User talk:Quadell/copyright

You write: "If a work was prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Federal Government, or of the State Government of California, as part of that person's official duties, then it is not copyrightable and is thus in the public domain." Does this mean that a court order like this one is in the public domain ? --84.139.58.18 12:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, court orders are in the public domain. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

About aircraft drawings
I'm not an expert about these copyrights-related matters at all, but could you please explain?

Looking at the histories of Image:Bristol 198.jpg and Image:Bristol 223.jpg, once you put {unverified}, then changed them to {PD-ineligible}. I mean, I'm not so sure those drawings contain "no new creative content whatsoever" and are "not copyrightable". This concern came from a past discussion on ja.wp.

Once on ja.wp, a similar drawing scanned from an old publication of the aeronautical society of Japan, was rejected to be treated as PD and deleted after the discussion at village pump (link to the log (Japanese)). In this case, they regared it as copyrighted work (without doubts), and the discussion focused on whether or not the copyright is valid today, then the conclusion came: "No-go. The copyright might not be dissapered yet"...

So I'd like to ask you those drawings really are PD or not. If there are sources that assure these drawings are PD, please tell me thier existance (not necessarily show me all of them, because I'm afraid I cannot understand anyway...). Or, the nonexistence of the confirmation that they are copyrighted is the answer...? - Marsian // talk 2005-07-01 13:58:00 (UTC) - Marsian // talk 2005-07-02 03:24:44 (UTC) added


 * This is a very difficult case. The specifications themselves are not copyrightable, but the drawings might be. A judge might rule that when an artist chooses the thickness of a line, or the color, or the distance between separate views, et cetera, that that is creative content. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is if the creator were to sue, and a copyright judge were to rule on the case. This is a grey area, and I don't know for sure. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) What exactly does "published" mean? Printed in a book that was never sold? Put up for display at an exhibition?
 * Good question. All I can find is this:
 * "Publication" was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority.
 * That doesn't shed much light, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I understand an example of "no creative content whatsoever" would be photographs of paintings. Are there other examples?
 * Yes. Browsing through Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright show some good examples, such as Image:11gon.png, a simple shape; Image:Aliceroosblue.jpg, a color; or Image:2-methylbutane.png, a chemical formula. U.S. courts have also ruled that typefaces (fonts) are not "creative", so pictures of letters or numbers are not copyrightable. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Alternatively, if a work was FIRST published in 2003 or later, even though it was created before 1935, it is still legally considered an "unpublished work". That doesn't sound right. Shouldn't it say "published in 2003" rather than "unpublished work"? Algae 17:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it's weird, but trust me, copyright is very unintuitive. The example you give would legally be considered an unpublished work, as crazy as that sounds. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your answers. I suspect I am misunderstanding something. Is that some sort of special treatment for old unpublished texts so they never count as published and their copyright protection never expires? In other words: If a work was created before 1935 and published after 2003, it's "unpublished work", if it was created in 2003 and published in 2003, it is "published work"? If a pre-1935 work hasn't been published before 2003, can it ever be published? How? What are the consequences for copyright duration? And what law or treaty is responsible for this? What was the intention behind this? Algae 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could find an actual example, but I can't, so I'll make one up. Let's say I was digging in my backyard and I found an old trunk full of unpublished manyscripts. There's "Hamlet II: the Ghost's Revenge", a lost play by Shakespeare; "1920", by Hemmingway, written in 1920; and two poems with no information on their authors, one written in 1883, and one written in 1889. Are they in the public domain?

The Shakespearian play is, because Shakespeare died before 1935. The Hemmingway book would still be copyrighted by the Hemmingway estate, since he died in 1961. The 1883 poem would be public domain, but the 1889 one would presumably be copyrighted, although I would have no way of knowing who owns the copyright.

Let's say I published the 1883 poem and the Shakespearian play, and they were best-sellers, and the Hemmingway Estate published their book. Even afterwards, the play and the poem are still considered to be in the public domain, even though they were first published recently. If you wanted to re-publish them without my consent, and your lawyer said "No, you can't, because this was first published in the U.S. in 2005, so Quadell owns the copyright", your lawyer would be wrong and you should fire him. This is why previously-unpublished works that were first published after 2003 are still considered "unpublished" for legal purposes, even though they were obviously published.

Also note that Hemmingway's book, had it been published in 1920, would be in the public domain by now. But since it's still considered "unpublished", even though the Hemmingway estate published it in 2005, it's still under copyright. Hope this helps. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed explanation. So I take "unpublished work" in this context just means that points 5. and 6. (regarding unpublished works) apply!? I find the Hemingway case the most interesting one: It was published in 2005, but it is still considered unpublished – how can the copyright ever expire, and when? And if the estate had published it in 2002, what would be the difference? How long would the protection last? 2002+90 years? Oh, and which law/treaty do I have to check for this aspect of copyright law? Algae 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is an extremely tardy response, but I just now saw the question. Unpublished works are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the author. – Quadell (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

iCopyright Question
Thank you for your insight, Quadrell. You wrote "Any of those [public displays of Guinnevere] would be derivative works, and therefore copyright infringements. Options 1 and 2 would possibly pass WP:NFCC, but it would be better to just have an ogg file of the original recording. This is analogous to an amateur drawing of Mickey Mouse: it's still a reproduction of Disney's copyright, so it's better to use an official portrait."

I know your time is valuable but if you have a moment I would enjoy hearing your initial impression of my LilyPond experiments here and here. I may take the whole thing down but am (evidently) currently fascinated with the possibilities of this WikiTex technology and wonder why it has not been embraced already by Wikipedia (I see security mentioned by Peter Danenberg...).

Copyright laws are complex and the internet seems to blur "public display" and "education." Many of these questions might not need answering unless someone's pocketbook were actually impacted or someone else wished to set a political example.

Anyway, please share your initial impression, as an experienced Wikipedia user, as to whether my Wikisophia examples are 1) Clearly inappropriate, should be removed immediately or 2) Hard to say, gray zone, maybe safer to avoid, or 3) Looks fine, attribution to authors, purpose is educational, not enough to be performable, or whatever.

As I mention on my talk page, there is little philosophical difference between,


 * 1) Reading a book and summarizing findings in prose with reference to the book;
 * 2) Listening to an album and summarizing findings in snippets with reference to the album;

but what do law and politics care about philosophy. ;-)

Regards, -- IDave2 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would put it differently. I would say there is little difference between translating an entire book into another language, and translating a work of music from a sound file to sheet music. Both require the consent of the copyright holder of the original work. (This same analogy is used in Fishman's "The Public Domain" and other textbooks on copyright law.)
 * ASCAP represents song-writers in America, and it holds the copyright to the song "Guinnevere". In fact they, along with BMI and SESAC, hold the copyright to nearly every other song you've ever heard of. And they're ruthless. They routinely shut down websites that reproduce lyrics, sheet music, or guitar tablature of songs, even if you recreate the sheet music or lyrics by listening to the songs. They also watch for people publicly performing copyrighted works without an authorization and sue them. This is why all the lyric sites on the internet are fly-by-night throw-away organizations run out of Singapore or somewhere.
 * I'm very sorry to say it, and I wish it weren't true, but I'd have to go with "Clearly inappropriate, should be removed immediately". (Please note: This is not legal advice, and I am not authorized to give legal council. For that, you'll have to get a lawyer.) – Quadell (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a goner. Too bad.  Thanks. IDave2 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)