Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png

For reference, I asked about this file at COM:VP/C#:File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, but did not get any replies; therefore, I am bringing it up for discussion here.

Commons generally assumes that road signs are protected by copyright per COM:CB#Road signs unless it can clearly be shown that sign's imagery considered to be in the public domain because it is either too simple or too old to be protected by copyright, or has been released under a free license compatible with COM:L.

The file's uploader states in this Wikipedia post that the file was created using a template or some kind and only the number "16" was added. That would seemingly make this file a derivative work, which means that not only the copyright of the derivative, but also the copyright of the original shield imagery needs to be taken into account.

Wikipedia treats both en:File:Yellowhead.png and en:File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png as non-free content. "File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png" is sourced to the Government of British Columbia. The same sign can be found here. The BC government is claiming that the content appearing on their website is protected by copyright here.

So, unless the consensus is that the imagery is below COM:TOO#Canada or can be shown to be in the public domain because of its age, I don't think Commons can keep this per COM:PCP. While it's appropriate for the uploader to claim the derivtive file they created as their "own work", it seems clear that they did not create the original Yellowhead shield imagery.

Now, there might be a way for the OTRS permission of File:YellowheadShield.jpg to applied to this file as well. That file was previously kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:YellowheadShield.jpg . However, I've discussed this with the closing admin Jcb at User talk:Jcb#Canadian road sign photos, and there might be a problem with the OTRS ticket for the file. If the consensus is that it applies to this file as well, then that's fine; otherwise, once again I don't think we can keep this file per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This image should be covered by Ticket:2011011410009399.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment - on one hand the OTRS ticket would cover this file as much as the other files. On the other hand, this 7 years old ticket does not satisfy our current standards. So it's good to realize that this ticket may be considered problematic in the future. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep For the same reasons as given by Jeff G., as well as that the image poses significance to the articles in which it used, and thus the appropriate free-use rationales would've been filed. However, the image resides in the public domain, and therefore, such is not required. Lastly, it is owned by the Province of BC, (who does not implicate themselves in Wikipedia), and as I, the technical creator, do not object to it's use (neither does he who owns the template), I see no issue with the file. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons does not accept non-free content, so bringing up non-free use rationales or how the file would be used on Wikipedia as non-free content is irrelevant. The only thing which matters is whether this file is licensed correctly per COM:L. If the OTRS ticket mentioned above is sufficient verification to cover this file, then that's fine and the license can be adjusted accordingly; otherwise, permission from the Province of BC is needed. If you feel that this file is in the public domain, then please explain why. Is it too old or too simple to be protected by copyright? If it's in the public domain, then permission fro anyone is nott needed; however, just saying so does not make it so. You need to clarify this. If the template creator is the Province of BC, then maybe the template was released under a free license which Commons can accept; otherwise, the template might also be seen a derivative as well and where back to figuring out the licensing of the original imagery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This discussion was closed by Fhsig13, but I have reopened it because it seems entirely inappropriate for one of the participants in a DR to unilaterally decide to close the discussion and interpret what (if any) consensus has been established; such a thing should be left to an uninvolved administrator to determine. I'm hoping this is just a good-faith mistake which will not be repeated; otherwise, further discussion at COM:ANU may be warranted. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]