Talk:Special Air Service

WikiProject Military history

(Rated GA-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has had a project peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Badge - spurious copyright claims

There seems to be a bit of a spat going on over the inclusion of the SAS badge, with Jim Sweeney claiming it can't be because it is Crown Copyright, even though the image appears to have been created by another editor, rather than lifted from any MoD or official source. However, since Crown Copyright for published material only lasts for 50 years, that on the badge expired in the 1990s, so the design is now public domain. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/June#British Army there is no evidence that the Crown published the badge before 1960. If they were they would be PD. Anyone making their own copy/version of the badge obviously doesn't hold the copyright over it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Such a claim of "no evidence" would depend on how hard anyone has actually looked for any. Regardless of that, it seems rather bizarre to be so intransigent regarding the use of a badge that has been - and continues to be - widely published and reproduced, without the Crown asserting such ownership. It is also notable that the image has the same fair use boilerplate applied to so many other UK regimental insignia, some of which are less than 50 years old, regardless of issues of "publication." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP approach to image copyright is very driven by a US approach, so I'm not that familiar with the corpus it's derived from. Notwithstanding that there may be some interpretation around what we mean by "published". We're talking about embroidered uniform items, and I'd suggest that contracting for production could constitute publication.

With that in mind we're then in the situation of demonstrating that the badges were in use before 1960.

ALR (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The main point is we need evidence that it was published, not merely displayed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And the question needs to be "what do we mean by published, when the item in question is an embrodered badge, not a document"?

ALR (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that, for reasons that are not entirely clear, some parties are relying on a rather pedantic point, the implication being that "published" must - and can only - mean being rendered in print form by the copyright owner. To be equallty pedantic, a more appropriate question would actually be whether the badge is a work of art, or a mere design, either of which would be copyrighted from creation or implementation respectively. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I presume you mean me? When the article was nominated for GA, it had the cap badge displayed and that's when the question over copyright was raised. If being pedantic is wanting to keep the GA classification, yes I am guilty. I have sourced a new image and used the Non-free Crown copyright license, which seems to cover Crown copywrite. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A second SAS badge is shown in the Sun, today. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3911459/Olympic-HQ-builtbr-in-secret-for-SAS.html . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The second badge is that of the SBS; Maritime SF. You'll note the sword, which is common across the badges of the UKSF Group.

ALR (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ALR (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

SAS to protect Olympic Games 2012 in London

"The Sun can reveal" means they are authorized to speak about planning and preparations of the Special Air Service (SAS). This is a good article: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3911459/Olympic-HQ-builtbr-in-secret-for-SAS.html ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Stun is a leading proponent of the "stating the bleeding obvious" school of journalism.

They're neither reliable nor authoritative in this instance.

Security of the Games is the responsibility of LOCOG supported by the Met Police. Any military intervention required will be Military Aid to Civil Power (MACP) and requires the placement of some significant level of military capability in and around the Olympic sites. Some of that force level has already been discussed in reliable sources; naval platform, infantry uplift etc. There is unlikely to be any authoritative statement on SF activities although it would be a reasonable assumption that there will be some form of deployment in support of MACP contingency planning.

ALR (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"SAS squads will be based in a secret riverside bunker by the Thames for the London Olympics to combat terrorist threats more effectively." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8866708/SAS-squads-based-in-riverside-bunker-for-London-Olympics.html . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC) . . . So much for 'secrets'.

To quote the article "a source told the Sun newspaper"...

So the Telegraph is now reporting what the Stun says...

ALR (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)