Wikipedia talk:Public domain/Archive 2010

PD image query
Does anyone know the answer to this? Do images claimed as PD on Wikipedia have to be PD in the U.S., or is it enough that they be PD in their country of origin? I'm not talking about the Commons, which is discussed here. I'm asking only about Wikipedia. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Users are encouraged to upload free images to the Commons. Free images already on en.wiki are eventually transferred to the Commons. So I don't believe there are any free images that would be acceptable here, but not on the Commons. Furthermore, en.wiki's servers and the Commons servers are both located in the US, right? -Andrew c [talk] 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew, thanks. The answer (thanks to Jappalang) seems to be that images in the Commons must be PD in the U.S. and in their country of origin. Images on WP must be PD in the U.S., but need not be PD in their country of origin. That is, being PD in the U.S. is both a necessary and sufficient condition for being claimed as PD on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

USFWS images on Flickr...
Following a link from the US Fish and Wildlife I found some Flickr galleries placed there by the USFWS (check them out [http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsnortheast/ here). I assume these are Public Domain regardless of whatever license they put in the box, and that we can use them, right (Flickr doesn't have a Public Domain setting)? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those credited to USFWS personnel should be OK in my opinion. Others, for instance this, are credited to people from other organizations, and more checking is necessary. In this case, the WVDNR seems to be the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, a state entity (despite the .gov in their web address), and they can indeed copyright their stuff. So be careful all the same. Lupo 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones I am interested in are USFWS. Curiously I am in a similar position, as my own images from volunteering for the USFWS are on Flickr too. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nike Air Max 1 Supreme(black / black / sunburst)
Nike Air Max 1 Supreme(black / black / sunburst) The Nike Air Max was first released in 1987 in a nylon/synthetic suede combo with a transparent window for the Max Air-sole unit. Despite incredulity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wujack116 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just removed this page from the MoS categories. It's not a style manual, guideline, or whatever. Lupo 10:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can "likeness" still be copyrighted in public domain content?
I have raised this issue on the "Non-free content" board but apparently it's in the wrong place, so I'm sorry if I'm asking in the wrong place again. What I need to know is exactly what I can and can't do with public domain content? Image_use_policy says Public domain images are not copyrighted, and copyright law does not restrict their use in any way which seems to imply I can use the image as if I created it myself.

I work on article List of vegetarians which is illustrated with images, and this Image:Fleishersuperman-big_cropped.jpg was removed on the pretext of having an invalid Fair use rationale:. I see nothing about having to provide a fair use rationale for a public domain image, so I would like to clairfy that. It's certianly not clear form the guidelines that I have to.

The second concern by another editor is that while the image may well be public domain, Superman's "likeness" is probably copyrighted by DC meaning that by using a public domain image I am still violating copyright rights in regards to likeness. Can someone let me know if either of these two concerns are valid, or I am indeed free to use the public domain image as I choose provided its licence is in order? Thanks for any assistance. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're free to use public domain images as you will. The apparent effect of the lack of copyright renewals on those 1940s cartoons seems to be that the likeness of Superman (as derived from those cartoons) is merely protected by trademark, and we can easily show that we aren't violating the trademark laws.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on Commons about the Fleischer cartoons awhile back and as best as I recall, they were deleted. The consensus was they could not truly be public domain to the extent they included Superman, or other copyrightable characters and elements that originated in DC Comics, because that made the cartoons and film frames derivatives of the previously published comic book stories and images.  It's confusing only because the later derivative works are public domain, due only to a failure to renew the copyright under the law of the time, but the older original works are still copyrighted because DC renewed them.  The end result would be the same if you or I drew our own picture of Superman today and tried to declare it public domain; our grant of it to the public could extend no farther than what we created.  That the Fleischer cartoon was licensed to use Superman doesn't change the result either, because that license could not somehow magically dump the separate, earlier works into the public domain based on the licensee's failure regarding his own later works.
 * So what that means is you can still freely use any stills from the Fleischer cartoons that don't incorporate previously copyrighted elements from the comic books, but it may be difficult to identify which those are. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like I was wrong about them being deleted from Commons, as many of them are still hosted there. But it looks like it was only because the group nomination posed too many different issues. Commons doesn't have anywhere near the manpower that Wikipedia does, so its deletion procedures don't run so smoothly, and issues involving derivative works are usually confusing. I wouldn't bank on those images staying there forever, and from my experience on WP and my (irrelevant because you can't really trust I am who I say I am) experience off as a lawyer, I think the best interpretation is as I have summarized above, and the best practice would be to treat any images containing Superman as derivatives of copyrighted works. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's at least one image still on Commons. And while I understand the legal reasoning, I don't understand why, when dollar DVDs with the Superman cartoons hit all the discount stores, DC didn't send a cease-and-desist order out to the publishers, who almost certainly would have rolled over and played dead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good question, but without a source telling me so I'm not going to just assume by their apparent inaction that DC doesn't think they're copyrighted either. I just don't see any reason to think that the lapse into the public domain of a later, derivative work could have any effect on the copyright status of elements it incorporated from an earlier, still copyrighted work.  If someone could find a court case on the issue, that would be helpful.  Or maybe ask Mike Godwin so we can get an official statement on the best policy.  postdlf (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a good piece on copyright and other forms of protection of graphic characters such as Superman. (Nothing in it, however, clarifies why DC wouldn't be more aggressive in attempting to block reproduction and distribution of the Fleischer cartoons by entities thus profiting from the copyrighted Superman character without permission.)—DCGeist (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That clearly (and correctly) explains that graphic characters, such as Superman, are protected by copyright. On the public domain issue, I just remembered the most obvious parallel: It's a Wonderful Life.  The film lapsed into public domain because of failure to renew, as in this case.  It was a derivative of a previously published story still in copyright, however, which means that the copyright holders of the story have rights in the film despite it otherwise being public domain.  postdlf (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering this issue. An editor at Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/August argues it is acceptable to use trademarked work that is out of copyright on Wikipedia, it would just be trademark infringement to create a new piece of work.  Do you have any views on that interpretation? After all that would follow from the examples above wouldn't it?  That would explain to some extent why the Fleisher cartoons can be sold and It's a Wonderful Life can be broadcast without legal repercussions. Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable to use trademarked materials that are not copyrighted, but I'm not talking about trademarks at all, so don't get distracted by that. I'm only talking about copyright.  It's a Wonderful Life can't be broadcast without repercussions, as its article notes, and regardless of whether DC is suing the mom-and-pop DVD distributors selling the Fleischer cartoons, the graphic character of Superman remains protected by copyright in all of its iterations.  Short of an official statement from DC declaring that they themselves believe the cartoons can be copied freely, we have to assume that images of Superman from the Fleischer cartoons are not free. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Trademarks are never a concern for us because 1) any word or picture can function as a trademark in a particular commercial context; 2) trademarks are not protected in the abstract, so merely copying a trademark, without more, does not infringe the trademark (a necessary consequence of #1); 3) the only context in which trademarks are protected is a commercial use to identify the producer of a product; 4) no use of a trademark in an article on Wikipedia could qualify as a use described in #3. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the image is hosted on the Commons. Care to present your arguments there at a deletion request? -Andrew c [talk] 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My interest is actually only in finding out if I'm able to use it, I don't really have any desire to see the image deleted since I would like to use it. I originally brought the case up on the deletion board because it wasn't clear where I should ask about its usage.  The opinions seem to be split so I've suspended its use on the vegetarian article as I promised I would in the event of a non-decisive outcome.  However, if the image does indeed present a legal problem then the legal problem hasn't really been resolved because it's currently being used on 39 other pages, including one about gay icons... Betty Logan (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Either the image is free or it is non-free. If it is being used in 39 articles, and tagged as PD, then it can be used in the vegetarian article. If the copyright tag is incorrect, then the image should be deleted from the commons. -Andrew c [talk] 03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that issue too: do we automatically accept an image as free to use just because Commons is hosting it, even if we are convinced that the image isn't in fact free? postdlf (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Graffiti
Does anyone happen to know whether graffiti in public spaces is in the public domain? I'm thinking of a photograph of graffiti on a wall, where the photographer is known, but the original artist not. If I get a release from the photographer, is that enough to claim it as free? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in the United States, which governs us. See . They have to be used under "fair use". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, very interesting. It's a little counter-intuitive, because it means that no free photograph can ever be taken of that public wall or building once someone adds graffiti. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, unless the graffiti is "de minimis" or the United States develops a more sensible approach to freedom of panorama than it currently has. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this. It makes for interesting reading. I was hoping I could use some graffiti of Ludwig Wittgenstein on a wall I found on Flickr -- it looks like an underpass or something -- I loved the idea of an image of this important philosopher added anonymously to a public space, and I wanted to use it on the Wittgenstein template, so I can't claim fair use. No realistic hope of finding the artist. But anyway, no worries, and thanks again. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * commons:Commons:Image_casebook and Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Jun detail Commons' current position that illegal graffiti is not copyrightable, and shows some opposition to that position.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a weird position for Commons to take, given their Precautionary principle. In any event, its demonstrably wrong on a number of levels (including its presumption that graffiti is illegal), as amply demonstrated by that 2007 New York Times article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not demonstrably wrong in the presumption that graffiti is illegal; see graffiti (definition 1) or The Collaborative International Dictionary of English, which defines post-Roman graffiti as "any writings or drawings on a surface in a public place, placed there without authorization of the owner of the object on which it is written. Such graffiti are usually unwelcome, and are considered as form of vandalism." Commons makes it clear that legal graffiti comes under murals, not their definition of graffiti. That's the same article you linked above, and I don't see where it says anything about illicit vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you're right that it's not "demonstrably false", but I'll note that's definition 1 at Wiktionary; definition 2 at Wiktionary is "A form of art involving painting text or images in public places" (and it also notes "There is no clear dividing line between graffiti that constitutes art and that consitutes vandalism; in cases where this word may be misinterpreted, consider using a synonym") and the other definition you offers dates to Webster's 1913 Dictionary, according to this. I think the definition of "graffiti" has changed a bit since 1913. :) But I suppose that Commons can adopt whatever definition they like, even though "graffiti" is in common coin a much wider definition than that. In any event, I see at the talk page of the Image casebook that the Graffiti section has been discussed several times with the language having been most recently protested in July of this year. This looks like interesting reading, but, alas, I can't get into it. Anybody have an Oxford Journals subscription? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found a password yet. But, Slim, it looks like you can upload it to Commons so long as the Commons casebook allows so long as it's illegal graffiti. I've read through the conversations that I found about it, and there seems to be an opinion on Commons that people should not be able to profit from their crimes. I'm not frankly sure how well that would hold up in court, and I note in an earlier discussion somebody else (can't remember who) pointed out that it's not "illegal graffiti" until a court says it's illegal graffiti--but if you can upload it there, you should be able to use it here. I still haven't been able to find any case law; this one may still be theoretical. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the US copyright exclusion on legal documents extend to the EU?
Okay, here's one on which I need feedback. Please contribute it to the question at the Copyrights policy talk page. Directive 2001/116/EC is tagged as a copyright violation of. The originating body claims copyright here. U.S. law doesn't recognize copyright in legal code: "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."(206.01, "Edicts of Government") Does this apply to legislation of the European Union? I was thinking so, but I am seriously second-guessing myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The English Wikipedia operates exclusively under U.S. law. In the U.S., the exemption of laws, edits, and the like from copyright is also applied to laws, editcs, and so on from non-U.S. governments. See WP:PD, the two paragraphs after the bullet list.
 * In the EU, copyright on legislative documents depends on the laws of each member country. The UK copyrights its legislation, but most other EU countries also make legislative documents uncopyrightable. In any case, this has no bearing for the English Wikipedia as it follows only U.S. law.
 * That said, I think it's a bad idea to include long excerpts from legislative documents. It's also out of scope; that's more appropriate over at Wikisource. For an encyclopedia, it's inappropriate and only leads to maintenance problems (laws do change from time to time). Better to briefly summarize the content in some appropriate article, and just link to the defining legislation. Lupo 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm familiar with the way we handle copyright, but was gut-checking whether or not the European Union would be counted as a "foreign government". I'm not proposing to place the text myself, but handling an article blanked at the copyright problems board. And I certainly agree with your suggestion of better handling, having said more or loess the same thing at Talk:Directive 2001/116/EC yesterday. :) But there seems to be general agreement at the main conversation on this question at the Copyrights policy talk page that the EU should be treated as a foreign government, which is the extent of my authority to remove the text, so I'll go ahead and restore the article. Appreciate your weighing in! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead links are not perfectly acceptable
Dead links are not perfectly acceptable. It's a fact of life that some links will go dead, but you're trying to push an link into the article that was dead on arrival. No one but you knows if that link ever went anywhere, and nobody but you can confirm it ever said what you claimed it said. It has no value that couldn't be replaced by the bald claim that the Florida Supreme Court did what you said it did.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are in error. It was not DOA, and please don't make up policy, etc.   In fact, you "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer"; You should be "leaving the original link intact" per WP:ROT.  The link was and is on the Microdecisions article and I didn't put it there, and it was not DOA.  But Lupo was right in that what I added doesn't need to be here. (But Lupo was wrong cuz Skinner, who had to pay attorney's fees, effectively was the state.) --Elvey (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing: released works!
I find no mention of works placed or released by the copyright holder into the public domain! It is possible (I've seen several wikipedians who do it), there are many such works, and some good content at wp:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain. Policy should reflect that such works may be acceptable, with the caveat that the releases must be credible, among others. I decided to check in here before devising and making what I feel are appropriate changes.--Elvey (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Elvey (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)