I am looking at some highy geometric flags used by the the extended LGBT community.

Many of these are not able to be copyrighted (according to wikimedia) Because the consist only of:

  • Choice of Color
  • Geometric Shapes

and these factors do not contribute to the creation of an original work.

Several of the flags I am looking at. For example:

Agender Flag     Genderfluid Flag       Genderqueer Flag
Agender      Genderfluid,       Genderqueer

All of which are listed on Wiki-Commons as are licensed under CC-BY-SA.

Since they are not (AFAICT) copyright-able. Are these licenses thus void? And so can I include it into my own open-sourced work without issue?

Does the validity of the license stem from the validity of the original copyright?

  • This should really be migrated to Law. Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 0:04
  • 1
    @curiousdannii Why? I mean It on topic on Law (probably, I'm not sure). But its definitely on topic here too (isn't it?). Please go into more details. (I guess the relevant meta is meta.opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11). I guess it could be argued that it applies equally to general licenses as it does to the CC licenses involved. but I'm not so sure that is itself makes it off topic. hmmmm Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 0:33
  • 1
    I see this site as concerning the use and application of FLOSS licenses. To be an expert on this site it is usually enough to be a careful reader of the terms of a license. But the terms of licenses don't address whether a work is actually copyrightable (or I'm not aware of any that do). To answer that kind of question you need someone with copyright law expertise, which is why I think it would be much better suited to the Law site. Also, your question would be the same if the images had some kind of non-FLOSS license, which shows it doesn't really fit here. Hope that makes sense. Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 1:28
  • 1
    I hear what you are saying, for sure. Focusing on my particular case: the question of "X has a license but is not copyright-able; can I incorporate it into my open source project Y, and ignore its license entirely?" While the liscense on X could be open or closed and it would not change the question. The liscense on Y is open source, and thus highly relevant and on topic. (It is central to the creation of things like Wiki Source, Project Guttenburge etc. which incorporate versions of public domain works that never the less publishers put licenses on (at least at one point in time.)) Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 2:02
  • Closely related/Possible Duplicate of: opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2716/… ? Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 2:02

1 Answer 1


If there is no copyright, then open source licenses generally do not bind you.

Whether there is copyright in this case is a legal question, for your (company's) lawyer(s). You should not assume this is the case, if it at all matters.

  • Whether or not a work passes the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright is generally for a court of law to decide. A lawyer might only give their estimation how they expect a court would rule in a specific case.
    – Philipp
    Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 16:14
  • @Philipp: You don't want to go to court. It's terribly expensive. Start with the lawyers and see what they tell you.
    – Kevin
    Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 16:15
  • A lawyer would very likely tell you the same: "In case ABC vs. DEF the court WXY ruled that a similar design is [not] eligible for copyright, but in this specific case there is a chance a judge would rule differently"
    – Philipp
    Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 16:19
  • @Philipp: Or maybe they'll say "there is no precedent to support your case and you should not try this." You don't know until you ask.
    – Kevin
    Commented Apr 25, 2016 at 16:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.