Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orange and Pink Lesbian flag.svg

Flag image was created for Tumblr blog and file source is an online retailer. There are no reliable sources for flag. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are many pride flags on commons with unreliable sources listed, or no source at all, including File:Agender_pride_flag.svg, File:Genderfluidity_Pride-Flag.svg, and File:Demisexual_Flag.svg.

I don't believe there is any Wikimedia Commons deletion policy for badly sourced images, only ones that are out of scope, and this flag is just as in scope as these other pride flags. Thespoondragon (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any flag file that originates from a personal blog (such as a Tumblr blog) should be deleted. Tumblr blogs, wikis, and user-generated platforms are self-published sources and do not meet the criteria for reliability. Any Jane and Joe Blo can invent and create anything they want to ... but it doesn't make it legit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia Commons, you have to have a valid reason for deletion according to Wikimedia Commons' deletion policy, not policies specific to Wikipedia.Thespoondragon (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion is the same as for it not being used on Wikipedia (where it was twice deleted from the same article): it is a personal creation that has not been vetted by independent sources, and unless Wikimedia Commons wants to fill its reservoir with junk files it should be deleted. It's on the same level as an upload of a finger painting made by someone's child. An administrator should consider the deletion request and determine the merit of retaining a personal project. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see why this image is not eligible. Since when should we have notable sources to import an image on Commons? Tyseria (d)_{(Sorry for my english !)} 15:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This flag design and file is a derivative work and copyright infringement. Original designer is sadlesbeandisaster @ Tumblr. See file talk page for further info. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image consists solely of 5 horizontal lines, simple geometric shapes, and is therefore not original enough to qualify for copyright protection.Thespoondragon (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Maybe not. It is, however, still a derivative work. The original Gay Pride rainbow flag was 8 stripes (1978), then modified down to seven (1979), immediately followed by the now-used 6 stripes (1979) -- but all three are sourced to Gilbert Baker as the creator of the rainbow pride flag. Stealing a design, modifying it, and taking credit for the concept pushes the copyright envelope. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original seven stripe orange and pink flag would also be ineligible for copyright, using your same example of the Gilbert Baker Rainbow flag. So by your own copyright standards the six stripe orange and pink lesbian flag would be ineligible for copyright.Thespoondragon (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who took the copyright of others? In my opinion, colored bands do not exceed the threshold of originality. At worst, ask the author that she license she gives the flag. Tyseria (d)_{(Sorry for my english !)} 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 7-stripe flag by sadlesbeandisaster @ Tumblr was inspired by the Lipstick Lesbian flag. And the Lipstick Lesbian flag was inspired by the Gay Pride rainbow flag. The problem with this "lesbian" flag is that the official-lesbian-flag.tumblr.com source provided for the Wikimedia Commons file credits this 5-stripes flag to a non-existing post by Asian Culture/taqwomen @ Tumblr.
Thief 3 (taqwomen) stole the concept from designer 2 (sadlesbeandisaster) who stole and modified the flag design of designer 1 (Natalie McCray/This Lesbian Life), who in turn based her design on the flag by Gilbert Baker -- which was legally possible because Baker voluntarily waived his copyright of the rainbow flag design.
At some point in time, Wikimedia Commons is going to get sued by a flag designer/creator for allowing a derivative work of her/his flag to be circulated within and outside of it without license from the designer/creator. An artist has to provide a proper Creative Commons license for Wikimedia Commons to contain a file of her/his work.
Those who frolic on Tumblr live in a bubble where intellectual property is plagiarized and reblogged, while everyone ignores the elephant in the room: copyright law and trademark law. Any flag design based on, and inspired by, the rainbow flag can be trademarked. Did Natalie McCray trademark her flag? If she did, any reinterpretation of her flag violates the trademark.
Wikimedia Commons will be stepping into a pile of dung if this file remains without a Creative Commons license from the designer of the flag this one is based on. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as below TOO everywhere.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. No copyright issue, in use. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]