This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use this illustration... On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._...
Holy shit.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 23 October 2011 00:11, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._... Holy shit.
This is pretty damn cool.
I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone (me) replaced the image in the article itself ...
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use this illustration...
It appears to have been on [[:nl:Mickey Mouse]] since 9th October!
- d.
On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone (me) replaced the image in the article itself ...
And I've just done a version without the text or flag:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._...
Is this the very first ever derivative image of Mickey Mouse not in any manner approved of by the Walt Disney company but that is, nevertheless, 100% absolutely legal?
BTW - the Commons deletion discussion that included a renewal search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Apprecia...
- d.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone (me) replaced the image in the article itself ...
And I've just done a version without the text or flag:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._...
Is this the very first ever derivative image of Mickey Mouse not in any manner approved of by the Walt Disney company but that is, nevertheless, 100% absolutely legal?
BTW - the Commons deletion discussion that included a renewal search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Apprecia...
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work")?
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work")?
Read the deletion discussion.
- d.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work")?
Read the deletion discussion.
I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work")?
Read the deletion discussion.
I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work.
Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II:
"The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is "No"."
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely. There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert? On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, "Anthony" wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work")?
Read the deletion discussion.
I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work.
Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II:
"The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is "No"."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reopened (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Apprecia...)
Though I agree with you that a deletion discussion among non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely. There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert? On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, "Anthony" wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work")?
Read the deletion discussion.
I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work.
Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II:
"The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is "No"."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 23 October 2011 13:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion was reopened by Anthony and is still in progress as I write this, dive in as appropriate:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Apprecia...
My derivative was also nominated, and that discussion was closed within hours:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Apprecia...
It's a very tricky one.
- d.
On 23 October 2011 17:59, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's a very tricky one.
Yes and no.
However regardless of its complexity (which isn't that bad compared to some) it is how most real work copyright cases that people actually care about work. Rather than single the single copyright we might recognize on say a photo of some flowers you tend to get whole bundles of IP rights. In some ways mickey mouse isn't too bad since Disney have kept such a tight grip on him.
I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert?
In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'd need at least 200 lawyers from all around the world, each one an expert in their country's copyright law, and ready to work overtime. Even then, a legal expert's opinion is no guarantee that a court will go the same way in case of a lawsuit.
...a deletion discussion among
non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law.
Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts. Commons editors are only trying to weed out copyright infringements without falling for copyfraud. They use their best judgement based on the text of law and precedent cases, with the intention of protecting the end user as much as possible. That, however, doesn't mean they offer a guarantee. The end users are still responsible for their use of Commons' files and should seek legal advice on their own.
If non-professional Commons editors shouldn't be deciding which images are PD, then they shouldn't be deciding which images are copyrighted either, and not one image should be deleted whatever evidence of its copyrighted status comes up. I don't think that's acceptable to anyone here.
Regards, -- Orionist
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely. There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert? On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, "Anthony" wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and
the
one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material
contributed
by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work")?
Read the deletion discussion.
I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work.
Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II:
"The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is "No"."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 24 October 2011 09:25, Orionist orion.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert?
In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'd need at least 200 lawyers from all around the world, each one an expert in their country's copyright law, and ready to work overtime. Even then, a legal expert's opinion is no guarantee that a court will go the same way in case of a lawsuit.
We wouldn't need a lawyer to look at every case - ones where the author has released it under a free license should be fine, for example. There are experts on international copyright law that could give opinions on a wide range of jurisdictions. While you never know for sure until it has been decided in court, a good lawyer ought to be able to give you an idea of what a court is likely to decide. In some cases, they may have to say "I don't know", but I'd much rather have an expert that doesn't know than a bunch of laymen that think they do.
...a deletion discussion among
non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law.
Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts.
It's the job of the courts if there is a disagreement. As long as no-one is complaining, we should be fine just trusting a lawyer.
On 24 October 2011 12:56, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We wouldn't need a lawyer to look at every case - ones where the author has released it under a free license should be fine, for example.
Not remotely. Even at the most basic you would have the whole Freedom of panorama issue and is the author actually the rights holder problem.
There are experts on international copyright law that could give opinions on a wide range of jurisdictions.
How wide? Because I've run across questions on subjects ranging from North Korean to Burundian copyright law.
While you never know for sure until it has been decided in court, a good lawyer ought to be able to give you an idea of what a court is likely to decide. In some cases, they may have to say "I don't know", but I'd much rather have an expert that doesn't know than a bunch of laymen that think they do.
Commons has a pretty good record of being able to deal with copyright issues.
It's the job of the courts if there is a disagreement. As long as no-one is complaining, we should be fine just trusting a lawyer.
As no-one is complaining we could trust a magic 8 ball. The point is that commons tries to act before people complain which means that copyright nerds are a reasonable and far more cost effective solution than lawyers.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:25, Orionist orion.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert?
In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'd need at least 200 lawyers from all around the world, each one an expert in their country's copyright law, and ready to work overtime. Even then, a legal expert's opinion is no guarantee that a court will go the same way in case of a lawsuit.
...a deletion discussion among
non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law.
Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts. Commons editors are only trying to weed out copyright infringements without falling for copyfraud. They use their best judgement based on the text of law and precedent cases, with the intention of protecting the end user as much as possible. That, however, doesn't mean they offer a guarantee. The end users are still responsible for their use of Commons' files and should seek legal advice on their own.
If non-professional Commons editors shouldn't be deciding which images are PD, then they shouldn't be deciding which images are copyrighted either, and not one image should be deleted whatever evidence of its copyrighted status comes up. I don't think that's acceptable to anyone here.
Regards,
Orionist
It's a difference deciding if uploads of babes with big boobs are stolen from the Internet at large or not, than to figure out if a line drawing from World War II is free or not.
2011/10/24 Carl Fürstenberg azatoth@gmail.com:
It's a difference deciding if uploads of babes with big boobs are stolen from the Internet at large or not, than to figure out if a line drawing from World War II is free or not.
Indeed. In legal terminology, the difference is between a matter of fact and a matter of law. Anyone can determine the facts of a case (eg. that the image that someone is claiming is their own work was actually stolen from some website). We need legal experts to determine matters of law. Nobody disputes the facts regarding the image of Mickey Mouse, but we don't know the relevant law.
On 24 October 2011 17:48, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody disputes the facts regarding the image of Mickey Mouse, but we don't know the relevant law.
We do know the relevant law its just unclear what it actually means. The interplay with commons policy is also an issue. For example it is possible to argue that the image is effectively PD-ND which would be difficult for commons to deal with.
...a deletion discussion among non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law.
Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts.
Courts are the proper way to determine the law after the fact. But this is a question of determining the law before the fact. Except in very limited situations, courts don't do that.
Commons editors are only trying to weed out copyright infringements without falling for copyfraud.
That is absolutely not true. The deletion policy is much more nuanced than "only trying to weed out copyright infringements".
If non-professional Commons editors shouldn't be deciding which images are PD, then they shouldn't be deciding which images are copyrighted either, and not one image should be deleted whatever evidence of its copyrighted status comes up. I don't think that's acceptable to anyone here.
You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there.
Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD. But when there is a dispute, it makes no sense for people who don't even know what a derivative work and an underlying work are, to be discussing the applicable law.
Anyway, the deletion process obviously doesn't work. File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif is clearly not public domain. And File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png is probably a copyvio. Yet both remain, despite deletion discussions, marked as public domain. (The deletion discussion over the latter is especially humorous.)
This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use this illustration... On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._...
Holy shit.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:11:53 -0700, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use
this
illustration...
What is the problem with the Dutch Wikipedia? From what I see, the file is in use there.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Oct 22, 2011 4:17 PM, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:11:53 -0700, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is pretty damn cool.
I see that pretty much every project except nl wikipedia could now use
this
illustration...
What is the problem with the Dutch Wikipedia? From what I see, the file is in use there.
That's all I meant, that it's already in use there. Sorry for any confusion.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Holy shit.
Procedural note: the second deletion request at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Apprecia... has been closed as kept.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org