Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg

What proof do you have regarding this? I've searched their website and found no mention of no restrictions on use of their flag. Also, that it is a recreation drawn by somebody does not make it free of rights by the original author/copyright holder as it is clearly a derivative work. --Durin 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an e-mail from the mayor's office of that city stating that the flag is not under any copyright and can be freely used by anyone. Ever since your original concern, I've been spending a lot of time contacting the origin cities for these flags asking what the status is. Most, so far, have said the flags are free to use by anyone. The tag I found seems to be a good reflection of this. -Husnock 14:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's great! Can you take it one step further and place a copy of the e-mail at Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg? The problem is that nobody can verify the copyright status without that e-mail, or contacting the city themselves. Thanks for your diligence! --Durin 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the e-mail contains personal information, like my real name and e-mail address, posting it on the site is pretty much out of the question. However, I stated in the summary exactly what the city told me. Is that not good enough? This gets back to the original sources of the statements an and how one can only so far without posting real world info. I guess if someone really wanted to pursue it, they could contact the city like I did. -Husnock 18:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• And thus replicate the work you've already done. You don't have to post personal information. Post the e-mail received from the city. In it, do not include anything about you. Instead, include the name of the city's representative, how to contact them, and the words they said in the e-mail. That will be sufficient. No, the edit summary isn't sufficient because it does not provide any trackable proof, just your assertion that it's as you say it is which is not enough. --Durin 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• "include the name of the city's representative, how to contact them": Again, posting the name of a real world person, who did me a favor, on such a public website as Wikipedia along with personal contact info about them is a clear invasion of that person's privacy. And when you say "your assertion that it's as you say it is which is not enough" kind of goes again Wikipedia:Assume good faith; it almost sounds like you're implying the statement I made is untrue and false. Anyone is welcome to contact the mayor's office of Corpus Christi to get the same info I did but I simple will not post the real name, phone number, and address of someone on this site as it violates several of our guidelines here and could open that person up to undue harrassement and phone calls by anyone who accesses this site and sees the info. Sorry to disappoint here, I recmmend if you feel strongly about that flag, get the opinions of other editors. -Husnock 03:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Posting the contact information of the person responsible for copyright clearance at the City of Corpus Christi is not a violation of any privacy guidelines. it is a public office, with a public face, a public address. I am not assuming the statement you made to be untrue. What I am assuming is that others in the future will come to this image and see that it has no proof of its status and therefore have to walk through the same steps you did in order to verify its status. If you refuse to post this information, then I will contact them myself and post the same information. Why not save me the time and save the time of the copyright person at the city and post it yourself? The work has already been done, and no privacy is being violated. The status you are leaving this in is "Yes, it's clear of copyright but no I can't tell you who said it's clear of copyright". That's not good enough. I'm sorry. --Durin 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• This also applies to Image:Monmouth Seal.JPG. --Durin 13:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is a separate flag, on a separate article, and a separate issue. I recommend moving any concerns about that flag to its own talk page. -Husnock 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that the tag you chose to use, {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, is deprecated in favor of {{No rights reserved}}. This has been the case for several months now. Are the terms indicated under the latter what the City of Corpus Christi intends? --Durin 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with that tag, it might be better. I saw something about it could only be used for first time images.

• The tag is deprecated. You added it on 14 November 2006. The implication is that the tag is added when the image is uploaded. The tag is improper. --Durin 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text of e-mail and concerns of User:Husnock

As stated aboe, the opionion of other editors is needed here. The person who informed me of the status of that flag has a private office number and their real name in the e-mail as how to contact them. And what would really happen if I posted their phone number here? How would you feel if you're direct office line was put on a website for millions to see and you got hit with phone calls from God knows who about something like this? How do I know *you* would not call this prson and scream, yell, harrass (just an eaxmple, I dont really believe you would do that), but I dont know who you really are. Bear in mind also, there are many on Wikipedia who are vandals, stalkers, even people who find others in the real world to do them harm, etc, etc. It is posted over and over again to provide absolutely no real world contact info for any real world person. So, I will not post that on Wikipedia...period.

To be fair, though, the main of the text of the e-mail reads:

"Dear Lt. XXXXX- With regards to using our city flag, our city does not place any restrictions on recreating our flag or hanging our flag in public places. There are also no royalty fees that you mentioned. Based on what you told me about the website you work for, there should be no problem with using the city flag in the way you described."

Go to: www.ci.corpus-christi.tx.us for the site I used for the city addresses. With all due respect to your image police work, demanding this level of verification and personal contact information to be posted on Wikipedia is carrying this to an extreme. I have taken time to contact these many cities and employees and have posted what they told me on this website. Going farther than that, wanting to call real people in the real world about this site and these images...and also bear in mind of the 50+ inquiries Ive made about city flags only 2 had any real issue...is going way beyond the policies of this website. This is why we need other editors as I simply disagree with your statements and will not comply with posting other people's contact information on this website. Very sorry. -Husnock 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• You and I continue to lock horns on copyright issues. This has happened repeatedly in the past, and continues to happen now. From my chair, your position is insufficient. I will contact the City of Corpus Christi myself. Thank you for your time. --Durin 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I posted for other editors to contribute thoughts on the matter. Getting consensus is what this website is all about. And, I dont think there was ever any "locking of horns"...indeed, I took everything you said very seriously and went to great lengths to contact cities about their flags, speak with the Navy (about the Japan and Korea images), and researching copyright free flag images. It just seems that nothing is good enough except for the name, address, and phone number of the person who is directly responsible for confirming the flag is without copyright. In my view, that is going too far. I have asked other editors for thoughts on the matter here and will await their comments. -Husnock 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are correct. From my view, we have to be able to independently verify the status of an image. Please understand; I do not consider your edits to be any more sacrosanct than a first time editor here. I treat all people equally. I know you are an admin, and you've been here for a while, but it matters not to me for permissions release. What matters is the ability of independent editors to verify any particular claim made about an image. This isn't about assuming good faith. You've twice now made an assertion that I am not assuming good faith. Assuming good faith has nothing to do with it. Do I assume that you've made this contact with the City of Corpus Christi? Absolutely. Do I assume that the person you contacted made the statement you quoted above? Absolutely. I am not making any assumption you have done anything nefarious. I request you stop making assertions that I am not assuming good faith. What I am asking for is additional information so people can independently verify. Understand, verification is not the only aspect of this; the release you have obtained is in my view insufficient. In order to clarify it, I need to contact the person who made the release. Since you won't provide that information, I am doing it myself. When that has been clarified, and the image is in fact released under a free license, I will post the image at commons, delete it here, post contact information for the copyright holder on the image at commons, and mail a copy of the permission to permissions@wikimedia.org per the instructions at Commons:Special:Upload. --Durin 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)