Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Holy See (official).svg

Source says this emblem was filed in 1996 at the World Organization for Intellectual Property (WIPO). Clearly copyrighted. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Trademark is different than copyright --Gambo7 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are, but the source doesn't say anything about whether it is a trademark or a copyright, it says this image was filed with WIPO in 1996. If this was designed only in 1996, it's still copyrighted, it has to go. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I tryed many searches at WIPO, but did not find this file... (still working) -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter, the website says it is registered and that's what does matter unless you can prove they are lying or that the image is significantly older than 1996. This is a very obvious copyvio. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, do mix trademark and copyright. They are not lying for sure, it could be registered as declared by website and copyright expired. The emblem is 99% older than 1944 (not 1996, 70 years ago), but we have to find an evidence for this. Beside, I'm always impressed by your certainty. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 07:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Being regeristed at WIPO doesn't necessarily mean it is copyrighted, national symbols were filed at WIPO to prevent being used as trademarks (Article 6ter of the Paris Convention). The circular date of the file (Holy See State emblem) is the date of the file added to WIPO (document), but not the image created. (As we all know the German national emblem is not created in 1994). --Ericmetro (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are trying sooooo hard to confuse the issue when I've made it very clear I already understand the difference between trademark and copyright, and I have stated the fact that the website mentions neither. It only says it was registered with WIPO in 1996. Unless you have some sort of proof the registration was only a trademark, we have to assume it was full copyright, which means it can not be here. If you want it to stay, do your job and find proof this image is compatible with Commons' licensing requirements and stop wasting your time trying to mince the real issue here which is that the copyright status of this image (this specific drawing) is unclear. Just because the basic design is ancient does not mean this drawing is as well, and if the website is right about this drawing only being created in 1996 it is still copyrighted. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you ignore all the guys, the WIPO tells here only about trademark as following article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. As you can read here "The use of national emblems is typically subject to certain restrictions outside the scope of copyright law...". Greetings -- Perhelion (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to read any of that, because if this design was only made in 1996 then it is still copyrighted. What part of that do you not understand? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: non-free content is forbidden on Commons FASTILY 07:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]