Not PD

I do not think this flag is PD. I have not seen anything anywhere that says so.

From a .gov website:

  1. In 1995, the Australian Government proclaimed the flag as an official 'Flag of Australia' under section 5 of the Flags Act 1953.
  2. In 1997, Harold Thomas was recognised as the author of the artistic work under the Copyright Act 1968.

From ABC's messagestick website:

  1. For commercial use, special permission would need to be sought from the copyright owners.

That means us, since the GDFL doesn't prohibit commercial use.

From NAIDOC website:

The Australian Aboriginal Flag is protected under copyright and may be reproduced only in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 or with the permission of Harold Thomas. Contact details for Mr Thomas are: 

Mr Harold Thomas
PO Box 41807
Casuarina NT 0810

I think we should read up on the Flags act, perhaps there is a provision there we can use, but after that... I think we need to write and ask... and I think the odds of agreement will be low.

--pfctdayelise 18:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The book Australian Flags produced by the Awards and Symbols branch of the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2nd edn 1998) is explicit that the flag is copyright and may only be reproduced with the permission of Mr Thomas. I believe that means no legislation would override. I will try to take a picture of the flag flying. In the meantime, I believe this image should be deleted. We can use a current picture of the tent embassy.--A Y Arktos 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This flag was proclaimed as a flag of Australia. I interpret this to mean it has the same status as the "other" flag of Australia. http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/flag/commercial_use.html says the Australian national flag may be used for commercial purposes without formal permission subject to guidelines, and gives contact info for clarification. Is Wikipedia to be prevented from using this flag image because we are not commercial!? --Scott Davis Talk 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, an Australian government publication says the flag is copyrighted to an individual and may only be reproduced within the provisions of the Copyright Act or with the permission of Mr Thomas. On what basis are you proposing to violate that individual's ownership and breach copyright when it has been explicitly stated to be copyright? Your interpretation of the flag as an "other" flag of Australia would give many people apoplexy and would not please the Aboriginal land rights movement either who are unlikely to want their symbols appropriated. There is only one national flag and that flag is defined in the Flags Act. Other flags are recognised by the act. Note that Thomas took the issue to court to assert his copyright in Thomas v Brown and Another - see http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles/A97n07.pdf . It has been suggested that "You may not need direct permission to reproduce the flag if reporting news. Such use would come under the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)." --A Y Arktos 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • As I have said many times before, Wikipedia is subject to U.S. copyright law, not Australian copyright law. U.S. copyright law has much more permissive fair use provisions than Australia does. Under U.S. fair use provisions, it would be entirely appropriate for Wikipedia to use this image to illustrate the article Australian Aboriginal flag, because the article is about the flag itself. Similarly, it would be fair use to use the image in an article about Harold Thomas, for the purpose of illustrating an example of his work. In general, it would not be fair use to use it anywhere else. I will update the image page. Snottygobble | Talk 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The signing of the free trade agreement covers the harmonisation of US and Australian copyright law. See http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/outcomes/08_intellectual_property.html which states that the advantages of the FTA include "An expeditious process that allows for copyright owners to engage with Internet Service Providers and subscribers to deal with allegedly infringing copyright material on the Internet." The suggestion therefore that the US Copyright law might have more extensive fair use provisions than Australian law seems to be a furphy. However, as I already noted above, it is believed that fair use may apply to news reporting and by extension to a wikipdia article on the flag, or as suggested by Snottygobble, on an article about Harold Thomas. It does not extend to use beyond that. At the moment it appears in 30 articles, partly because of its use in the Template:Australian Flags. It probably needs to be removed from the template and any other articles. The image certainly needs to be removed from Commons which does not include fair use images.--A Y Arktos 08:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for removing the flag from Noongar; I agree that it's use there was not fair. I didn't follow the logic of your argument re: US "fair use" v Australian "fair dealing", but I guess there's no point pursuing it since (a) we seem to generally agree on what constitutes fair use; and (b) there are comprehensive guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use. Snottygobble | Talk 11:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of flag on Template:Australian Flags

It seems a shame that he image cannot be used on the Template:Australian Flags. It is an Australian flag. However, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use are quite explicit:

The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.

Any views as to how the template might best be altered? See discussion at Template talk:Australian Flags.--A Y Arktos 20:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

...it is completely mind-boggling that Australia would grant official status to a flag whose copyright remains in private hands. Are they out of their minds? Doops | talk 23:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, why don't they just revoke official status? Doops | talk 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It is completely mind-boggling, yes. :) pfctdayelise 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Argument for Fair Use

Ok, here is my argument for keeping this flag for fair use:

From Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images: There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. The flag could be placed in either of these catagories:

As a "Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." because it was originally used as "artwork" at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (It was not an official flag then).

Or as a "Team and corporate logos. For identification" Although the Flag does not specifically represent a "Team or Corporation" it is a copyrighted work that represents a group, so I believe it is covered by this "blanket" as well. Specifically: "The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits.... The logo should be regarded as the corporate portrait. However, unlike people, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, corporate logos are typically always protected by copyright and/or trademark" - From Wikipedia:Logos Fosnez 13:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is already sufficient explanation on the image description page. The use of {{Non-free fair use in}}, combined with Image:Australian_aboriginal_flag.png#Fair use for Australian_Aboriginal_flag, is enough. Not to mention, a flag is obviously not a work of art or a logo - I mean you could consider it a work of art, but above all, it's a flag. To mark it as a work of art would be misleading. pfctdayelise 13:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Flag a piece of cloth, often decorated with an emblem, used as a visual signal or symbol.(Wiktionary). My point is that its not the flag that is copyrighted, but the emblem (read: logo) ON the flag. Fosnez 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not support the comments above by User:Fosnez. If we want to refer to emblem rather than flag, and it is the emblem that is the copyrighted image, it is by the same token the emblem that is the subject of this image on wikipedia. The addition of this image to various articles (now back on Indigenous Australians is beyond the fair use guidleines. This design was the subject of a court case, we are not talking arbitrary thinking on copyright. If you want to challenge the guidelines, don't do it here but at Wikipedia:Fair use . The guidelines are explicit also that the use must be justified on the image page, not the talk page. Given the lack of fair use justification on the image page for other than Australian Aboriginal Flag and Flag of Australia, I will remove images used elsewhere, including on the Indigenous Australians article.--A Y Arktos 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Speedy deletion

I appreciate this is a redundant image, I am cincerned this talk would be lost though. Should it be moved to be associateed with the .svg image talk page?--A Y Arktos 10:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I did this. pfctdayelise 06:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Use on other pages

AS I type, this flag is being used on three pages in user space, several galleries and lists, and 2008 Australian Football International Cup - none of which have a fair use justification here. 81.153.111.37 (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So simple?

How can such a simple work be copyrighted? I thought that {{PD-ineligible}} or even {{PD-shape}} would be OK with this image. That is what was decided with Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg for example. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Federal Court found the design to be copyrighted. See their ruling.
Although the "threshold of originality" for works to be copyrightable varies from place to place, I would be extremely surprised if any jursidiction found Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg was not copyrightable. It is a significantly complex work. pfctdayelise (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Australian law has no relevance to Wikipedia. It's black and red with a yellow circle - we should have no concerns of copyright, if the image has been independently constructed, whatever any IP trolls may claim. This image was created by Jordie Bodlay, and the status is whatever this person chose to release it as. Mdwh (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does. There is a treaty between the US and Aust and your reproducing the full mark. Wikipedia remains in violation of copyright and by attempting to relicence it as a GPL type image might actually be venturing into defation of copyright territory that may well have much more serious implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.234.79 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the australian government has on-sold the copyright of the flag to Carrol&Richardson. So may not be in the public domain any longer. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia