Commons:Deletion requests/File:Republic of China Post Logo.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Deletion requests
Revision as of 18:36, 7 December 2020 by Pi.1415926535 (talk | contribs) (Kept: Closing as stale. Can be renominated if necessary.)
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:Republic of China Post Logo.svg

Also:


These logos seem not to match the Template:PD-ROC-exempt, because they come from enterprises, institution and academy rather than the governments. Larryasou (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep These files all are applied to Template:PD-ROC-exempt because they all are approved by the official documents, and meet 1st subparagraph of Article 9 of ROC (Taiwan) Copyright Act. Although they are in a form of enterprise, institution or academy, they are all totally controlled by governments. In Taiwan, they are treated as a part of the governmental / official system. For example, they all are applied to the laws managing or restricting government behavior. --Akira123 talk 02:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's possible these company and else are approved by the official documents and even run by the governments. But it doesn't mean their works are automatically free of copyright. For example: logo of Chunghwa Post(File:Republic of China Post Logo.svg) is copyrightable and forbidden to be printed on the homemade mailbox, according to the news report in taiwan. For another example: logo of Central News Agency(in the charge of Ministry of Culture) is only "fair use" on Wikipedia. Larryasou (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case of File:Republic of China Post Logo.svg, the official statement shown on headline of news cited is violation of Post Law but not Copyright Law. Although the video shows violation copyright, it's only a poor interpretation made by a poor news editor with poor common legal sense. In case of CNA logo, it only means the uploader chose Chinese Wikipedia to upload that file, and he might not know what's different from Wikipedia and Wiki Commons. At beginning, I didn't know the difference either and uploaded some public domain files to Wikipedia.--Akira123 talk 05:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, here we are discussing about "Copyright" Law, so any possibility to violate other laws rather than Copyright Law should be ignored here. If any file should be removed from Wiki Commons due to violating certain law but not the copyright law, Nazi, Communistic, and even Christian symbols all should be removed because they are surely illegal in some countries.--Akira123 talk 06:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's very interesting. Let's talk about the first one. I assume your opinion is correct. How do you understand the Copyright Declaration says:
“ 中華郵政全球資訊網所使用之軟體或程式、網站上所有內容，包括但不限於著作、圖片、檔案、資訊、資料、網站架構、網站畫面的安排、網頁設計，均由中華郵政或其他權利人依法擁有其智慧財產權，包括但不限於商標權、專利權、著作權、營業秘密與專有技術等。任何人不得逕自使用、修改、重製、公開播送、改作、散布、發行、公開發表、進行還原工程、解編或反向組譯。若您欲引用或轉載前述軟體、程式或網站內容，必須依法取得中華郵政或其他權利人的事前書面同意。... ”
Larryasou (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a declaration made from a very common template in Taiwan. Actually, it's not the first time someone mentioned such a declaration when discuss if a file is applied to Template:PD-ROC-exempt or not. Legal validity is the most important. That is, whatever the declaration says, it can never change any determined by the law. --Akira123 talk 07:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with you on that legal validity is the most important. So our differences in opinions are very clear, that is whether these logos are published as the official documents? If the answer is Yes, it's OK to keep them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. As this tag says "WORKS OF STATE RUN ENTERPRISES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY FREE OF COPYRIGHT. " I think the uploaders are obliged to prove that these logos tagged with PD-ROC-exempt can be regarded as official documents, or they are non-free content. Larryasou (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point of this tag. Since we all agree that legal validity is the most important, we should read what the articles really say. There is not any article in Copyright Law saying the same thing or even conception as the remarks in bold at all. That is, the remarks in bold is not based on or supported by the law, and undoubtedly, these files belong to public domain according to Copyright Law of Taiwan.--Akira123 talk 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This tag is imperfect maybe. That's not the point. The point is: Why (or Whether) these logos can be regarded as official documents? The uploader should give reasons here. Larryasou (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are doubting that a picture can be regarded as official documents, it's solved more than 3 years ago. Moreover, Article 28 of Archives Act in Taiwan also says that management of the archives of these enterprises, institution and academy should follow this law. In summary, these logos absolutely match Template:PD-ROC-exempt and should be kept.--Akira123 talk 00:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Template_talk:PD-ROC-exempt Larryasou (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Akira is making a conceptual shift between document and official document. In this context, official document refers to document created by civil servant. While document issued by institution should not be regarded as official document. Larryasou (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Closing as stale. Can be renominated if necessary. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Republic_of_China_Post_Logo.svg&oldid=517333053"