Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Shields: Difference between revisions

Files under discussion in the following sections:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Australian+national+highway&namespace=6 National Highway markers]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Australian+national+route&namespace=6 National Route markers]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Australian+state+route&namespace=6 State Route markers]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=AUS+Alphanumeric&namespace=6 Alphanumeric route markers]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=New+South+Wales+alpha&namespace=6 NSW alphanumeric markers]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=AUS+Metroad&namespace=6 Metroad route markers]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Australian+Capital+Territory+Tourist&namespace=6 ACT tourist drive markers]

===Shield moves - Part II===

So I was thinking today, as we are tagging these as {{tlx|PD-ineligible-USonly}} - then it means that AU users should not be uploading them or using them in maps.

So what does this mean? We need to-

*Remove all shields as they were transferred from Commons by an Aussie. US user can re-upload the existing shields created by Fredddie [US user]. (ie. majority of most sets)

*Redirect any remaining shields to wherever they were previously - Until such time a willing US user creates them (from scratch - ''not'' copies) - this affects the non-NSW alphas and tourist shields mostly - with some of the variations of the others aswell.

*Remove all maps and either recreate with different yet relatable symbols - or perhaps organise the shield additions by a US editor?

Best this is done now before we have too many maps to mess around with.

<small>Pinging [[User:Evad37]] and [[User:Fredddie]] as likely interested parties. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 08:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)</small>

:... is this at all necessary? Per [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction_and_legality_of_content]], the relevant jurisdiction is the US, where the images are PD – regardless of who made them, or where they are made. So why should they be deleted, given that Wikipedia only cares about US copyright law? (see also: [[Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights]]) - [[User:Evad37|Evad37]] ([[User talk:Evad37|talk]]) 09:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

::Yes, but they were created in, and uploaded from Australia. While their ''existence'' on a US server is likely just fine, I dont think we should be suggesting editors put themselves at future risk (however unlikely) for creating content. In part that is what is implied in that linked text. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

:::I still don't think that's a rational for deleting. And are we actually suggesting editors put themselves at risk? Not explicitly, as far as I can see. Also, from the [[Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights]] page:

::::"It is the responsibility of contributors to determine that content they wish to contribute is free of copyright constraints in the United States and to supply as much copyright information as possible so that users can judge for themselves whether they can reuse our material outside the United States. '''''It is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that their use of Wikipedia material is legal in the country in which they use it.'''''" (emphasis added)

:::And the {{tlx|PD-ineligible-USonly}} tag already gives a warning that "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country". I wouldn't be opposed to creating/adding a more explicit warning template, but I don't think deleting files, or removing them until a US editor can recreate and reupload them, is the way to go. - [[User:Evad37|Evad37]] ([[User talk:Evad37|talk]]) 14:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

::::The risk isnt from improper reuse or their existence on WP servers - its from the creation and upload itself, separate to WP - I wasnt proposing we remove them right now... Theres no point breaking AUshield for it. Just reupload the new set, delete the existing set, and then recreate the stragglers over the coming weeks. If you personally are comfortable with re-creating/re-uploading these shields yourself then perhaps you could do so. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::I'm still not convinced that anything needs to be done. As I told Nbound on IRC, I think he's overreacting a bit, which is not necessarily a bad thing. –[[User:Fredddie|Fredddie]][[User talk:Fredddie|™]] 00:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::If I am overreacting - then this shouldnt be a major issue for people to sort out (yeah it might be a little bit annoying, but Im sure I will make it back up in articles/reviews/templates/other content if i havent already). I personally am not comfortable with it. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 01:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::If an Australian court decides that the shields are copyrighted artworks, and a court decides that the use isn't [[fair dealing]], then the uploader could face legal problems if the copyright holder decides to sue the uploader. It is up to the uploader to decide whether he or she dares to upload the files or not. If the uploader lives outside Australia, the uploader might be able to escape from legal problems by simply choosing to remain outside Australia for the rest of his life, but if the uploader lives in Australia or wishes to visit the country at some point in the future, he may be more concerned about Australian laws. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 20:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks [[User:Stefan2]], this is exactly what Im getting at, I created a portion of these, and I moved the entirety of them from Commons, not realising such issues. As such I would really prefer if we re-do them. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

===Regarding the copyright===

I am well aware of the unique situation of the Aboriginal flag (which I strongly believe is a politically-charged anomaly, not the standard as there are no similar cases by which this level of TOO has been affirmed), but even then a lot of these are not copyrightable by that standard. Some of the more [[:File:Australian Tourist Drive blank.svg|complicated]] [[:File:AUS Metroad 10.svg|shapes]] there can be a discussion, but as far as I'm concerned the most [[:File:New South Wales alphanumeric route B95.svg|basic design]] consisting of only a rectangle and alphanumerics is not copyrightable by a long stretch. It just simply is not. '''[[User:Fry1989|<span style="color:#002bb8;">Fry1989</span>]]''' ^{'''[[User talk:Fry1989|<span style="color:#CC0000;">eh?</span>]]'''} 16:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

:Its not upto us to judge why the case went the way it did. Only to react to it. None of us are lawyers. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([hou[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 02:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

::That wasn't my point, which is actually two-fold. Firstly, I've been working on copyright issues on Commons for 2 years and have been aware of the Aboriginal Flag issue for nearly as long. So far, no other has case been provided to us to substantiate this supposed extremely strict level of TOO. That's why I don't believe it's genuine. Secondly however, even if it is the real standard of TOO in Australia, [[:File:New South Wales alphanumeric route B95.svg|this]] is even more simple and not copyrightable by that standard. The other shapes of the signs as I said it can be a discussion, but two rectangles and a circle (the flag) does not translate to one rectangle and 3 basic characters. I've also had trouble finding the actual DR/discussion regarding these files when they were on Commons, was there one? From what I've seen, this didn't go through a proper community discussion. '''[[User:Fry1989|<span style="color:#002bb8;">Fry1989</span>]]''' ^{'''[[User talk:Fry1989|<span style="color:#CC0000;">eh?</span>]]'''} 16:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

:::These signs seem to be about as complex as the EDGE logo and the Aboriginal flag. The Australian law is similar to the British law, so British examples might be directly comparable to Australian examples. I think that one problem is that the court rulings only tell that the EDGE logo and the Aboriginal flags are too complex, without telling how far further down we have to go before we get below the threshold of originality. It would be good if we could find some examples of something which ''is'' uncopyrightable in Australia. The reverse problem exists in some other countries such as Germany where we only have examples of things which aren't copyrightable; we don't know how far up we can go before we reach the threshold.

:::I think that these are borderline cases and that [[Commons:COM:PRP]] would favour deletion from Commons. However, I am also interested in knowing the age of the signs. Government works have a copyright term of 50 years, so if any of these signs were set up more than 50 years ago, then those signs should unambiguously be in the public domain.

:::You should also not overlook [[Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.]] which suggests that some of our SVG files are copyrighted as computer software even if the underlying artwork might be ineligible for copyright or too old for copyright. For that reason, it may be necessary to identify the person who wrote the SVG code and ask that person to add a free licence covering the software coding. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 21:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Fry1989}} If I understand what you're saying, the Aboriginal flag is not copyrighted because it doesn't meet the TOO, but because it's the Aboriginal flag? If that's the case, to me, the TOO is raised significantly. –[[User:Fredddie|Fredddie]][[User talk:Fredddie|™]] 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::Indeed they were moved as under the precautionary principle. Its not known ''for certain'' if they are copyrighted. (Its not known for certain with many things until its tested). But they have been moved just in case. [[User:Stefan2]] brings up a good point aswell -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::Stefan, the standards agency that we can best tell holds the copyright has an agreement with the government for their status, but is not part of the government. Meaning it would have 70years at least, there were no shields in use 70yrs ago. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 23:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::Similarly, the font is owned by the US FHWA, which i dont beleive is covered under the US MUTCD release, Ive just found out.

<blockquote>04

Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered

to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a

patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield '''and any items owned by FHWA.'''

</blockquote>

:::::::Given the fonts issue, at the very best we are looking at non-free content (which would require a rethink on our approach to articles); and at worst - deletion, and using other imagery to depict and describe shielding (shields already have a relatively minor position in most AU articles). Presumably this is also why they have never released the font. Instead the "roadgeek" series was created to emulate it. Using a copy of a possibly dubious (copyright-wise) source is not the best approach -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 23:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::::There is also the possible issue of [[design patents]] too, both to the fonts, and the markers themselves. Which last 5/10 years in AU and 14 in the US. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 00:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::Typefaces are not subject to copyright in the United States, so this is a non-starter. –[[User:Fredddie|Fredddie]][[User talk:Fredddie|™]] 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::Read the court case above. ''Digitised'' fonts, specifically non-bitmap types, are most definitely covered under copyright in the United States. And it is known that roadgeek is an exact or very near copy of the FHWA fonts which have been digitised in a non-bitmap form for many years. This also does not negate any possible issues with design patents. Design patent issues, to the best of my knowledge, can only be avoided by using their own supplied imagery, not creating our own -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::The court case means that if you make a vectorisation of a shield, for example by creating an SVG file, then you have created computer software, and you are the copyright holder to that computer software. If I make an SVG vectorisation based on the same shield, then I am the copyright holder to that vectorisation. If you and I both started from the same bitmap file, and the vectorisations were created independently of each other, then there is no derivative work issue, and we both hold exclusive rights to our own versions. I assume that there also is a threshold of originality for computer software and that some vectorisations are below the threshold of originality, in particular if you just use the default options in a computer program without changing anything yourself. However, the threshold of originality for SVG files hasn't been discussed very much on Commons, so it isn't very clear when an SVG file needs permission from the coder or not. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 09:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Back to NFCC versus deletion - looking through the NFCC criteria these images wouldnt qualify due to lack of publication (they were new creations, not copied from a site/page/book/image) - I think '''deletion''' is our only safe option. I am aware that this wont make some people very happy and may require a rethink on how AURD approaches its articles. It shouldnt mean though that we cant use any images of these shields, we just have to be smarter about it {{smiley}}. Remember we are to try and work safely within the law, not push it to see what we can get away with. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::We have the following issues:

:::::*Dubious (digitised) font sourcing (this affects all roads projects to some extent I guess)

:::::*Potential design patent issues on user-made shielding (possibly excepting most/all US shields from my understanding of their MUTCD)

:::::*Potential issues for non-US uploaders/contributors of content.

:::::*No AU shield is unequivocally in the public domain (PD-AU or PD-US) ''due to age'' yet (nor will be for quite a few years), and even if they were it may only affect the older designs.

:::::*No clear boundaries as to what even constitutes basic shapes. Even if most AU shields could be PD-ineligible disregarding all other issues (and probably are), some may not be. (ALT shielding? Tourist routes? - The more complex styles Ive already slapped with an NFCC [Melbourne Ring Roads, Sydney Freeways] - but its looking like ill have to propose deletion on those soon as they weren't previously published).

:::::The status of these images is anything but clear - and as such we should not be keeping them.

:::::From the legally influenced WP policy - [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations]]: ''But, in short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should '''be assumed to be unacceptable'''''.

:::::-- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::*[[Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts]] says "In short: Scalable fonts as such are copyrighted as computer programs; typefaces as such may be protected by design patents, and, in a few countries, by copyright; actual use of the typeface is not restricted, even if the font used was based illegally on a protected typeface." Is this incorrect?

::::::*Regarding the patent issues, don't they have to be registered? If this is so, then unless there is evidence that registration has occurred, this probably isn't an issue

::::::*They don't have to be PD due to age, if they are PD (in the U.S.) for another reason.

::::::*ALT plates and the like can use the US version, which although slightly different, is definitely PD. This is what the ALT State Route shields already use.

::::::*If you want to propose much stricter usage of {{tl|PD-ineligible}}, {{tl|PD-shape}}, {{tl|PD-textlogo}} and the like, that probably requires a larger community discussion on Wikipedia and/or Commons. - [[User:Evad37|Evad37]] ([[User talk:Evad37|talk]]) 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*As Stefan2 states, the SVG files fit under the computer program legal definition, in that it provides a series of instructions to render the font. This is opposed to a bitmap image where there are no instructions to render the font, just pixels to colour. So yes, because these images arent just ''using'' the font, they are ''creating'' it from scratch with each render - it is copyrighted.

:::::::*They need to be unequivocally PD ''in AU'' to not risk legal trouble for editors ''in AU''. Being non-eligible in the US does not matter in AU. - If you truly feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, then you should have no problems creating your own shields an accepting any risk for yourself. Dont hang me out to dry with these. Similarly its not fair on anyone else who creates an image, not knowing the potential issues.

:::::::*You cant combine PD-ineligible files very much without it no longer being PD-ineligible - the image is treated as a whole as well as individually. On the side: Its not uncommon to use separate ALT plates in AU anyway (ACT, NSW do it at least). Its possibly an improvement, but the resultant file is likely to be too similar to real world implementations.

:::::::-- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 07:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Further to the font issue, there is already a template, stating exactly what has been said: {{tlx|PD-font-USonly}} -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

{{od|:::::::}}

Looks like Stefan2 and I have been looking along the same vein again. Given that SVGs are classed as computer software. PD-ineligible-USonly does not cover them - they arent legally images in the US - they are a computer program (or in more familiar computer terms - a script) that will create an image whenever run. As such we are likely infringing the signage, ''and'' any application used to create the signage. We could probably NFCC them and use them at low res only if they were official releases, ''but they arent'', they are editor-made. The '''only''' safe move is to delete them. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

: If you made the SVG files yourself, all you need to do is to mention that you made the file and add {{tl|cc-zero}} or some other free licence template for the SVG code. The copyright belongs to the person who created the SVG files. Also, I would assume that some SVG files are {{tl|PD-ineligible}} due to them being very simple computer programs, but there isn't much information at [[Commons:COM:TOO]] about that, so we don't know exactly how much would be required to gain copyright protection. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 18:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

::As per below, they were substantially copied from vectorised plans. I am not comfortable licensing the SVG code in any case. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::I created a fair amount of them and I ''am'' comfortable licensing them. –[[User:Fredddie|Fredddie]][[User talk:Fredddie|™]] 22:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

::::Then Ill arrange deletion now for all of my imagery - there is still the font issue, and the fact they were copied from vectorised plans. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 22:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldnt personally do it or recommend it - but a less problematic path could be NFCC screenshots of [http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Road-systems-and-engineering/Software/TraSiCAD.aspx TraSiCAD] (or similar software) with mockups of signage or a shield. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 13:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:SVGs aren't magically subject to copyright as computer programs. The file format is an open standard that was developed in 1999 unlike the various font formats that are under copyright. The closest analogy deals with the patents behind the GIF format that one company was using to assert various licensing requirements, but yet SVG is "owned" by the W3C. SVGs, unlike fonts, do not carry scaling information in the specific files; rather each file contains simple instructions for the vectors that make up the image. It's up to software, like a web browser or an image editor like inkscape, to interpret and scale the file for display. Fonts, on the other hand, contain scaling and kerning information to tell whatever software using a font, like your word processor or a graphics program, how to space letter pairs apart or how to align letters to the baseline. The underlying ''typeface'' is not subject to copyright protection (and in fact the FHWA Highway Gothic series is specifically in the public domain as a product of the federal government), but the ''fonts'' for computer use contain additional information that is subject to copyright protection as computer code.

:So long as letters and numbers are converted to paths or outlines (depending on the terminology used by your vector image editor), they are no longer a "font", but just shapes of letters. A simple combination of letters and numbers on a colored background is just too simple to merit copyright protection. After all, the Coca-Cola or IBM logos are just text, yet they are in the public domain. There may be trademarks, but that doesn't affect copyright. So long as trademarked text is not used disparagingly, it's not a trademark infringement for the simple purposes Wikipedia uses. As for design patents, those apply to industrial designs for physical shapes, like the design of a computer case, to prevent competitors from producing look-a-like knock-offs. One of Samsung's phones was judged to look to similar to an older, but still produced, model of Apple's iPhone. Given the simplicity of a road sign, no design patent would apply.

:In short, I think you guys are suffering from an unsupported case of copyright paranoia here. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<font color="white">Imzadi&nbsp;1979</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span> 19:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

::An SVG file is essentially the same as a font, but without scaling information. If you make a font or an SVG file, you choose certain geometric shapes such as lines and arcs, and you choose how many of these you should have and in which order they should be drawn. On the other hand, in pixel graphics, the drawing order is arbitrary, and you only have pre-rendered images without the geometric shapes from vector formats. These differences aren't visible when you look at something on a screen, but are as far as I have understood the reason for the ruling in the case [[Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.]] The designer of a file format can of course not claim any generic copyright to all files in that file format. As most SVG files on Wikipedia appear to be user-created, this is not a big problem as the uploaders simply can choose a licence for their files.

::SVG files additionally have the feature that they are text files: you could edit a file in a text editor, and you could write the source code in a creative way and include comments in the source code. The source code is therefore sometimes copyrightable as a textual document. This should mainly be the case if you edit the source code manually in a text editor.

::Of course, there are many computer programs which are below the threshold of originality. For example, you can't get any copyright protection for a standard "[[hello world]]" program. Compare with opening a pixel file in Inkscape, telling the program to trace an SVG file from the pixels and doing no further modifications. This should create no new copyright as the process is fully automated. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::We agree on the key point here: SVGs aren't going to be subject to some copyright the same way fonts are. Honestly, the issues surrounding the SVG format's use on Wikipedia also surround the inclusion of other file formats: PDFs can be uploaded here, GIF has actual patent and licensing issues, etc. Trying to blame the SVG format is looking for a tempest in a teapot. Any issue you attempt raise here, if followed through to a logical conclusion, means we couldn't use any SVGs at all, yet that's not the case.

:::The key issue is the underlying copyright to the sign image itself. USRD is auditing, researching, and updating file licenses on the thousands of shields we use. Realistically, the end result won't be any deletions or conversions to NFC, just clarifications in file description pages on Commons. In many cases, this is because the original uploader "released" or "licensed" his/her work creating a graphic of a design they don't own. The underlying design will be PD for any of a number of reasons, and we just need to correct the license to the proper reason(s).

:::I think you guys need to take some time off and come back to this topic with a fresh perspective. You also need some outside perspective before any action is taken. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<font color="white">Imzadi&nbsp;1979</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span> 20:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

::::USRD is largely, if not completely unaffected by this as your imagery is publically released. Ours isnt, given that these shields use the shapes embedded in the PDF shield plans directly (not by tracing, they were already vectorised), ''they are substantially copied''. They werent drawn entirely by hand - if they were, which is the case of the majority of WP SVGs, then there would be much less of an issue. Obviously any SVG is much much more complex than a Hello World program. Again, the '''only''' safe option is deletion. Even if all the above werent true, if its not obvious by this part of the conversation, Im not comfortable licensing the SVGs Ive created. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 22:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Rolling back to the previous imagery would seem possibly another way to get around this -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 22:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

:Sorry fellas I've been away for a bit. What I'm saying is yes, I strongly believe that the Aboriginal flag is copyrighted more for political sensitivity than any threshold of originality concerns. I base this assumption on the fact that in the odd year and half that I've been aware of the matter on Commons, not a single other case of such strict TOO in Australia has been provided by which this can be substantiated. Secondly, even if it is the standard am I am mistaken, the complexity of [[:File:New South Wales alphanumeric route B95.svg]] is even less than the flag. I will maintain this belief until such time as the TOO for two rectangles and a circle (which the flag consists of) is proven by a similar case. On Commons, we have several entries for TOO in various countries which allows us to form an understanding of where the bar for national threshold of originality is set. For Australia, the Aboriginal flag is the only entry we have, and using a single case as the bar by which we judge everything simple makes no sense. I've worked on copyright on Commons for a long time, I'm not a noob to the matter, and while I fully accept I may be wrong, I don't think I am. '''[[User:Fry1989|<span style="color:#002bb8;">Fry1989</span>]]''' ^{'''[[User talk:Fry1989|<span style="color:#CC0000;">eh?</span>]]'''} 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

::Read the reasoning for the case. Saying something has a "political sensitivity" and that it is your opinion really has little legal bearing on whether they are PD in Australia or not, but we are now well beyond that - given there are now some serious doubts to the US legality of these files. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How about using [[WP:REVDEL]] to remove Nbound's involvement, at least for the files he moved from Commons but didn't create? ( ping admin {{ping|Rschen7754‎}} ) - [[User:Evad37|Evad37]] ([[User talk:Evad37|talk]]) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:Not under policy, we can't (either the revdel or OS policy), though you are welcome to email Legal. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

::Already done, or the liason at least - I was told I may get faster response there - but any details as to who to email would be appreciated -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:::That should be fine, but I kinda doubt that legal will see any reason to oversight that information. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

::::That being said, I do think we could use [[User:Moonriddengirl]]'s copyright expertise here, as I think there's a lot of misinformation flying around. In volunteer capacity, of course. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Im did not contact them in regards to oversight - Im contacting them in regards to the other issues. -- [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 06:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::There's absolutely no doubt about these being PD in the US, that's an absolute laugh. And stop getting hooked on the one part of my argument, the important part is that this supposed standard of threshold of originality has not been verified. That is what really matters and you clearly don't have an answer to that because you have ignored it. '''[[User:Fry1989|<span style="color:#002bb8;">Fry1989</span>]]''' ^{'''[[User talk:Fry1989|<span style="color:#CC0000;">eh?</span>]]'''} 17:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::[[User:Rschen7754]]: Don't Nbound's revisions meet [[WP:CRD|RD5]]? RD5: "Valid deletion under [[WP:Deletion Policy#REASON|deletion policy]], executed using RevisionDelete" [[WP:DEL-REASON]]: "Content that meets at least one of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|criteria for speedy deletion]]" [[WP:CSD]]: "G7. Author requests deletion" --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 00:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::::No, that generally refers to when the author is the only editor of the graphic, which is not the case here. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::Well, if it needs to be [[WP:BURO|bureaucratic]], just set up a bot which uploads the same files under a different name and nominates the old ones for deletion per [[WP:CSD#F1]], then. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 00:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

*Hello. :) As [[User:Nbound]] notes above, he contacted the Wikimedia Foundation regarding his concerns especially with his contributions here. The legal department is certainly sympathetic to anybody who feels uncomfortable with the legality of their actions in their own jurisdiction. As with our [[:wmf:Terms_of_Use#1._Our_Services|Terms of Use]], we really encourage people to be mindful of their own liability. WMF can't remove the content except under very specific and limited circumstances ([[Wikipedia:OFFICE]]), but we have no objection at all to the community extending a courtesy deletion of [[User:Nbound]]'s contributions to these images, given his concerns about his own legal risks, and the content being re-uploaded by any contributor who does not feel at similar risk. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 13:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

<small>Moved from [[WP:AURD/S]] as is now redirect to to [[WP:HWY/RM]]. Will archive after it appears discussion is over. - [[User:Nbound|Nbound]] ([[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 04:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)</small>