago. --Gambo7 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And in Commons there are many other coat of arms similar to their original versions about which no one complains on the copyright! Look for example the Italian emblem (which is identical to the original, but has been redesigned in vectorial graphics) and the coat of arms of Pope Francis, only to cite two examples! The file uploaded by Fulvio and then modified by Gambo is just a graphic improvement of the previous version, done in order to make it seem more similar to the original one. The file must be reverted! --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The proof is here. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Proof of what? Proof that the old (and current) version of this image is wrong (Page 36). --Gambo7 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise I will review and nominate for deletion every emblem and coat of arms similar to the original ones, starting from this one, this one, all of these ones, and so on. --Gambo7 (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with Gambo, the reasons to protect the file and revert it to an incorrer version don't have any sense. --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The document proofs that the design is from 1929, with 85 years old. --Echando una mano (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The document may prove the original drawing is from 1929, but it doesn't prove the current digital drawing is. Gambo7, don't make stupid threats. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Again your opinion without basis. The official documents have presumption of truth. --Echando una mano (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The uploaded version was made by the italian graphic Lab; you have reverted a file just based on your assumption (witout any evidence) that we should have got it from somewhere on the internet, and keeping it blocked means you are basically telling we are liars. --Gambo7 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The digital drawing has been COMPLETELY REDESIGNED by the user Fulvio314, who is the holder of the copyright and has renounced to all rights releasing the work under a free license. Fry, please stop having a provocative attitude. --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"The official documents have presumption of truth"? No, that's not true. You have to prove what they say, not what you wish they said. And I'm not the one being provocative, every user has the right to question copyright. The provocation here is the retaliatory threats by Gambo7. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No Fry, I'm sorry but Gambo and Echando are right. Your argument has no basis because the coat of arms, as it was told you, was made ​​over 70 years ago (so the copyright has expired) and also the version that is loaded here on Commons is just a graphic reinterpretation (although very similar to the original) on which Fulvio314 has the copyright, being the one who carried it out. So there are not one, but even two reasons why the CoA should be restored. --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of COM:URAA ? --Denniss (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What role does Uruguay play in this, now??

Anyway, if you say that a own work based on a (free) picture is a copyright infringement, then we must start deleting lots of images. --Gambo7 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(it) La legge sul copyright dello Stato del Vaticano (fonte WIPO) estende l'applicazione della legislazione italiana sul diritto d'autore anche ai testi delle leggi. L'articolo 5, paragrafo 1, stabilisce che i titolari del diritto d'autore sono la Santa Sede e lo Stato della Città del Vaticano per tutte le opere create per loro conto. Quindi la dichiarazione "(C) Mario Fabretto" sul sito web è in contrasto con quanto sopra e potrebbe non essere legittima. Comunque, la prima pubblicazione dello stemma risale alla legge del 7/06/1929. L'articolo 4, paragrafo 2, e l'articolo 5, paragrafo 4, della legge sul copyright stabiliscono la durata del diritto d'autore in 70 anni dalla prima pubblicazione. Quindi il copyright è scaduto nel 2000. Ma una seconda cosa importante è l'articolo 6, il quale conserva il diritto della Santa Sede o dello Stato della Città del Vaticano di opporsi a qualsiasi modifica dell'opera, anche oltre la scadenza dei termini di copyright. Per questo motivo, non solo dovremmo ripristinare lo stemma ufficiale, ma rimuovere da Commons lo stemma infedele che viola la legge.

(en) The copyright law of the State of Vatican City (source WIPO) extends the application of the Italian copyright also to the texts of the laws. Article 5, paragraph 1, provides the holders of copyright are the Holy See and the State of the Vatican City for all works created on their behalf. So the statement "(C) Mario Fabretto" on the internet page is in contrast to the above and may not be legitimate. However, the first publication of the coat of arms dates 07.06.1929. Article 4, paragraph 2, and article 5, paragraph 4 determine the duration of copyright in 70 years from first publication. So the copyright has expired in 2000. But there is a second important thing, the article 6, which preserves the right of the Holy See and the State of the Vatican City to oppose any modification of the work, even after expiration of copyright. For this reason, we should not only restore the official emblem, but remove from Commons the infidel version who violates the law. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 09:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If the italian copyight just expired in 2000 it wasn't out of copyright on the URAA date thus it's still copyrighted in the USA and we can't use it until ~2025. --Denniss (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

But, as stated in the current Vatican copyright law, it is the Vatican copyright expired in 2000, URAA does not apply. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 06:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read COM:URAA, as it was still copyrighted in it's source country by this date it's copyrighted in the US (where the Wikimedia servers are) for some additional years. Damn URAA. --Denniss (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! This point was clarifying to me. Finally it's clear (I hope), tell me if I'm wrong: in 1996 the emblem was protected in Vatican, at that time URAA started 95y count down from 1929 of protection in US, that means 2025 expiration even if in Vatican is 2000. Better to turn this kind of images on local WP. I'm still in doubt about art.#6, Vatican law, it says "after copyright termination, the Vatican retains the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or modification of the work". I read this as a prohibition of making different emblems. Don't you? -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

They can't prevent modification of out-of-copyright stuff but they may act upon trademark laws to prevent misuse. --Denniss (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about US or Vatican? Vatican is quite clear: you can use it (copyright expired) and you cannot modify it. US is still not clear to me: you cannot use it (copyright alive) and if you modify it they could act upon US trademark laws, correct? (sorry to bother you so much, I've a big interest on copyright since my WP cooperation is primary on graphics). -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 16:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And this one? Is it usable? --Gambo7 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gambo7: I guess it applies De Minimis (it / en). -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 08:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? couldn't we just use the coat of arms from this photo?! --Gambo7 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My opinions, must be confirmed: You can use the whole picture all around the world (US & Commons) since the COA is a minimum part of it (De Minimis). You can use the COA alone (and the original I've uploaded) only outside Commons since in US is still under copyright till 2025 (URAA) even while in Italy & Vatican copyright has expired in 2000. Finally, the "fantasy" COA present in Commons violates Vatican restriction on modified emblems and it should be deleted. You can find the original loaded in local italian WP. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 16:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)