Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polish White Eagle of Przemysł II.PNG

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.

File:Polish_White_Eagle_of_Przemysł_II.PNG[edit]

Derivative works:


1295 seal of Przemysław II

For sure it's not a ineligible pattern. The image is based on a medieval seal of king Przemysł II [1][2], and reconstruction was made probably by the PWN drawer. For sure it has features of creativity work and efforts of the drawer. File has no source, which could indicate Public Domain. File wasn't published in any official law acts as far as we know. JDavid (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Without any doubts these .jpg and .png files aren't scanned or photographied originals. But it is possible that these eagles are faithful reproductions of certain "old" CoA, therefore PD (if treshold of originality wasn't met). However to asses that, the proper source is required (anyway it is for verifiability) and this is apparently (and was) lacking. Moreover there is evidence that these files are based upon certain reconstructions and interpretations, which (if not faithfully reproducing real old CoA) are fully copyrighted. Therefore, sources should be given or files Symbol delete vote.svg Deleted. Masur (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The originals were produced in XIII century. 716 years is a long time. The derivative works of the public domain are also a public domain. The motive of the eagle in the heraldry during Middle Ages repeated innumerably many times. In Germany, Russia, Czech and Poland, it made the giant career. So nobody can credit to himself rights to the eagle in heraldry. Other matter if it is an only third-rate detail of something bigger. This eagle differs with nothing from among the innumerable quantity of heraldic eagles of the innumerable quantity of families, cities, voivodeships, lands, countries in Europe. Cosmetic modifying of the public domain is inadequate to creations of the present work. No present artist will create the heraldic eagle which would not be a copy of any mediaeval work. An ideal licence it would be {{PD-ineligible}}. All eagles in the heraldry are identical. In Middle Ages one used eagles on millions the proportion of bodies, all colours, and even into paint on chess-boards. All eagles in the heraldry have identically arranged his wings, in the same way arranged gripe, in the same way directed head, tails cosmetically differ between themselves, the heaps of times golden head-band on wings, enough often the ring on the tail... Even though the head was directed left, still only correct licence would be {{PD-ineligible}}. To claim to himself copyrights to eagle′s of heraldic, this as to claim to himself rights to each geometrical figures. --Starscream (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The originals were produced in XIII century - are there any sources for this? Maybe these are only artistic interpretations based on written descriptions and not ideal copies? Provide the sources that these particular representations of eagles are exact copies of PD-old ones and this discussion can be closed. Masur (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC) ps. and the differences that you list, these are excactly differences that make different artworks different. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to make anything different.Reply[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentLook at the original mediaeval seal on the right. Every lawyer on our planet would say that identical in 99%. And if I make a mistake, I advise to fix the identity of the first man who drew the square, circle and the triangle. --Starscream (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep In general I agree with User:JDavid and User:Masur that we should be wary of COA graphics without poof that the graphics is not artistic interpretations based on written descriptions. But then I looked on other eagles of Przemysław II, like the one on his seal (see right) or here, and they look very similar to me. I would argue that differences do not cross the threshold of originality. --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And of course meticulous design of all shades, colours, not mentionig even image digitalizing is of course below treshold of originality? So, as an artist, I'd be denied copyrights to my own piece of work, as soos as this work will be roughly, more or less, similar to whatever was created? If yes, gosh, these PWN drawers wouldn't be happy to hear this. And I remind, that here we have a strong suspicion, that the original file was taken from PWN encyclopedia. Masur (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May be we can find a PD replacement for the file and side-step the whole issue. We do have File:POL Orzeł Piastowski COA.svg which I do not like much and which is VERY similar to files discussed here.--Jarekt (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also I just noticed that the files in question use {{Polishsymbol}} license saying that official "symbols are not subject to copyrights". I do not have much experience with that license, so I do not know how it deals with the fact that all symbols are drawn by someone, and in most cases author did not died before 1940. I am not trying to argue that "since everybody is doing it than it must be OK" but trying to understand what makes those files special. --Jarekt (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Of course not. Symbol must be published in law act or enacted by Polish authorities. JDavid (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We can find many reconstruction of the old coat of arms. Ex. [3] [4] stamp [5]. All these files have traces of authors' creavity, and mostly are copyrighted in its own publications. We cannot make it ineligible because they look very similar to one-colour seal. JDavid (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Excactly. Is it really fair (and legal) to asses whether the treshold of originality was or wasn't reached? At least I myself dont' feel to be in the osition for this, so in such situation like discussed, when I see the evolution from single-coloured picture of an old seal to full couloured raster images, I'd rather assume that at least we cannot fully judge what happend in regards to originality. Privately I'd say that the treshold for it was reached, as JDavid showed in his examples. Masur (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete For sure PolishSymbol template is not valid here, as it apply for contemporary Polish state insignia only. The origin - ie. COA on coin is for sure PD - but it is not true that derivative work of PD work is automatically PD. Only mechanical copy of PD work is also PD. IMHO the color version of COA is for sure a derivative work of original COA not just a replica. Maybe - if there is a color source of COA (for example a painting or an old manuscript) it might be considered as a merely copy of the PD work - but if it was made from monochrome poor-quality source like a coin + some writen description of colors - we have an original work - based on PD sources - but for sure an original one - a kind of interpretation of historical sources - not just a replica. Polimerek (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Polish_White_Eagle_of_Przemysł_II.PNG&oldid=49574017"