Commons:Deletion requests/International Symbol of Access

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

International Symbol of Access

[edit]

The International Symbol of Access is copyrighted, and is not released under a free license: [1]

Note that I am not nominating the following:

The first two are presumably different enough, but I'm not sure about the third.

I also created Image:Wheelchair.svg to replace the unfree images with. --NE2 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion (at time of nom)

[edit]
  •  Comment I wonder on which ground this symbol is copyrighted. It has very little originality. Yann 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much originality did it have in 1968, when it was first published? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think one has to pay to paint this on a parking lot; Internet should not be any different. I also think it is ironic that we cannot use this, as it is a symbol if accessibility, meaning anyone can access. -Indolences 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless every government licenses it. It's the same reason that Wikisource doesn't have the lyrics of "Georgia on My Mind": instead of buying the copyright, the State of Georgia (USA) bought only a license to use the song as its anthem. The symbol is licensed as a self-certification mark like the CE marking, despite being under copyright law rather than trademark law. There are widely recognized symbols of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that the uninitiated public is free to use them for any purpose. Images on Commons must be licensed for all purposes. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone posed a query to the US DOT to check if it licensed the ISA or simply created its own derivative? ˉanetode╦╩ 03:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an obvious derivative, covered by the same copyright as the original. --NE2 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is an obvious derivative, but the DOT may still have asserted copyright. If a governmental department of the United States, or Sweden, as is case with one other image, claims creative authorship of a specific version of this symbol and releases it into the public domain, then it's not exactly our problem. The ICTA obviously owns the copyright on the symbol and may exercise its rights under the Berne Convention, but if the DOT permits unrestricted use of its localized version of the ISA, then the Commons may not be liable. What I want to know is whether this argument is demonstrably fallacious or valid. It appears that you are going out of your way to make the ICTA's case despite several uncertainties. ˉanetode╦╩ 04:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that this issue is being discussed at w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Use_of_international_wheelchair_symbol. It look me along time to find the more active discussion going on at the Village Pump page, so I hope this helps someone else. Biomedeng 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why these images haven't been deleted yet? -- Ned Scott 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please cite some evidence that the images are copyright/copyrightable? I don't see any cited here and the enwiki discussions on this are a toxic waste dump.--Gmaxwell 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The ISA has been registered with the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and remains the copyright of ICTA." --NE2 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was aware of that, And yet in email they claimed that it is not. ::shrugs:: Can you find anything other than that?--Gmaxwell 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The ISA design is registered as ISO Standard 7000 1984. As an international standard, the copyright design for style, shape and proportion is protected worldwide 'to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and usable by all those persons whose mobility is restricted'."
"The copyright design for style, shape and proportion, approved by RI,shall be adopted at all times, and there should be no deviation from the International Standard ISO 7000."
--NE2 10:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are VERY complicated with this one I have to admit. As far as I can see in order of importance you have the following
  1. The image is copyrighted
  2. The style of the image is to protected worldwide to 'identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and usable by all those persons whose mobility is restricted' (is this a usage distriction on the IMAGE? or on the whole standard? as in: is it only the International Symbol of Access if it is exactly this design ? opposed to "you are not allowed to use it for anything else")
  3. The ICTA has a guideline document advising how the image should be used (this is NOT a license)
  4. Individual governments have often regulated the usage of the symbol (in most cases these are mostly housing regulations and stuff, not actually image regulations: if you build a public building/office, you are required to have a toilet for the less mobile, and you need to illustrate that with the ISA. )
  5. I think this is part of the problem. What parts exactly reflect on the ISA standard, vs. the ISA image itself..... TheDJ 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion formerly at w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Use_of_international_wheelchair_symbol was archived out of process in this edit by Quiddity on 18 May 2007 at 02:10 (UTC), and then archived in this edit by w:User:MiszaBot II on 28 May 2007 at 18:36 (UTC) to /dev/null. The latest version of it is at this URL.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other symbols that are part of ISO 7000 are apparently: w:Recycling symbol (Which is in the public domain) and several "keyboard symbols". This all leads me to believe that the restrictions are more towards the fact of "are you allowed to call it an ISO symbol (ISA)", rather than actual restrictions upon it's use.

From [2] 

General description 
A graphical symbol is a visually perceptible figure used to transmit 
information independently of language. The graphical symbols for 
use on equipment are used for a wide range of purposes. For such 
graphical symbols, consistency in design of families of symbols 
used in one location or on similar equipment is an important issue, 
as is legibility when these symbols are reduced to small dimensions. 
Thus, there have been common provisions among areas covered by 
IEC and ISO on basic principles for graphical symbols for use on 
equipment to ensure visual clarity, to maintain consistency and 
thereby to improve recognition (see IEC 80416-1 and ISO 80416-2). 
Scope 
IEC 60417 graphical symbols are primarily indended to: 
- identify the equipment or a part of the equipment (e.g. a control or 
display); 
- indicate a functional state (e.g. on, off, alarm); 
- designate connections (e.g. terminals, filling points for materials); 
- provide information on packaging (e.g. identification of contents, 
instructions for handling); 
- provide instruction for the operation of the equipment (e.g. 
limitations of use). 
IEC 60417 does not apply to symbol originals for: 
- safety signs; 
- use on drawings and diagrams; 
- use in technical documentation of products and in technical 
product documentation; 
- use for public information. 
ISO 7000 provides a synopsis of those graphical symbols which are 
placed on equipment or parts of equipment of any kind in order to 
instruct the person(s) using the equipment as to its operation. 

"How to use released graphical symbols 
The graphical symbols are intended for use on equipment; generally 
speaking any kind of equipment. The field "Example of application 
class" can be used to indicate more specifically for which type of 
equipment a graphical symbol is intended. 
Guidelines for the application of graphical symbols for use on 
equipment are in IEC 80416-3. Supplementary guidelines for the 
adaptation of graphical symbols for use on screens and displays 
(icons) are under development as separate international standards 
in the ISO/IEC 80416 series.

That's about all I can find without spending 160$ to buy a copy. To me it looks more like guidelines, icw. this is what the ISO image looks like, if it doesn't follow these rules, you cannot call it an ISO symbol. TheDJ 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed discussion

[edit]
  •  Keep - I just standardized and improved the licensing on Image:Handicapped Accessible sign.svg - what do you think?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still a non-free image... -- Ned Scott 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What text on what webpage documents its copyright? Who exactly holds the copyright? Can we please ask them for permission? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • http://www.ictaglobal.org/isa.html -- Ned Scott 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yet this document says "Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain.Tivedshambo 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The ISA symbol isn't a "traffic control device design or application provision"...so why is that statement relevant? I think that the ICTA would know their policies better than the US DoT. That said, I am confused, because I thought that this image would not be copyrighted, seeing as how it is a very simple geometric shape. But, if the information we have says that it is copyrighted and does not definitively say it is not copyrighted, then it is best (IMO) that we assume that it is copyrighted and, per Ned's link, non-free. So delete. --Iamunknown 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • When (for example), it is applied to a parking bay, to indicate restricted parking, it is a traffic symbol.Tivedshambo 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • When it is included in a publication containing "traffic control devices." It might be hard to fathom, but this isn't our problem. If a copyright concern arises, it is the FHA's, and not our responsibility, to explain why they are publishing "copyrighted" work as if it was under the public domain. I should also call attention to Image:Handicapped Accessible sign.svg, which specifically spells this out: Handicapped Accessible sign, made to the specifications of the 2004 edition of Standard Highway Signs (sign D9-6), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, US Government. I really don't see what's so hard about understanding this and accepting it already. lensovet 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's get real here. The likelihood of the ICTA suing the WMF for displaying the ISA appears to be just about zero, and the likelihood of such a suit being successful, in the face of the MUTCD, is even less, so why should we worry about keeping this image?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If this image is not free, why should we keep it here and assert that it is indeed free? Wikimedia Commons is a free content site - free content is that which has not significant restrictions on use (in terms of copyright). Any thing else would be deceptive and contrary to our mission. To lensovet: it would be our responsibility when we came across documents that suggested, without a doubt (which it is, in my opinion), that these images are indeed not free. We cannot merely feign ignorance because the United States government is publishing a fascimile of the image. --Iamunknown 18:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep - I have seen no evidence that use of this symbol for the rightful purposes is in any way copyright.Tivedshambo 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete -- sorry, but the image is very evidently and undisputable copyright protected. It is not "a work of the United States Federal Government ", nor is it ineligible for copyright. The FHA cannot claim a work to be PD when it does not have the right to do so. And we should not claim that an image is PD when we are well aware if it not being so.
Furthermore, the image is not "free" as in "you can put it on a t-shirt".
It is only free for the designated purposes described above. Basically, it is fair use, no different than a logotype. It should be uploaded to those Wikipedias that allow fair use. / Fred J 21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Who told you that? All I see is that Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Also, I'd like to remind you that the copyrighted image is a blue square with a white symbol. People, get real. I can't believe we're having this argument. Who are you to decide what the government can and can't do? Are you seriously saying that you have better legal expertise than the federal gvmt? This can't be real. lensovet 06:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, perhaps there is a possibility... NE2 has been quoting from the 1978 guideline, but actually the use of the ISA is regulated by a guideline issued in 1983, as it clearly says on [3]. I suggest that before we decide what to do with the image(s), we try and get a copy of the guideline. So wait.
Fred J 12:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we don't have better legal expertise than the federal gvmt; so we should be wary where we are unsure of copyright issues. Though you may disagree, there are non-trivial arguments presented that this image is indeed not free. --Iamunknown 05:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why we need some "guideline" – this image is very clearly distributed, in multiple copies and versions, by the US Federal government, into the public domain. While I realize some people here will refuse to admit this forever, that is simply the truth. It's not our responsibility to second-guess the federal government's legal team whatsoever. Non-trivial arguments aside, all the images being discussed here use the federal gvmt's publications as the source and basis for their creation. Why did the ISA even come into play here? Just because it looks similar? lensovet 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Similar enough to be a derivative work. --Iamunknown 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So similar, in fact, that the United States Government isn't the only one to release it into the public domain. Do you really think all these governments don't know what they are doing? Just from the wheelchair symbols category, we have the US, Sweden, Germany, and Taiwan all releasing their images into the PD. And those are just the ones that have been uploaded to the commons. Do you really think they are all wrong, and you, copyright law expert extraordinaire (along with all the others on this page who have said "delete"), know this better than they do? lensovet 04:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore, the image is not 'free' as in 'you can put it on a t-shirt'." Really? I wonder when the ICTA is going do something about this, then? 147.21.16.3 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete They are clearly copyrighted images not acceptable in Commons. Personalguy 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it
for any purpose, provided that the symbol is used as a consistent international designation of accessible entrances, information, facilities, transportation and amenities. [4].
Usage notes:
Copyright
Please check that the conditions given above are compliant to the Commons licensing policy. Most importantly, derivative work and commercial use must be allowed.

–Dream out loud 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because, if this particular image is not free, as I and others argue, the fact that "the symbol is used as a consistent international designation of accessible entrances, information, facilities, transportation and amenities" still makes it not free (see Commons:Licensing) and, thus, unacceptable for Commons to host. --Iamunknown 04:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is a good point. A statement such as that above in the template would go against the purpose of Commons. I think that it should be deleted from Commons, uploaded to Wikipedia, but with a similar template as above. –Dream out loud 19:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, no one has responded to my statement above. At least 4 governments on the planet have declared ISA-like symbols to be in the public domain. Are you saying that they are all wrong? Since we're all about templates, let's put them in here directly:
Public domain This file is in the public domain because it comes from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which states specifically on page I-1 that:
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 other items owned by FHWA.
Public domain
This image of traffic sign or signal is from the Regulations for Road Traffic Signs, Markings, and Signals publicized by the Ministry of Transportation And Communications and the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which shall not be the subject matter of copyright pursuant to Article 9 of the Copyright Act of the Republic of China in effect in Taiwan Area.
Flag of the Republic of China
Flag of the Republic of China
Autoroute icone
Autoroute icone
Public domain This image is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German authority or court (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).

dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Template:PD-Vägverket So, are they all wrong? lensovet 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. There clearly is a level of disagreement on an international scale on this matter. Some sources claim copyright while other sources (governments) claim it is free. So long as the government(s) claim it is indeed free, we have no reason to argue otherwise.

I am also leaning towards PD-ineligible as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by White Cat (talk • contribs) at 19:51, 4 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/International_Symbol_of_Access&oldid=17810021"