Bad heraldry

Wikipedia in the news - rip and read.
User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
kołdry
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Bad heraldry

Unread post by Mancunium » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:58 am

Kommunvapen byts ut på Wikipedia – "problematiskt"
Sveriges Radio, 16 September 2014 linkhttp://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.as ... el=5966219[/link]

Google-translation from Swedish linkhttp://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.as ... el=5966219[/link]
I have corrected the article somewhat, as it is about coats of arms, not "weapons", as Google Translate would have it.
Municipality coats of arms replaced on Wikipedia - "problematic"

Wikipedia's own interpretation of the Swedish municipality coat of arms is a problem for all Swedish municipalities, according to the National Archives Herald Henrik Klackenberg. Among other things, Oskarshamn city arms have been removed from Wikipedia and replaced by another version several times. On Wikipedia, the encyclopedia on the Internet where anyone can go in and edit what it says, has instead an unofficial version published and representatives of Oskarshamn Municipality has tried to get this corrected several times without success. Since 29 August, there is now a coat of arms on on Wikipedia, but not municipal official version that has a mural crown in the top of the shield. This may be due to mural crowns protected by copyright rules, but from the municipality sees anything that the official version is used. " It's in the right direction, but I do not understand why you can not use the official version when we ourselves make this point, it says Ted Lindquist, Marketing Manager at Oskarshamn. [...] long and intense discussions on municipal arms have been common on Wikipedia. Often copyrights mentioned as a reason to publish unofficial arms. "This is not just a problem in Oskarshamn, it is a problem for all Swedish municipalities and authorities" said Royal Herald Henrik Klackenberg. According to him, Wikipedia has its own heraldic who draw their coats of arms based on the rules for Swedish arms, the so-called blazon. [...] The National Archives provides since May pictures of correct weapon free for Wikipedia and others through the image bank Wikimedia Commons. Nevertheless, it is still not certain that the version that appears on Wikipedia is the same as used officially by example municipalities. The official versions should be used, says Henrik Klackenberg ... I think Wikipedia goes too far in its concern for copyright right here.
Also covered here:

Wikipedia plockade bort rätt stadsvapen
Barometern-OT, 16 September 2014 linkhttp://www.barometern.se/nyheter/oskars ... T+Nyheter)[/link]

Wikimedia Commons' Category:Heraldry is an unorganized mess, run by amateurs with a bit of knowledge who believe they are experts. It would be so easy to make it a useful resource.
former Living Person

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:25 pm

Several of the interesting individuals who habituate in Wikipedia's heraldry collective are the sort that believe that they know better than official sources. Thus, they are perfectly willing to replace the officially accepted coat of arms of some entity with what they believe to be the correct coat of arms based on their own (often idiosyncratic) interpretation of the heraldic description (or at least some variant of it), and will go to indefinite lengths to fight for what they are truly convinced is the correct presentation. Another popular belief with amateur heralds is that any depiction that is consistent with the heraldic description is "accurate" and thus interchangeable with any other depiction; it is this belief that is (at least in part) probably driving the issue with this Swedish municipality.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by Ming » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:24 pm

What's driving it, at least in part, is that drawing arms from a blazon avoids copyright violations.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:26 pm

Ming wrote:What's driving it, at least in part, is that drawing arms from a blazon avoids copyright violations.
Or, rather, the belief that doing so avoids copyright "violations". The term "copyright violation" is Wikijargon, by the way; the actual term is "copyright infringement". Wikipedians have developed an increasingly idiosyncratic conceptualization of copyright law, one which has become increasingly detached from what the law actually is over time. I am in no way convinced that recreating a crest or coat of arms by following the heraldic description (as opposed to by photographing it or digitally reproducing someone else's form) avoids an infringement; I can readily see arguments on either side of that coin and I'm not aware of any actual ruling of law on the matter. Frankly, I think the whole position is a sophistry to justify putting their own executions of the crests in place of those favored by the entity whom the crest actually represents.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by EricBarbour » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:06 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:Several of the interesting individuals who habituate in Wikipedia's heraldry collective are the sort that believe that they know better than official sources. Thus, they are perfectly willing to replace the officially accepted coat of arms of some entity with what they believe to be the correct coat of arms based on their own (often idiosyncratic) interpretation of the heraldic description (or at least some variant of it), and will go to indefinite lengths to fight for what they are truly convinced is the correct presentation. Another popular belief with amateur heralds is that any depiction that is consistent with the heraldic description is "accurate" and thus interchangeable with any other depiction; it is this belief that is (at least in part) probably driving the issue with this Swedish municipality.
At the moment, they list 156 members. Other than known trolls Tyciol and Zscout, who would you point to and say, "bad editor"?

User avatar
Stierlitz
Regular
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:34 am
Wikipedia User: not a Wikipedian
Wikipedia Review Member: N/A
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by Stierlitz » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:30 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:Several of the interesting individuals who habituate in Wikipedia's heraldry collective are the sort that believe that they know better than official sources. Thus, they are perfectly willing to replace the officially accepted coat of arms of some entity with what they believe to be the correct coat of arms based on their own (often idiosyncratic) interpretation of the heraldic description (or at least some variant of it), and will go to indefinite lengths to fight for what they are truly convinced is the correct presentation. Another popular belief with amateur heralds is that any depiction that is consistent with the heraldic description is "accurate" and thus interchangeable with any other depiction; it is this belief that is (at least in part) probably driving the issue with this Swedish municipality.
At the moment, they list 156 members. Other than known trolls Tyciol and Zscout, who would you point to and say, "bad editor"?
Heraldry is just one of those things where you need actual trained experts, not self-taught hacks.

I would not say "bad editor"; I would say "bad collective."

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by EricBarbour » Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:52 am

Stierlitz wrote:Heraldry is just one of those things where you need actual trained experts, not self-taught hacks.

I would not say "bad editor"; I would say "bad collective."
Perhaps, although you ought to look at Zscout370 (T-H-L)'s history to get an idea of what happens when a hopelessly ADHD nerd calls himself an "expert" in heraldry or flags. Or anything else. Ask Jimbo!

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:52 am

EricBarbour wrote:Although you ought to look at Zscout370 (T-H-L)'s history to get an idea of what happens when a hopelessly ADHD nerd calls himself an "expert" in heraldry or flags.
Despite whatever problems Zach may have within Wikipedia's culture, he is a generally recognized expert in the area of vexillology. His name appears frequently in the annals of the NAVA and IAV, and the current legal specification of the flag of the state of Arkansas is his work. Zach may well be a nerd, but that doesn't preclude him from knowing what the hell he's talking about. His problems at Wikipedia are more because he was a poor match for its culture, not because of any real failing of his own.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by EricBarbour » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:03 am

Perhaps NAVA "recognizes" him, but my own searches tend to bring up things like this. Lots of activity when he was a schoolboy, but nothing recent.

http://www.nava.org/protected/maillists ... 00150.html
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/vexicvup.html
http://flags-of-the-world.net/flags/by.html
http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/ufe05.html

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Bad heraldry

Unread post by Mancunium » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:27 am

Kelly Martin wrote:
Ming wrote:What's driving it, at least in part, is that drawing arms from a blazon avoids copyright violations.
Or, rather, the belief that doing so avoids copyright "violations". The term "copyright violation" is Wikijargon, by the way; the actual term is "copyright infringement". Wikipedians have developed an increasingly idiosyncratic conceptualization of copyright law, one which has become increasingly detached from what the law actually is over time. I am in no way convinced that recreating a crest or coat of arms by following the heraldic description (as opposed to by photographing it or digitally reproducing someone else's form) avoids an infringement; I can readily see arguments on either side of that coin and I'm not aware of any actual ruling of law on the matter. Frankly, I think the whole position is a sophistry to justify putting their own executions of the crests in place of those favored by the entity whom the crest actually represents.
I discussed this in another thread on this site: linkviewtopic.php?p=49451#p49451[/link]
Nobody is required to provide an passable image of their Coat of Arms to Wikimedia Commons, I believe; and in creating their ugly version of [x]'s the Wikimedia Foundation has committed a theft. The Arms of Englishmen and of Scots are private property, and may not be displayed without permission. That the WMF has not yet been taken to court on this issue is no guarantee that they will not be at a later date.

I would refer their legal counsel to this helpful WP article on the High Court of Chivalry: linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Chivalry[/link]
Her Majesty's High Court of Chivalry of England and Wales is a civil court in England. It has had jurisdiction in cases of the misuse of heraldic arms since the fourteenth century.

The sole judge is now the hereditary Earl Marshal of England, the Duke of Norfolk, though he normally delegates his responsibility to a professional lawyer as his Surrogate. Before 1521, the Lord High Constable of England also presided, but that office was abolished as a permanent institution (it is "revived" only for a Coronation).

The court was last convened in 1954 for the case of Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties Ltd [1955] P 133; [1955] 1 All ER 387; prior to this, the Court had not sat for some centuries and before hearing the case, the Court first had to rule whether it still existed.[1] The Palace theatre displayed the arms of Manchester City Council both inside and on its seal and this usage implied that it was linked with the City's Council. The City Council had requested that the theatre cease the usage and had met with refusal. The court ruled in favour of Manchester City Council.

More recently, in Oct 2012, Aberystwyth Town Council declared its intention to take legal action against a Facebook page displaying unauthorised use of its coat of arms: these were subsequently removed.[2]

Historically, the court was also known as Curia Militaris, the Court of the Constable and the Marshal, and the Earl Marshal's Court.[3]

In Scotland, these types of cases are heard in the Court of the Lord Lyon, which is a standing civil and criminal court, with its own Procurator Fiscal (Public Prosecutor) under the Scottish legal system.

Since 1832, appeals from the High Court of Chivalry are to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.[4] Before 1 February 1833, in common with the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts, appeal from the Court was to the Crown in Chancery, with appeals being heard by Commissioners appointed by letters patent under the Great Seal in each case.[5] Sittings by these Commissioners became known as the "High Court of Delegates" by the time of the 1832 Act.[6]
I advise Jimbo to read the whole article.
Also here: linkviewtopic.php?p=49455#p49455[/link]
While there are many lawyers who would be thrilled at the opportunity to test the laws of chivalry, I'm sure the WMF would find it ruinous to take a case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and humiliating to make the inner workings and personnel of WM Commons a public spectacle.
And here: linkviewtopic.php?p=49500#p49500[/link]
Mancunium wrote:Arms are incorporeal hereditaments, and are private property in any jurisdiction which has an heraldic authority. linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditament[/link]
Examples of incorporeal hereditaments are hereditary titles of honor or dignity, heritable titles of office, coats of arms, Prescriptive Barony, rights of way, tithes, advowsons, pensions, annuities, rents, franchises, etc. The term is still used in the phrase "lands, tenements and hereditaments" to describe property in land, as from goods and chattels or movable property.
In Canada, where this has been tested in the Supreme Court, the blazon of an Achievement of Arms is copyright-protected, and not just exemplifications thereof. linkhttp://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=15390&lan=eng[/link]
9.(1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for...

(n.1) any armorial bearings granted, recorded or approved for use by a recipient pursuant to the prerogative powers of Her Majesty as exercised by the Governor General in respect of the granting of armorial bearings, if the Registrar of Trade-marks has, at the request of the Governor General, given public notice of the grant, recording or approval...

(2) Nothing in this section prevents the adoption, use or registration as a trade-mark or otherwise, in connection with a business, of any mark: (a) described in subsection (1) with the consent of Her Majesty or such other person, society, authority or organization as may be considered to have been intended to be protected by this section.
In Scotland, what WP Commons is doing is a criminal offence. linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_t ... on_of_arms[/link]
The protection of the rights to arms is of signal importance because of the fact that persons and corporation have paid fees to the Crown in return for exclusive rights to use those armorial bearings. A coat of arms can only belong to one particular person at a time. Without such protection, a coat of arms would be useless as a form of identification and worthless as a piece of private property.Furthermore, a misappropriation or unauthorised use (displaying or usurping) of a man's coat of arms is still considered a 'real injury' under Scottish common law.[2]

Accordingly an owner of a Scottish coat of arms may obtain a judicial order in the Court against anybody using his arms.
...
The Lyon Court, like all Scottish courts has a public prosecutor; styled 'Procurator Fiscal to Lyon Court', who is independently appointed by the Scottish Ministers. He raises proceedings, when necessary, against those who improperly usurp armorial bearings. The punishment for this offence is set out in several Scottish statutes acts. The court has the power to fine and to ensure items bearing the offending Arms are removed, destroyed or forfeited.
Analogous laws in England are still on the books. The High Court of Chivalry case in 1954 was held precisely to demonstrate this fact.
The court was last convened in 1954 for the case of Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties Ltd [1955] P 133; [1955] 1 All ER 387; prior to this, the Court had not sat for some centuries and before hearing the case, the Court first had to rule whether it still existed.[1]
Instead of making silly pseudo-legal threats, why don't you just get somebody to replace the crap version of the arms with a good one?
-Hex
I made no silly pseudo-threats. I was giving advice I had hoped would be passed on to the WMF.

I like you, Hex, but you obviously think that a Coat of Arms is a drawing on a piece of paper; the crap "version" in Commons is not the point. Any representation of personal Arms is protected as private property in the UK. Unfortunately, it is typical of WP editors to believe that their education is complete, that they understand things they do not, and to think that everyone harmed by WP has a duty to either surrender their rights and collaborate, or retain counsel. If WP did not chase away everyone with actual knowledge, it would be informative.
former Living Person

Post Reply