File talk:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

Fair use

@Stefan2:, can you point out where at this discussion you pointed to it says the image cannot have a fair use argument for use on Monarchy of Canada? I read through it and could see nothing about denying fair use of this image on all articles except Arms of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Miesianiacal. The original close from three years ago was that there was no suitable free-use argument for any other article except Arms of Canada at that time, and was a broad generalization that did not look into any one article specifically. The close most certainly was not that users' free-use templates or justifications for this image on any article are banned from ever being made in perpetuity. trackratte (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that not allowing use of this image in Monarchy of Canada is improper, as the arms are officially registered as the Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, not merely the "Arms of Canada." All arms "belonging" to a Commonwealth nation or to a province or territory thereof (e.g. the provinces and territories of Canada), are properly termed the "Arms of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of ..." even if they are not registered as such. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As explained in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31, the image violates WP:NFCC#1 on that page as the image is a coat of arms. Coats of arms automatically violate WP:NFCC#1, per c:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blazon). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And, yet, there are coats of arms all over Wikipedia. This image is used in Wikipedia. So, what you now claim doesn't make sense, either. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Stefan, Commons essays or guidelines are irrelevant here. They discuss what is generally acceptable for upload to Commons, not what English WP may or may not include. For example uploading copyrighted images is prohibited on Commons, but allowed here, etc so citing off-WP practices is simply a red herring.

NFCC#1 supports the use of the symbol of the Monarchy of Canada at the Monarchy of Canada page, as there is no free-use equivalent of a state's symbol if that symbol is non-free. While discussing the finer tenets of heraldry and blazons may be useful on Commons, it is irrelevant when discussing state symbols within an encyclopedia, as the only way to render state symbols (a precise logo) is by using the specific image legally approved and adopted for use by that state (at least in Canada). For example, you cannot tell Americans that this is their flag any more than you can tell Canadians that this is their flag, any more than you can tell Canadians that this is their coat of arms, even though all three of those images conform to their respective blazons. But as I said, just because a user makes their own creative interpretation of a state symbol that conforms to the textual description of that image (blazon), that might make it a good heraldry hobbyist's drawing, but that does not make it an official state symbol/precise logo. It is not the job of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to tell entire nations what their official symbols/logos are. Instead, the job of Wikipedia is to accurately and unbiasedly portray fact.

Particularly when it comes to these particular symbols as they are emotionally charged. Using this flag to represent all Canadians, and to represent Canada at the Canada page for example, is insulting as it is a purposefully misrepresentation of the actual symbol/specific representative logo, and completely undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.

Canadian state symbols are very specific drawings, made by professional heralds and artists, whose very exact drawings go through a legal process, and where the precise drawing is legally approved by the state (personally signed by the Queen) for adoption as an official symbol/logo use to represent the state (as you can see here, here, and here, as well as in the top left corner of the document here). Any amateur or user's creative interpretation of this legally approved symbol/logo does not an official symbol make. In fact, even a professional artist's rendering of the Canadian flag or the Canadian Arms does not make it the actual flag or arms of Canada until that specific drawing is signed as "approved" by the Queen of Canada (ie officially approved and adopted according to Canadian law).

So, in summary, the only valid link you cite is the WP deletion. However, that only shows that in July of 2013 an admin found that there was no acceptable free-use argument other than at Arms of Canada at that time. Not that a user can use such a decision to suppress any new developments, suppress the submission of new facts, or suppress new arguments for the rest of eternity. trackratte (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Coats of arms are defined by their blazon, and one drawing based on a blazon is just as correct as another drawing based on the same blazon. For that reason, coats of arms automatically fail WP:NFCC#1 unless there is discussion about a specific drawing of the coat of arms. User-created drawings are used all over the place. Check for example the municipalities listed in {{Municipalities of Stockholm County}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. We are not talking about heraldry, we are talking about very specific state logos and flags. To translate this to your Commons example that you cited above, "There is no such thing as an "official CoA (drawing)" in heraldics, this would be a confusion with logos (where the representation must be the official one)". As we can see, there certainly is a legally approved and adopted official Arms of Canada (logo), that the Queen of Canada must approve the specific logo apart from any blazon (here, here, and here), and thus talk of blazons are completely irelevent here as this is not a discussion about what is acceptable hobby heraldry, but about a specific set of logos and flags. If we were discussing heraldry, then you could go right ahead and say that this is the American flag because it's a drawing based on a blazon and is therefore correct, but we're not and you can't. trackratte (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any comprehensible explanation of why this image can have either no fair-use or fair-use on only one article. As such, I suggest the fair-use argument for Monarchy of Canada be reinstated. Then it can be seen if the argument itself holds up. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The article Monarchy of Canada contains a number of links at the bottom of the page. If I click on the links, I find exactly one page which contains this coat of arms, and it uses a slightly different version of the coat of arms (it's coloured differently), so it seems that several versions of the coat of arms are used in Canada. There doesn't seem to be any difference between the Canadian coat of arms and the municipal coat of arms I mentioned before. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: You misunderstand what is denoted by the rule you are invoking. The rule states, in its entirety, the following: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." You are taking this in its most strict and literal interpretation, which leads directly to every single, non-free image in Wikipedia being in violation of it! Since creating up a similacrum is technically feasible for practically every image under the sun, your interpretation would mean that Wikipedia should have no original, non-free images at all. Does this sound logical to you? -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm using the same application as the one used in the DRV discussion about this image: this is replaceable since it is a coat of arms. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As lengthly discussions have shown, there is no free equivalent available. So I don't understand the issue. Should a free equivalent become available, then obviously that should be used. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We keep having the same problem....that is many seem not to understand that an "official logo" vs "heraldry blazon" is not the same thing. A formal description of a coat of arms is not the same as a registered trademark in any world...legal or other . This is a huge problem all over Wikipedia...that is user generated national symbols based on blazons in place of official logos. "Home-made versions" of national symbols is simply not what we are looking for in an encyclopaedia....we are looking for accuracy. --Moxy (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarify please

Can this image be used in the infobox at Monarchy of Canada? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that image cannot be used in a credible encyclopedia. That's the point, otherwise the above conversation wouldn't be happening. As yourself, myself, Moxy, The Gnome, Ajraddatz, Jkudlick, and BushelCandle (on the article talk page) have all alluded to, the symbol in question is what Commons would refer to as a specific logo. As I discussed above, any rendition of the flag of Canada (as a specific state logo) that is not the official and legally approved rendition, is simply not the "National Flag of Canada", in the same way as the Arms. As Commons states, in these cases "the representation must be the official one". Although this is certainly not Commons, the same principle applies. And as we know, any rendition of the Arms so nearly resembling the official logo as to be confused with it, are a copyright and trademark violation according to Canadian law. Thus, a "free version" of this specific state logo is an impossibility. Either a official, legally approved logo should be depicted, or nothing should be. trackratte (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Think we should go ahead and use it...only one editor here that does not understand there is no free use equivalent available for this copyrighted work. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 03:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's correct; if that one editor keeps trying to remove it against an overwhelming consensus that the Canadian government has specifically authorised its use in a non--profit educational context, then that one editor should be successively reverted until and unless arbcom rules otherwise. BushelCandle (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As you can see here Moxy, that's not an easy task :) GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we conduct a survey? I think it's fairly clear from the comments above, all but one person involved here so far thinks it's absolutely possible to have a fair-use argument for this image's use on more than one article. However, a survey with simple "yes/no" statements (and maybe a brief reasoning) might remove all ambiguity... I'll try once more to add the fair-use argument for Monarchy in Canada and we'll see what happens. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Trackratte. The image on this file, was confusing me. GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg is a different copy of the same coat of arms, and that image would serve the same purpose in the article Monarchy of Canada as this one and this one therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 in that article, see the DRV from 2013. Apart from this, a non-free drawing would seem to fail WP:NFCC#8 in that article as there is no need for a coat of arms to understand the article, and also WP:NFC#UUI §6 as the coat of arms has its own article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not even close....I am not sure if your prosperously ignoring the points made by "everyone" here...no one here thinks they are the same thing at all...nor by a legal stand point are they the same. Best leave things of this nature to the content editors.-- Moxy (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

So, once again @Stefan2: has removed the fair-use argument not because of any lack of merit to the argument, but because of a DRV. His reasoning is fallacious; no one is trying to re-instate a deleted image or trying to get an image deleted. DRV is utterly and entirely irrelevant. If Stefan could formulate an argument spelling out why he thinks there is no possibility this image can ever have fair-use arguments for use on more than one article, it would be appreciated; by everyone here, I'm sure. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Broadly correct, Miesianiacal. Consequently I have reverted Stefan2's censorship of a fair use rationale (and also copyedited and clarified). BushelCandle (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31, the file fails WP:NFCC#1 except in one article. If you want to try to get that overturned, then you will need to relist the file at DRV, or list the file at FFD. No one seems to have made any attempts to do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the consensus was against the removal of the actual arms of Canada. Second, consensus can change. Third, that decision was regarding a deletion request. Fourth, "the representation must be the official one" when it comes to official state logos. And fifth, no free-use image can possible exist for this state logo, it is a legal impossibility. trackratte (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The first three points were what came to my mind while reading Stefan's response. Additionally, there's no reason why any new consensus about fair-use of this image has to be established at DRV. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, I'm gonna have to let the rest of ya'll work this out. TBH, ya'll are confusing me. I don't know anymore, which editor wants which image at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

'Canada' Fair use rationale

I added Canada fair use rationale because the Coat of Arms are not solely designed to represent the monarchy, but also the state of Canada. Here's a direct quote pulled from Canada.ca:
The Canada Coat of Arms are used on federal government possessions like buildings, official seals, money, passports, proclamations and publications. They are also reproduced on the rank badges of some members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The Arms of Canada are also used by federal institutions, including the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada to symbolize their judicial independence from the Government of Canada.[1].
The Coat of Arms are listed on the Deparment of Heritage's website as an "Official symbol Canada", not an official symbol of the Canadian Crown, but of Canada. Considering the Canadian government itself considers the Coat of Arms to be an official symbol of Canada, it should be given fair use rationale on the Canada article. DrJenkins365 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that, as a constitutional monarchy, "federal government possessions like buildings", etc legally belong to the Crown, i.e. "Her Majesty's Government", "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship", "Crown works", "Crown corporations", "Crown lands", "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition", and so on and so forth. As the Sovereign is the "human embodiment of the state" Canada, as a legal person, is the Sovereign. That aside, I agree with your proposition that as a legal symbol to represent Canada, it should be used in the Canada page. While the flag is used, a distinction is that the Canadian flag is a national symbol (i.e. representing the people of Canada), while the coat of arms is a state symbol (representing Canada as a single legal person). trackratte (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not valid use. It cannot have FUR for monarchy and the national article, but before we proceed, we should seek legal comment, not just that of a few editors who think they have the right idea. I'd be glad to be done with the reverts at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Trackratte: has asserted that the 1957 coat of arms is (supposedly) still official and current, so if that is the case, why not use that on the Canada article (since it is public domain)? If not, we can just use the Great Seal (as @Fry1989: and myself have suggested in the past); it's for sure a current state symbol and in the public domain to boot (so no need to worry about the copyright). Personally, I'd prefer to use a public domain symbol than a copyrighted one under fair use, just so we don't have to worry about any copyright drama. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would have no problems with the old version. ...but the great seal is not a recognizable symbol of Canada in any way.--Moxy (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy, it needs to be recognizable. And there is no 'supposedly' about it, the 1957 Arms are a current official symbol of Canada, and I have provided ref links on countless occasions. trackratte (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Recognizable or not, the Great Seal is still an official symbol of the state (and is in the public domain to boot); should be included based on officiality rather than popularity. I'd argue most national seals/coats of arms aren't very recognizable to a common man as they're not typically not as widely promulgated as say flags are. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What??? No no no its not official ....here is the list of official symbols of Canada.--Moxy 🍁 13:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that article is an idiot and contradicts themselves. The Great Seal is an official symbol and is set out in law, and every law is officiated with the Great Seal. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Improve the design

It would be nice if this image has similar gradient and transition effects as original design. This page has a higher resolution version that you can see. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Both are official. This version and the one with gradients co-exist. If someone can find/create one with the gradients, that would be nice, but I won't hold my breath. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Plethora of illegitimate fair use rationale

Could someone explain how it's fair to use the crest for Canada on its prime minister when the PM has his own insignia? It's already a stretch at the monarchy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Rationale added by a sock should just be reverted.--Moxy 🍁 21:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, insufficient rationale for PM article. trackratte (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

me me me ....that seen it is correct that this prime minister does use this symbol all over his publications. I received a letter not that long ago with the beautiful gold inlay version. What to do??--Moxy 🍁 14:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As the Arms of the Canadian Sovereign / Canada it is used all over the place. All MPs, Federal courts, military and RCMP insignia (1957 rendition), PCO, etc, etc. So the logic of fair use for the PM equally applies to all of them, which would probably end up being hundreds of pages. trackratte (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking....used all over by many offices and officials to show state authority.--Moxy 🍁 17:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly FUR applies because the image is copyrighted. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria lists the ten criteria for when it can be used. FUR barely applies because there is an equivalent (that looks terrible btw) but, we applied it first to the discussion of the coat. That makes sense. I don't think this infringes on commercial opportunities, but we are well past minimal usage with its use outside of a discussion on the coat, but the extent of use is minimal at least. It is clearly a previously published work and, as was already pointed out, displayed in a lot of places. However, the places where it's used—outside of the article on the coat—is purely decorative, it is not encyclopedic. I don't need to know what the coat looks like in order to understand the other three topics. Its use doesn't meet image use policy, even though it is used in multiple articles, it has no contextual significance in the articles not about the coat as it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and "its omission would be [not] detrimental to [the] understanding" of those other topics in mainspace.

Is there a formal FUR review process? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on all points save one I believe.

If we are talking about a certain user rendition "inspired" by the Arms I would argue strongly against stating that they are "equivalent" (and therefore interchangeable) for two reasons. One, any argument of equivalency is largely made on heraldic grounds, and state logos are not an heraldic issue in that any rendition not officially approved are not (obviously)a official and have no standing (i.e. using a 5-pointed maple leaf flag is heraldically correct but most certainly cannot be used here to represent the Canadian Flag) and the same logic applies to the Arms. Two, any rendition so closely resembling as to be mistaken for the Arms fall under Crown copyright (by legislation). Therefore, if a user rendition is "interchangeable" it is copyrighted by the Canadian crown, if it is not, then it cannot be used as a stand-in for something it doesn't even resemble, clearly. In this way I see any use of any Arms other than the actual Arms as a non-starter. That aside, we certainly can use the 1957 rendition (still under Crown copyright but Wikipedia doesn't see it as such so there you go).

I do not believe there is any stand alone process specifically for FUR other than in the normal way for articles for what it's worth. trackratte (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair use? 😡

As a Canadian, I am highly offended that Wikipedia says this image is fair use. This is a disgrace to Canada’s freely-useable royal coat of arms. It is in the public domain just like the flag and anthem of Canada 🇨🇦 and all the flags and coat of arms of all the individual provinces and territories. (At least Wikipedia didn’t lower the resolution like all the other “fair use” images.)🍁 🇨🇦 --Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The Arms of Canada are protected under various Canadian laws, so cannot be used however anyone wants. Under WP rules, they can be used whenever required by the article in question. trackratte (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It is in the public domain, I know this because I live in Canada myself. Trust me, I know.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Besides, fair use isn’t even a thing in Canada, it is exclusive to the United Staes, so there is no way that this image could be subject to fair use.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP servers are in the US, and is an American organization, so follows American laws. In Canada, the Arms fall under Crown Prerogative Copyright, and are protected under the Copyright and Trademark Acts. They are also specifically protected in Canadian law, "No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for... the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada". However, the use of protected symbols on WP is governed by their own policies which err on the side of caution (for the most part). trackratte (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s the “Coat of arms of Canada” not the “Arms of Canada”--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issues

The author of the coat of arms of Canada has died at least 70 years ago, therefore the crown copyright has expired.--Kingdom of Sorfidan (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)