Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rijkswaterstaat logo.png
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.
Copyright violation. Logo is excepted from CC0: see https://www.rijkshuisstijl.nl/over-de-rijkshuisstijl/auteursrecht-rijkshuisstijl (in Dutch) KKoolstra (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/copyright Alexander vee (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- And that copyright notice states that CC0 does not apply to the images on the website. So this does not contradict the copyright message on www.rijkshuisstijl.nl, which applies to logos etc. used by national government organizations. KKoolstra (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- And additional the link to the link to the official 'Regulation': [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKoolstra (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Photographs published after August 2015 but before is accepted Alexander vee (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- The official regulation does not mention the date August 2015. It explicitly lists the 'Rijkslogo' as copyrighted. And the Rijkswaterstaat logo clearly includes the Rijkslogo. The Rijkslogo is not included in the CC0 license. Period. By keeping this file here, Wikimedia is violating Dutch law. KKoolstra (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- And that copyright notice states that CC0 does not apply to the images on the website. So this does not contradict the copyright message on www.rijkshuisstijl.nl, which applies to logos etc. used by national government organizations. KKoolstra (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment: A deletion would set a precedent for deleting dozens of files in Category:Images from Rijksoverheid.nl and Category:Logos of governments and government agencies of the Netherlands.- At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rijksoverheid.svg the logo was kept, because the Dutch government seems to have published the image under CC0, which is an irrevocable license. TilmannR (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- I also read that the 'seem' to have done that. That is a bit vague, given that they explicitly state now that the usage of (high quality) versions of the logo is and should be limited to the state itself and companies working on behalf of the state. KKoolstra (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds like a non-copyright restriction. We handle those by adding a warning notice to the file page. In this case I have added {{Insignia}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify: that is the motivation behind the regulation, as published here (in Dutch): [2]. However: the legal basis is the Dutch Copyright act Article 15b. But indeed: even if it can be proven that the logo has been explicitly released as CC0, then a kind of warning as suggested by you is highly desirable. KKoolstra (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds like a non-copyright restriction. We handle those by adding a warning notice to the file page. In this case I have added {{Insignia}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I also read that the 'seem' to have done that. That is a bit vague, given that they explicitly state now that the usage of (high quality) versions of the logo is and should be limited to the state itself and companies working on behalf of the state. KKoolstra (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep This logo consists of two aspects: one is already unde CC0, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rijksoverheid.svg. The text part fails COM:TOO and the Best Western test in order to be protectable. So questions of whether it's licensed too are moot anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would kindly ask the moderators to verify that the logo itself has indeed been previously released under CC-0. For instance: the earlier discussion quotes the publication "Deltaprogramma 2013" as proof. The link given there is dead, but it can still be found here: [3]. But I don't see any mention there in the 'colofon' of releasing it under CC-0. KKoolstra (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KKoolstra: I don't believe that the file itself needs to mention CC0. If rijksoverheid.nl published the file, while stating that the files on the site are under CC0, then (assuming that the government of the Netherlands didn't violate anyone else's copyright, and no other license is mentioned in or around the file) the file is obviously under CC0. And the {{Rijksoverheid}} license template mentions explicitly that before August 2015 there was no exception for images. TilmannR (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, so I understand that it has been verified earlier that a low resolution version of the logo has been published previously under CC-0 (implicitly). However, does that mean that that also is true for the high resolution version presented here? To me it is obvious that the Rijksoverheid clearly not intended the high-resolution version (i.e. the full Rijkslogo with all its details) to be free. So, assuming that the Rijkslogo fulfill's the minimum standards to be copyrightable, I don't believe that publishing a much less detailed version of the logo as CC-0 content implicitly means that the fully detailed version is also CC-0. KKoolstra (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KKoolstra: Seems like we don't have an official policy or guideline about this, but the essay Commons:Same work says that a high-resolution and low-resolution version of an image might be considered the "same work" in the context of copyright law. And that sounds plausible to me, because what copyright law protects are not specific bytes and pixels, but originality and creativity, which are equally present in the lower resolution versions. TilmannR (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I believe that in this case it goes a bit to far to say that, because the copyrightholder has permitted free usage of a low resolution version of a logo, showing significantly less detail, this would also imply permitting free usage of the fully-detailed original version. And in this case the copyright holder has explicitly motivated the exception from the logo from CC-0 on the grounds that free usage of the high-resolution version of the logo is undesirable. KKoolstra (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KKoolstra: I tried importing the first page of Deltaprogramma 2013 into Inkscape to get the resolution of the logo. Turns out it's actually vector graphics. The same is true for some of the PDFs from before 2015 that are still hosted on rijksoverheid.nl (example). Therefore the question of whether a license of a low-resolution image transfers to a high-resolution version of the same image is not relevant here. Keep. TilmannR (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KKoolstra: I tried importing the first page of Deltaprogramma 2013 into Inkscape to get the resolution of the logo. Turns out it's actually vector graphics. The same is true for some of the PDFs from before 2015 that are still hosted on rijksoverheid.nl (example). Therefore the question of whether a license of a low-resolution image transfers to a high-resolution version of the same image is not relevant here.
- I believe that in this case it goes a bit to far to say that, because the copyrightholder has permitted free usage of a low resolution version of a logo, showing significantly less detail, this would also imply permitting free usage of the fully-detailed original version. And in this case the copyright holder has explicitly motivated the exception from the logo from CC-0 on the grounds that free usage of the high-resolution version of the logo is undesirable. KKoolstra (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KKoolstra: Seems like we don't have an official policy or guideline about this, but the essay Commons:Same work says that a high-resolution and low-resolution version of an image might be considered the "same work" in the context of copyright law. And that sounds plausible to me, because what copyright law protects are not specific bytes and pixels, but originality and creativity, which are equally present in the lower resolution versions. TilmannR (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, so I understand that it has been verified earlier that a low resolution version of the logo has been published previously under CC-0 (implicitly). However, does that mean that that also is true for the high resolution version presented here? To me it is obvious that the Rijksoverheid clearly not intended the high-resolution version (i.e. the full Rijkslogo with all its details) to be free. So, assuming that the Rijkslogo fulfill's the minimum standards to be copyrightable, I don't believe that publishing a much less detailed version of the logo as CC-0 content implicitly means that the fully detailed version is also CC-0. KKoolstra (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @KKoolstra: I don't believe that the file itself needs to mention CC0. If rijksoverheid.nl published the file, while stating that the files on the site are under CC0, then (assuming that the government of the Netherlands didn't violate anyone else's copyright, and no other license is mentioned in or around the file) the file is obviously under CC0. And the {{Rijksoverheid}} license template mentions explicitly that before August 2015 there was no exception for images. TilmannR (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete. I agree this logo is not free, per [[4]]. The more general DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rijksoverheid.svg should imho be reopened. All files with this logo should be deleted (except perhaps reports issued with CCO and the logo "de minimis" on the top). The Dutch government does not allow reproduction of the logo by unauthorized parties or changes in the logo. In addition, per COM:EVID, I do not see any evidence the government of the Netherlands has published this logo with CC0 or any other free license. Ellywa (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would kindly ask the moderators to verify that the logo itself has indeed been previously released under CC-0. For instance: the earlier discussion quotes the publication "Deltaprogramma 2013" as proof. The link given there is dead, but it can still be found here: [3]. But I don't see any mention there in the 'colofon' of releasing it under CC-0. KKoolstra (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. No evidence this logo is freely licensed by the Dutch government. --Ellywa (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
