File talk:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg

 

Copyright status

Yesterday, I uploaded the Seal of Rwanda to English Wikipedia because the Commons file has a very dubious licensing status. In particular, (a) as this is a national symbol, I understand its usage is restricted independently of copyright; and (b) the actual Copyright status is not given in the existing file; it has been marked as if the uploader is the copyright holder, and under a GFDL license, neither of which can be valid.

Having researched the matter, I have not been able to find anywhere in the Rwandan constitution of other documents which specifically permits public domain usage of this symbol, which means the only legitimate usage is under "Fair Use" guidelines, similar to those which apply for en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. The specific usage for which I require this file is the en:Rwanda article, and the licensing status for the Seal was flagged up at en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1. It is therefore something that has to be resolved before the article is put up for FAC again.

If anyone knows of a reason why the Commons file is legitimate, then please let me know. Otherwise I will mark the Commons file as to be deleted and re-upload under Fair Use in the Wikipedia space. Many thanks Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not that simple. You need to find a copy of Rwandan Copyright Law. And even if Rwandan Copyright Law does not exempt national symbols and legislative acts, COM:COA would still apply. So far, you've given no reason to doubt the current license. Second, the reason the current license "suggests" that the uploader is the copyright holder, is because the uploader created this file. Each version of a coat of arms holds it's own rights, therefore, the uploader is the copyrght holder of this version. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did not know about COM:COA; that is quite interesting, and presumably sufficient to keep this file here. As I said, I'm no expert on coats of arms but I had to look into this issue because someone raised it at FAC. Two questions, then:

1. What is the difference between this case and the Arms of Canada, which are included only under fair use at en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and not in Commons?
2. Is it appropriate for the file to be uploaded under the GFDL license? Or is that completely at the discretion of the original uploader? Thanks Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the Canadian coat of arms, sadly, is that the version we have is not an independent version, it's a direct copy of the version from the Canadian government. There have been talks about getting an independent version made so we can have it on Commons. Your second question, I don't know enough about GDFL to answer I'm afraid, but I believe licensing is usually up to the discretion of the original uploader. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some changes need to be done

• 
  Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg
• 
  Coat of arms of Rwanda 2.svg

@Simtropolitan, Jippagui, FischX, FXXX, and Zscout370: Hello, in 2020 user:Simtropolitan made some changes which causes 5 SVG errors so I changed this file back to version 24th August 2010 by user:Fry1989. But some changes were an improvement why I exported this version to a second file Coat of arms of Rwanda 2.svg, so here are the changes by Simtropolitan which I want to discuss:

changes need to be done:

Agaseke, traditional basket

• outlined knot → very good idea! but it has not to go over the top edge of the file
  • and then both yellow-orange shields left and right need to be outlined too to match with the new style
• Sharpened gear teeth → good idea, but sharpened a bit too much, usually no right angels, see for example picture right:
• changed text to make line up with banners → very good idea! but a bit too bold
• shaded banners → good idea, maybe a bit too much contrast

changes better not:

• rerendered sorghum → IMHO not good matching with the style of the rest of the emblem; with emblems (and coat of arms, logos or generally symbols) it is all about reduced amount of collors!
• added gradient to sun → same like sorghum
• rerendered basket → why? differs too much from an Agaseke

Regards --W like wiki ^{good to know} 03:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the time to work on a version that meets these needs. However to discuss-

• The rerendered agaseke is lifted directly from the clearest version on Rwandan currency. It is my suspicion that much of the contemporary Rwandan renditions of the seal are just copies of the Wikipedia version, kind of like how Wikipedia made the coati the "Brazilian aardvark". It's self-referential, as opposed to showing the original which was rarely printed.
• The rerendered sorghum is also from Rwandan currency.
• Regarding gradients, the number of colors should be representative of the seal's likeness. By that standard both of the American coat of arms (obverse, reverse) would need simplification. Example

Most of the W3 errors can be cleared up by saving the file as a Plain SVG rather than an Inkscape SVG, which was my mistake. However I don't really have time to address this from a design perspective, if the debate concludes that version #2 is accurate enough as it was, I can fix those errors instantly. --Simtropolitan (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

All 5 errors on the version 2 file have been resolved. --Simtropolitan (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Simtropolitan Fry1989's basket is more accurate according to https://web.archive.org/web/20051029162308fw_/http://www.gov.rw/government/coat.htm (from 2005 or earlier) and https://crwflags.com/fotw/flags/rw).html (image from 2002). Both sites also show a non-glowing sun.

I agree that we should outline the rope knot and make the gear more symmetrical. 24.12.3.153 23:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)