[Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.

[Anthony]

Reopened (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_(Mickey_Mouse)%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif#File:.22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam.22_.28Mickey_Mouse.29.22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif)

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 at 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 at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony <wikimail at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>