Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/Shields

Shields
A department of WikiProject Australian Roads

WikiProject Australian Roads
Project home (WP:AURD) Talk page (WT:AURD) Portal (P:AURD) Assessment (WP:AURD/A) Resources (WP:AURD/R) Article Standards (WP:AURD/AS) Discussions Library (WP:AURD/L) Advanced Permissions (WP:AURD/P) The U Turn (newsletter) (WP:AURD/NEWS) Parent projects Wikiproject Highways (WP:HWY)  • A-Class Review (WP:HWY/ACR)  • Chat (WP:HWY/IRC)  • Route markers (WP:HWY/RM) Wikiproject Australia (WP:AUS)  • Notice board (WP:AWNB)

The Shield Department for the Australian Roads WikiProject creates and maintains shield (or route marker) graphics for use on road-transportation-related articles. The department is responsible for ensuring that shields are created as prototypical as possible. All editors are welcome to contribute and make requests as long as they do their best to ensure that the shield stays true to the original and others in the series in regards to spacing, colouration and its other attributes. Wherever possible, shields should be added to articles using the {{AUshield}} template.

Note: Previous discussions can be found in the Shields Archive.

Existing shield types

High quality SVGs exist for the following types:

National types

• National Highway (numeric, alphanumeric, ACT-style
• File:Australian national route BUS15.svg National Route, Alternate National Route, Business National Route

State types

• State Route, Alternate State Route
• Alphanumeric Route (width varies with number of characters)
• NSW/ACT Alphanumeric Route (width varies with numeral width

Tourist types

• ACT Tourist Drive
• Tourist Drive

Former types

• Metroad
• Melbourne Ring Road
• Sydney Ring Road
• Sydney Freeway

Example request

Please copy the following text into the requests section below, and modify to meet the requirements of your request:

New set

===<shield type>===
;Imagery:
:Example Link 1
:Example Link 2
:Use as many links as required
;Required routes:
:Comma separated list (1, 2, 3) and/or ranges (1-10)
;Proposed usage:
:''as others in series'' for most requests. <!-- Some more technical requests may require proposing an AUshield code -->
;Discussion
<!-- Discussion goes here -->

Missing shields

===<shield name>===
;Set type: (eg: National Route, NSW Alphanumeric, Australian Alphanumeric, etc.)
;Required routes:
:Comma separated list (1, 2, 3) and/or ranges (1-10)
;Proposed usage:
:''as others in series'' for most requests. <!-- Some more technical requests may require proposing an AUshield code -->
;Discussion
<!-- Discussion goes here -->

Requests

Standard tourist drives

The design for the tourist drives can also be improved using the standard, and I know there are several missing shields for WA routes. - Evad37 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Here's the list (WA and others):

• 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360

Thats a WA only list so far... correct? May as well do all routes in other states while we are here... Thankfully Im pretty sure NSW doesnt skip route numbers, so should be easy enough if we can find highest number. - Nbound (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

NSW has 56 tourist roads on the books, Ive seen images of numbers at least as high as 30.... but 56 is in SA, which means Im wrong. Should we just do 1-99 + extras? - Nbound (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the WA ones are the 2xx and 3xx routes. TD2 is in Victoria, others came from this page for NSW and this page for QLD. I haven't found any information regarding other tourist drives. - Evad37 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The TD pages there definately dont list all routes perhaps a range of 1-50 or 1-60 though most numbers below 40ish are coming up with google image search hits. - Nbound (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The ones above 50ish seem to be in SA - Nbound (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

TD75 is in Victoria [1]. And TDs 61, 62, 63, 67 are around Echuca, Victoria. (6MB pdf - Spam filter is blocking the link). I don't think there's anything prevent states from using the same numbers for tourist drives, it just seems to happen much less often than with the state routes. - Evad37 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There would almost have to be, if NSW does have 56 in total (minus specially shield routes), and you would imagine reasonably similar numbers in VIC (even minus the ones that got alpha numeric routes), and not too far off in QLD. Though im pretty sure the 3-digit ones will be WA only -- Nbound (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should go with your idea above, so:

• Routes required: 1 to 99, 200 to 207, 250 to 260, 350 to 360.

We create more later if required. - Evad37 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)1

Sounds good to me :) -- Nbound (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ive found a plan from NSW for signs 1-99 - G8-9-2 - though it was presumably in the AS1743 docs that we've got aswell. - Nbound (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are specs in AS1743 - Evad37 (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Something to think about with these, here in the US, county roads are signed with pentagonal shields much like tourist routes. What we did, or rather are still in the process of doing, is created the specific shields for routes that will have articles or mini-infoboxes and also created generic shields for junction lists. Compare:

The rationale behind it was that at 20 pixels high, you couldn't read the text on the specific shield, but you could read the number just fine. I'm thinking the tourist route shields will be the same way, but I'll let you all decide what to do. –Fredddie™ 02:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Australian ones will be used for larger images aswell, as the articles will be about the routes themselves we will use a big shield up top, and also used on list pages for Tourist Drives in each state and so on. I beleive the US cases above use the jct template, which correct me if Im wrong, isnt resizable (or not easily anyway). Seems like a duplication of effort to create both sets for our cause anyway. But, to play devils advocate, most states remove the "Tourist Drive" writing when in the presence of the words "Tourist Drive" as part of a larger sign (only ACT always removes them), so a reasonable rationale for removing it could be created if the consensus is for the simplified signs. Also be worth considering if AS1743 has specs for the removed words version that can be copied (Different font required, etc?) -- Nbound (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be simpler to just have one set of images with the words included. I don't know about other states, but in WA the words seems to alw1ays be included – as they are in AS1743. There are specs for different versions of the markers, with an arrow above a smaller number or replacing the number (G8-9-1 and G8-9-2), but the version without any arrow (G8-9-5) makes the most sense for our use of the shields - Evad37 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clear up my previous post, I would also prefer the set created to be the type that includes the text. -- Nbound (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Evad, are you still able to post the specs. these are pretty much the last set needing a redo I think.... -- Nbound (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Send me an email and I'll reply the specs - Evad37 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sent -- Nbound (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 In progress as of 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC) -- Nbound (talk)

Blank: - -- Nbound (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1-9: - -- Nbound (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

10-19: - -- Nbound (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Im getting some minor rendering errors (numbers being rendered at differing heights - not perceptible at this zoom), so I may have to delay these for a while. Ill upgrade to the latest Inkscape before continuing. Let me know if any issues with design [shouldnt be, its by the book ;)] -- Nbound (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Back in progress with a change of approach, exsiting imagery will be fixed aswell. -- Nbound (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

20-75: - 20-75 (highest found) done. Can't be stuffed going to 99 if it probably doesnt exist! -- Nbound (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-WA TD's done -- Nbound (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

200+: File:Australian Tourist Drive 546.svg - All done, plus a bonus one I saw in a doc (546)-- Nbound (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WA Complete -- Nbound (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All existing instances of the old shield within articles have now been deleted or converted to this one -- Nbound (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Old Brisbane Freeway Routes

Imagery: mockup Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3

• Unknown, presumably at least F-3

Proposed usage: {{AUshield|Bris|F3}}

Three photos and three different styles... is the dash supposed to be there? - Evad37 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dont know, the smaller ones look alot like the "pre-interstate style" ones used in NSW aswell. - Nbound (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Melbourne Freeway Routes:

Imagery: super closeup, front on comparison to state shields

• F80, F81, F82, F83, F87, F90, possibly others

Proposed usage: {{AUshield|Mel|F83}}

Unnumbered Tourist Drives

Required route

Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail

Imagery

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

logo, shown here as yellow on white

Proposed usage

{{AUshield|T|GPHT}} – ie use GPHT instead of the number in the filename – if it is found to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}

Discussion

This should probably be done after new blanks have been made for tourist drives in the request further up. As per those ones, the arrow in the shield should be excluded, with a larger logo taking up the extra space. I would think that the shield would still be covered by PD-ineligible-USonly, but could probably also pass the non-free use requirements if it needed to. - Evad37 (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Im not 100% sure about it passing as PD-ineligible-USonly, its probably best to ask on the appropriate noticeboard before upload. It should be noted that if the shield is fair use only, we cant use it in the same way we use other shields. It would likely be only usable on the actual GPHT article. Elsewhere we'd have to use the existing blank as a placeholder, no shield, or another arrangement that Ive possibly overlooked. On the limited usage grounds, it shouldnt be added to AUshield if that is the case. This likely effects a number of similar shields around the nation. Similarly, also those with very distinct logos like Grand Pacific Drive. -- Nbound (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Asked at WP:MCQ. And the proposed usage is only if it is indeed covered by PD-ineligible-USonly. The route is/will be covered in Great Eastern Highway, which the majority of the route, in various sections, runs along – I'm not sure if it is really notable enough for its own article. - Evad37 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Noting that another user was of the opinion that it would be "ineligible for copyright in the U.S., with or without the arrow" [7] - Evad37 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Required route

Hunter Tourist Circuit

Imagery

[8]

[9]

Proposed usage

{{AUshield|T|HunterTC}}

Discussion

• File:Australian Tourist Drive HunterTC.svg - DONE - Nbound (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Required route

Cobb and Co Tourist Drive

Imagery

[10]

[11]

[12]

Proposed usage

{{AUshield|T|CobbCoTD}}

Discussion

• Likely to be non-free. Need to check -- Nbound (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion here relates only to shielding maintenance or the shields department in general (such as a proposed change to {{AUshield}}), rather than to specific shielding.

Proposed change to {{AUshield}}

What would be everyones thoughts on extending the capabilities of AUshield, so as to fill out the WP:ACCESS requirements automatically.

eg:
{{AUshield|NSW|M1|name=[[Pacific Motorway]]}}
would automatically produce:
Pacific Motorway (M1)

eg:
{{AUshield|S|2|S|4|name=Foo Highway}}
would automatically produce:
Foo Highway (State Route 2 / State Route 4)

So as not to break existing code, this should only be turned on by adding the "name=" parameter. We should also keep the existing system as a backup incase of examples where manual coding will be easier/required/desired.

Thoughts?

-- Nbound (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The small text is only really needed in the infobox, because of the limited width. In junction lists/tables, the normal font size can be used... which would make the coding more complicated. And there will be plenty of cases in road junction lists/tables where this won't work well – which is the main reason I created this template rather than use {{jctname}}, which doesn't handle complicated cases (such as a route only existing in one direction on a road that goes in both direction from a junction). - Evad37 (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That is true, I personally use "[B23]" for routes in RJLs and "(east)" for directions in RJLs. The main reason for this proposal is that any future change is going to require all shield descriptions for WP:ACCESS to be changed by hand. I am very open to other suggestions. I have no issue per-se with the status quo... just that it will be more work. I will gladly stick with it though if no easy alternative can be found. -- Nbound (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

After a stoke of genius, or perhaps madness, I've coded a prototype in the sandbox. There are three modes:

• |text=route will automatically produce text labels for a single route only, for use in the allocation field of the infobox.
  • Example:  National Highway 1
• |text=infobox will produce the labels for multiple routes small text, following the name, which is inputed using |name= parameter.
  • Example:  Kwinana Freeway (National Route 1 / State Route 2)
• |text=rjl can be used for junction list tables. These are more complicated. The display is dependant on the names entered using parameters |name1= to |name4= for road names (with wikilinks if appropriate). Concurrencies are formed by skipping a name#. Directions can be assigned to each named road using |ndir1= to |ndir=. Directions can be separately assigned to each route using |rdir1= to |rdir4=. Roads without shields and destinations can be tacked on at the end.
  • Examples:  Foo Highway (National Highway 1) east
  •  Another Highway (National Highway 1 north / A1 south / State Route 3)
  •  First Street (National Highway 1 north / A1 south) / Second Road (State Route 3) east
  •  Named Highway (National Highway 1 north / National Route 1 south) / Second Road (State Route 1) east / Some Street (Tourist Drive 2) north-east

Some more work will be required for alternate/business routes also work: File:Australian national route BUS15.svg Business National Route 15;  Albany Highway (Alternate State Route 30). Additional testing would be appreciated. - Evad37 (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice work Evad . The RJL function could be a little restrictive in style (see Monaro Highway and Silver City Highway, for what Ive been working with recently), its definitely a good start though. Your first example isnt displaying the "east" in the first example btw either. -- Nbound (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I wouldn't recommend listing the internal road number - seems like too much detail for outside a road's specific article. However, I'll have a look at adding |altname1= to |altname4= parameters to allow for alternate road names or numbers. Some other style issues can be resolved through template usage, ie to have one line per road use separate template instances for each line (as per current situation). Let me know if there are any other style issues (but it would certainly be easier to code for a single style). And the example is now fixed, I forgot the 1 after the ndir. - Evad37 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

 Added support for alternate names:  Foo Highway (National Highway 1 / Bar Road) - Evad37 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ive added them because the sources often refer to the road classifications rather than the names. For example it's actually quite hard to discuss the history of the Monaro Highway without discussing the interplay between State Highway 4 and State Highway 19. Especially in that case keeping in mind the former originally had the latter's current name. Similarly many roads were classified as highways long before they were named and its handy to have a single name to refer to a route in its entirety. The signed route number, where it exists will always be listed first (and AUshielded), as would be expected. -- Nbound (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Testing

Labels

•  National Highway 1
•  National Highway M1
•  National Highway 23
•  National Route 1
•  Alternate National Route 23
•  State Route 2
•  Alternate State Route 30
•  A1
•  C80
•  M2
•  Alternate Route A2
•  B90
•  B34
•  B400
•  M1
•  B23
•  Metroad 1
•  Tourist Drive 2
•  Tourist Drive 3
• File:Australian national route BUS15.svg Business National Route 15
•  Melbourne Ring Road 80
•  F3 Freeway
•  Sydney Ring Road 5
•  
•  

Infobox list

•  Some Highway (National Highway 1)
•  Some Highway (National Route 1 / State Route 2)
•  Some Highway (M1 / A1 / B100)
• File:Australian national route BUS15.svg Some Highway (Metroad 1 / Tourist Drive 2 / Business National Route 15 / National Highway 23)

Comments

•  F3 Freeway - The appropriate route name for this shield would be "F3 Freeway", or if thats hard "Freeway route F3", "Freeway route 3", or "Freeway 3" -- Nbound (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Fixed - Evad37 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

RJL Testing

Single road

No directions

•  Some Highway (National Highway 1)
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1)
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1 / State Route 1)
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1 / State Route 1 / Tourist Drive 1)

Road direction

•  Some Highway (National Highway 1) north
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1) north
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1 / State Route 1) north
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1 / State Route 1 / Tourist Drive 1) north

Route directions

•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 north)
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 north / National Route 1 south)
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 north / National Route 1 / State Route 1 east)
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 north / National Route 1 / State Route 1 / Tourist Drive 1 west)

Two roads

•  Some Highway (National Highway 1) west / Another Road east
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1) west / Another Road (National Route 1) east
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1) west / Another Road (National Route 1 / State Route 1) east
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1) west / Another Road (State Route 1) east
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1) west / Another Road (National Route 1 / State Route 1 / Tourist Drive 1) east
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1) west / Another Road (State Route 1 / Tourist Drive 1) east
•  Some Highway (National Highway 1 / National Route 1 / State Route 1) west / Another Road (Tourist Drive 1) east
•  Great Northern Highway (National Highway 95 north / National Route 1) / Reid Highway (State Route 3) west

Shield moves - Part II

So I was thinking today, as we are tagging these as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} - then it means that AU users should not be uploading them or using them in maps.

So what does this mean? We need to-

• Remove all shields as they were transferred from Commons by an Aussie. US user can re-upload the existing shields created by Fredddie [US user]. (ie. majority of most sets)
• Redirect any remaining shields to wherever they were previously - Until such time a willing US user creates them (from scratch - not copies) - this affects the non-NSW alphas and tourist shields mostly - with some of the variations of the others aswell.
• Remove all maps and either recreate with different yet relatable symbols - or perhaps organise the shield additions by a US editor?

Best this is done now before we have too many maps to mess around with.

Pinging User:Evad37 and User:Fredddie as likely interested parties. -- Nbound (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

... is this at all necessary? Per Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction_and_legality_of_content, the relevant jurisdiction is the US, where the images are PD – regardless of who made them, or where they are made. So why should they be deleted, given that Wikipedia only cares about US copyright law? (see also: Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights) - Evad37 (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they were created in, and uploaded from Australia. While their existence on a US server is likely just fine, I dont think we should be suggesting editors put themselves at future risk (however unlikely) for creating content. In part that is what is implied in that linked text. -- Nbound (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think that's a rational for deleting. And are we actually suggesting editors put themselves at risk? Not explicitly, as far as I can see. Also, from the Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights page:

"It is the responsibility of contributors to determine that content they wish to contribute is free of copyright constraints in the United States and to supply as much copyright information as possible so that users can judge for themselves whether they can reuse our material outside the United States. It is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that their use of Wikipedia material is legal in the country in which they use it." (emphasis added)

And the {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} tag already gives a warning that "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country". I wouldn't be opposed to creating/adding a more explicit warning template, but I don't think deleting files, or removing them until a US editor can recreate and reupload them, is the way to go. - Evad37 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The risk isnt from improper reuse or their existence on WP servers - its from the creation and upload itself, separate to WP - I wasnt proposing we remove them right now... Theres no point breaking AUshield for it. Just reupload the new set, delete the existing set, and then recreate the stragglers over the coming weeks. If you personally are comfortable with re-creating/re-uploading these shields yourself then perhaps you could do so. -- Nbound (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that anything needs to be done. As I told Nbound on IRC, I think he's overreacting a bit, which is not necessarily a bad thing. –Fredddie™ 00:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If I am overreacting - then this shouldnt be a major issue for people to sort out (yeah it might be a little bit annoying, but Im sure I will make it back up in articles/reviews/templates/other content if i havent already). I personally am not comfortable with it. -- Nbound (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If an Australian court decides that the shields are copyrighted artworks, and a court decides that the use isn't fair dealing, then the uploader could face legal problems if the copyright holder decides to sue the uploader. It is up to the uploader to decide whether he or she dares to upload the files or not. If the uploader lives outside Australia, the uploader might be able to escape from legal problems by simply choosing to remain outside Australia for the rest of his life, but if the uploader lives in Australia or wishes to visit the country at some point in the future, he may be more concerned about Australian laws. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Stefan2, this is exactly what Im getting at, I created a portion of these, and I moved the entirety of them from Commons, not realising such issues. As such I would really prefer if we re-do them. -- Nbound (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright

I am well aware of the unique situation of the Aboriginal flag (which I strongly believe is a politically-charged anomaly, not the standard as there are no similar cases by which this level of TOO has been affirmed), but even then a lot of these are not copyrightable by that standard. Some of the more complicated shapes there can be a discussion, but as far as I'm concerned the most basic design consisting of only a rectangle and alphanumerics is not copyrightable by a long stretch. It just simply is not. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not upto us to judge why the case went the way it did. Only to react to it. None of us are lawyers. -- Nbound ([hou[User talk:Nbound|talk]]) 02:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my point, which is actually two-fold. Firstly, I've been working on copyright issues on Commons for 2 years and have been aware of the Aboriginal Flag issue for nearly as long. So far, no other has case been provided to us to substantiate this supposed extremely strict level of TOO. That's why I don't believe it's genuine. Secondly however, even if it is the real standard of TOO in Australia, this is even more simple and not copyrightable by that standard. The other shapes of the signs as I said it can be a discussion, but two rectangles and a circle (the flag) does not translate to one rectangle and 3 basic characters. I've also had trouble finding the actual DR/discussion regarding these files when they were on Commons, was there one? From what I've seen, this didn't go through a proper community discussion. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

These signs seem to be about as complex as the EDGE logo and the Aboriginal flag. The Australian law is similar to the British law, so British examples might be directly comparable to Australian examples. I think that one problem is that the court rulings only tell that the EDGE logo and the Aboriginal flags are too complex, without telling how far further down we have to go before we get below the threshold of originality. It would be good if we could find some examples of something which is uncopyrightable in Australia. The reverse problem exists in some other countries such as Germany where we only have examples of things which aren't copyrightable; we don't know how far up we can go before we reach the threshold.

I think that these are borderline cases and that Commons:COM:PRP would favour deletion from Commons. However, I am also interested in knowing the age of the signs. Government works have a copyright term of 50 years, so if any of these signs were set up more than 50 years ago, then those signs should unambiguously be in the public domain.

You should also not overlook Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. which suggests that some of our SVG files are copyrighted as computer software even if the underlying artwork might be ineligible for copyright or too old for copyright. For that reason, it may be necessary to identify the person who wrote the SVG code and ask that person to add a free licence covering the software coding. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fry1989: If I understand what you're saying, the Aboriginal flag is not copyrighted because it doesn't meet the TOO, but because it's the Aboriginal flag? If that's the case, to me, the TOO is raised significantly. –Fredddie™ 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed they were moved as under the precautionary principle. Its not known for certain if they are copyrighted. (Its not known for certain with many things until its tested). But they have been moved just in case. User:Stefan2 brings up a good point aswell -- Nbound (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Stefan, the standards agency that we can best tell holds the copyright has an agreement with the government for their status, but is not part of the government. Meaning it would have 70years at least, there were no shields in use 70yrs ago. -- Nbound (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, the font is owned by the US FHWA, which i dont beleive is covered under the US MUTCD release, Ive just found out.

04

Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any items owned by FHWA.

Given the fonts issue, at the very best we are looking at non-free content (which would require a rethink on our approach to articles); and at worst - deletion, and using other imagery to depict and describe shielding (shields already have a relatively minor position in most AU articles). Presumably this is also why they have never released the font. Instead the "roadgeek" series was created to emulate it. Using a copy of a possibly dubious (copyright-wise) source is not the best approach -- Nbound (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There is also the possible issue of design patents too, both to the fonts, and the markers themselves. Which last 5/10 years in AU and 14 in the US. -- Nbound (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Typefaces are not subject to copyright in the United States, so this is a non-starter. –Fredddie™ 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the court case above. Digitised fonts, specifically non-bitmap types, are most definitely covered under copyright in the United States. And it is known that roadgeek is an exact or very near copy of the FHWA fonts which have been digitised in a non-bitmap form for many years. This also does not negate any possible issues with design patents. Design patent issues, to the best of my knowledge, can only be avoided by using their own supplied imagery, not creating our own -- Nbound (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The court case means that if you make a vectorisation of a shield, for example by creating an SVG file, then you have created computer software, and you are the copyright holder to that computer software. If I make an SVG vectorisation based on the same shield, then I am the copyright holder to that vectorisation. If you and I both started from the same bitmap file, and the vectorisations were created independently of each other, then there is no derivative work issue, and we both hold exclusive rights to our own versions. I assume that there also is a threshold of originality for computer software and that some vectorisations are below the threshold of originality, in particular if you just use the default options in a computer program without changing anything yourself. However, the threshold of originality for SVG files hasn't been discussed very much on Commons, so it isn't very clear when an SVG file needs permission from the coder or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Back to NFCC versus deletion - looking through the NFCC criteria these images wouldnt qualify due to lack of publication (they were new creations, not copied from a site/page/book/image) - I think deletion is our only safe option. I am aware that this wont make some people very happy and may require a rethink on how AURD approaches its articles. It shouldnt mean though that we cant use any images of these shields, we just have to be smarter about it . Remember we are to try and work safely within the law, not push it to see what we can get away with. -- Nbound (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We have the following issues:

• Dubious (digitised) font sourcing (this affects all roads projects to some extent I guess)
• Potential design patent issues on user-made shielding (possibly excepting most/all US shields from my understanding of their MUTCD)
• Potential issues for non-US uploaders/contributors of content.
• No AU shield is unequivocally in the public domain (PD-AU or PD-US) due to age yet (nor will be for quite a few years), and even if they were it may only affect the older designs.
• No clear boundaries as to what even constitutes basic shapes. Even if most AU shields could be PD-ineligible disregarding all other issues (and probably are), some may not be. (ALT shielding? Tourist routes? - The more complex styles Ive already slapped with an NFCC [Melbourne Ring Roads, Sydney Freeways] - but its looking like ill have to propose deletion on those soon as they weren't previously published).

The status of these images is anything but clear - and as such we should not be keeping them.

From the legally influenced WP policy - Wikipedia:Copyright violations: But, in short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable.

-- Nbound (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts says "In short: Scalable fonts as such are copyrighted as computer programs; typefaces as such may be protected by design patents, and, in a few countries, by copyright; actual use of the typeface is not restricted, even if the font used was based illegally on a protected typeface." Is this incorrect?
• Regarding the patent issues, don't they have to be registered? If this is so, then unless there is evidence that registration has occurred, this probably isn't an issue
• They don't have to be PD due to age, if they are PD (in the U.S.) for another reason.
• ALT plates and the like can use the US version, which although slightly different, is definitely PD. This is what the ALT State Route shields already use.
• If you want to propose much stricter usage of {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-shape}}, {{PD-textlogo}} and the like, that probably requires a larger community discussion on Wikipedia and/or Commons. - Evad37 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• As Stefan2 states, the SVG files fit under the computer program legal definition, in that it provides a series of instructions to render the font. This is opposed to a bitmap image where there are no instructions to render the font, just pixels to colour. So yes, because these images arent just using the font, they are creating it from scratch with each render - it is copyrighted.
• They need to be unequivocally PD in AU to not risk legal trouble for editors in AU. Being non-eligible in the US does not matter in AU. - If you truly feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, then you should have no problems creating your own shields an accepting any risk for yourself. Dont hang me out to dry with these. Similarly its not fair on anyone else who creates an image, not knowing the potential issues.
• You cant combine PD-ineligible files very much without it no longer being PD-ineligible - the image is treated as a whole as well as individually. On the side: Its not uncommon to use separate ALT plates in AU anyway (ACT, NSW do it at least). Its possibly an improvement, but the resultant file is likely to be too similar to real world implementations.

-- Nbound (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to the font issue, there is already a template, stating exactly what has been said: {{PD-font-USonly}} -- Nbound (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Stefan2 and I have been looking along the same vein again. Given that SVGs are classed as computer software. PD-ineligible-USonly does not cover them - they arent legally images in the US - they are a computer program (or in more familiar computer terms - a script) that will create an image whenever run. As such we are likely infringing the signage, and any application used to create the signage. We could probably NFCC them and use them at low res only if they were official releases, but they arent, they are editor-made. The only safe move is to delete them. -- Nbound (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you made the SVG files yourself, all you need to do is to mention that you made the file and add {{cc-zero}} or some other free licence template for the SVG code. The copyright belongs to the person who created the SVG files. Also, I would assume that some SVG files are {{PD-ineligible}} due to them being very simple computer programs, but there isn't much information at Commons:COM:TOO about that, so we don't know exactly how much would be required to gain copyright protection. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

As per below, they were substantially copied from vectorised plans. I am not comfortable licensing the SVG code in any case. -- Nbound (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a fair amount of them and I am comfortable licensing them. –Fredddie™ 22:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Then Ill arrange deletion now for all of my imagery - there is still the font issue, and the fact they were copied from vectorised plans. -- Nbound (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldnt personally do it or recommend it - but a less problematic path could be NFCC screenshots of TraSiCAD (or similar software) with mockups of signage or a shield. -- Nbound (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

SVGs aren't magically subject to copyright as computer programs. The file format is an open standard that was developed in 1999 unlike the various font formats that are under copyright. The closest analogy deals with the patents behind the GIF format that one company was using to assert various licensing requirements, but yet SVG is "owned" by the W3C. SVGs, unlike fonts, do not carry scaling information in the specific files; rather each file contains simple instructions for the vectors that make up the image. It's up to software, like a web browser or an image editor like inkscape, to interpret and scale the file for display. Fonts, on the other hand, contain scaling and kerning information to tell whatever software using a font, like your word processor or a graphics program, how to space letter pairs apart or how to align letters to the baseline. The underlying typeface is not subject to copyright protection (and in fact the FHWA Highway Gothic series is specifically in the public domain as a product of the federal government), but the fonts for computer use contain additional information that is subject to copyright protection as computer code.

So long as letters and numbers are converted to paths or outlines (depending on the terminology used by your vector image editor), they are no longer a "font", but just shapes of letters. A simple combination of letters and numbers on a colored background is just too simple to merit copyright protection. After all, the Coca-Cola or IBM logos are just text, yet they are in the public domain. There may be trademarks, but that doesn't affect copyright. So long as trademarked text is not used disparagingly, it's not a trademark infringement for the simple purposes Wikipedia uses. As for design patents, those apply to industrial designs for physical shapes, like the design of a computer case, to prevent competitors from producing look-a-like knock-offs. One of Samsung's phones was judged to look to similar to an older, but still produced, model of Apple's iPhone. Given the simplicity of a road sign, no design patent would apply.

In short, I think you guys are suffering from an unsupported case of copyright paranoia here. Imzadi 1979 → 19:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An SVG file is essentially the same as a font, but without scaling information. If you make a font or an SVG file, you choose certain geometric shapes such as lines and arcs, and you choose how many of these you should have and in which order they should be drawn. On the other hand, in pixel graphics, the drawing order is arbitrary, and you only have pre-rendered images without the geometric shapes from vector formats. These differences aren't visible when you look at something on a screen, but are as far as I have understood the reason for the ruling in the case Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. The designer of a file format can of course not claim any generic copyright to all files in that file format. As most SVG files on Wikipedia appear to be user-created, this is not a big problem as the uploaders simply can choose a licence for their files.

SVG files additionally have the feature that they are text files: you could edit a file in a text editor, and you could write the source code in a creative way and include comments in the source code. The source code is therefore sometimes copyrightable as a textual document. This should mainly be the case if you edit the source code manually in a text editor.

Of course, there are many computer programs which are below the threshold of originality. For example, you can't get any copyright protection for a standard "hello world" program. Compare with opening a pixel file in Inkscape, telling the program to trace an SVG file from the pixels and doing no further modifications. This should create no new copyright as the process is fully automated. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We agree on the key point here: SVGs aren't going to be subject to some copyright the same way fonts are. Honestly, the issues surrounding the SVG format's use on Wikipedia also surround the inclusion of other file formats: PDFs can be uploaded here, GIF has actual patent and licensing issues, etc. Trying to blame the SVG format is looking for a tempest in a teapot. Any issue you attempt raise here, if followed through to a logical conclusion, means we couldn't use any SVGs at all, yet that's not the case.

The key issue is the underlying copyright to the sign image itself. USRD is auditing, researching, and updating file licenses on the thousands of shields we use. Realistically, the end result won't be any deletions or conversions to NFC, just clarifications in file description pages on Commons. In many cases, this is because the original uploader "released" or "licensed" his/her work creating a graphic of a design they don't own. The underlying design will be PD for any of a number of reasons, and we just need to correct the license to the proper reason(s).

I think you guys need to take some time off and come back to this topic with a fresh perspective. You also need some outside perspective before any action is taken. Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

USRD is largely, if not completely unaffected by this as your imagery is publically released. Ours isnt, given that these shields use the shapes embedded in the PDF shield plans directly (not by tracing, they were already vectorised), they are substantially copied. They werent drawn entirely by hand - if they were, which is the case of the majority of WP SVGs, then there would be much less of an issue. Obviously any SVG is much much more complex than a Hello World program. Again, the only safe option is deletion. Even if all the above werent true, if its not obvious by this part of the conversation, Im not comfortable licensing the SVGs Ive created. -- Nbound (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Rolling back to the previous imagery would seem possibly another way to get around this -- Nbound (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry fellas I've been away for a bit. What I'm saying is yes, I strongly believe that the Aboriginal flag is copyrighted more for political sensitivity than any threshold of originality concerns. I base this assumption on the fact that in the odd year and half that I've been aware of the matter on Commons, not a single other case of such strict TOO in Australia has been provided by which this can be substantiated. Secondly, even if it is the standard am I am mistaken, the complexity of File:New South Wales alphanumeric route B95.svg is even less than the flag. I will maintain this belief until such time as the TOO for two rectangles and a circle (which the flag consists of) is proven by a similar case. On Commons, we have several entries for TOO in various countries which allows us to form an understanding of where the bar for national threshold of originality is set. For Australia, the Aboriginal flag is the only entry we have, and using a single case as the bar by which we judge everything simple makes no sense. I've worked on copyright on Commons for a long time, I'm not a noob to the matter, and while I fully accept I may be wrong, I don't think I am. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the reasoning for the case. Saying something has a "political sensitivity" and that it is your opinion really has little legal bearing on whether they are PD in Australia or not, but we are now well beyond that - given there are now some serious doubts to the US legality of these files. -- Nbound (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How about using WP:REVDEL to remove Nbound's involvement, at least for the files he moved from Commons but didn't create? ( ping admin @Rschen7754: ) - Evad37 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not under policy, we can't (either the revdel or OS policy), though you are welcome to email Legal. --Rschen7754 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done, or the liason at least - I was told I may get faster response there - but any details as to who to email would be appreciated -- Nbound (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That should be fine, but I kinda doubt that legal will see any reason to oversight that information. --Rschen7754 03:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I do think we could use User:Moonriddengirl's copyright expertise here, as I think there's a lot of misinformation flying around. In volunteer capacity, of course. --Rschen7754 03:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)