Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG flags of cities of Canada

design involves complex patterns rather than simple basic geometric shapes. over COM:TOO Canada. not old enough to be pd.

• File:Flag of Calgary, Alberta.svg
• File:Flag of Grise Fiord, Nunavut.svg
• File:Flag of Inuvik.svg
• File:Flag of Kawartha Lakes, Ontario.svg
• File:Flag of Vancouver, Canada.svg

RZuo (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't agree that these are all complex enough to pass the TOO. The Kawartha Lakes one in particular is very simple. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Vancouver says that it is from Open Clip Art. Flagvisioner (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  unless legal precedents are found, i dont think it's a good idea to assume diagrams, which are composed of several not so simple shapes, to be too simple.

  Flag of Vancouver has a shield (consisting of three not so simple objects) and white and blue wavy stripes.

  Flag of Kawartha Lakes has a circle in gradient colours, two trees, and two wave shapes of two colours.

  Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) allowed Flag of Calgary to be registered as a trademark... RZuo (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete These are pretty borderline, but a few of them involve gradient colors, which can sometimes kick the work up to being copyrightable. Although I'm not super educated on how the law works in Canada, but it seems like they have a pretty low bar going by the fact that the flag of Calgary was trademarked. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Trademarked" is not the same as copyrighted. For example this image is trademarked, but is too simple to be protected by copyright. If you can dig up a citation that gradient colouring is sufficient to warrant copyright protection I'd be interested in seeing it, but the trademark status of the Calgary flag isn't relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

usa is not canada.

so far commons has no records of precedents in canadian law. without precedents it's not safe to assume "gradient colouring is not sufficient to warrant copyright". RZuo (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the US is not Canada. But their respective thresholds of originality are comparable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada explicitly rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for being too low of a standard, but at the same time, stated that the creativity standards for originality were too high..."

it's stricter than usa, so you cannot assume non copyrightable things in usa will be the same in canada. RZuo (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Trademarked" is not the same as copyrighted. Sure, but if something is trademarked there's an increased chance that the person who owns the trademark will sue over a copyright claim. Does that mean they would win? Not necessarily, but we are here to keep Wikimedia from getting taken to court. Trying to hedge DRs on whatever outcome might happen is out of our job description. Anyway, like RZuo says, there is no precedents to assume gradient coloring is not sufficient to warrant copyright in Canada and in the meantime that has been the standard in similar law countries. So trademark/copyright/whatever, the images should still be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what similar law countries has that been the standard?

We regularly host trademarked images, because whether something is trademarked is irrelevant to whether something is copyrightable, and whether someone is likely to sue or not is not the basis for a decision here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: all over TOO Canada. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]