Commons:Village pump/Copyright

‎US FoP law and its interaction with foreign law: it's also a bad title :)
← Older revision
Revision as of 01:36, 17 March 2013
Line 298:
Line 298:
 
[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta1.PNG]] and [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta2.PNG]]. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Maps In the United States, many maps are in the public domain. The most common cases are:...As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: ...'''Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable''']. But [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AKarta2.PNG&diff=92620591&oldid=92561056 Only those elements that involve no creativity are public domain. In Mason v Montgomery Data et al 1992, the court found that there was creativity involved in " each mapmaker's selection of sources, interpretation of those sources, discretion in reconciling inconsistencies among the sources, and skill and judgment in depicting the information." The ruling in that case describes a similar circumstance to this map: "But the evidence in this case demonstrates that Mason exercised sufficient creativity when he created his maps. In his deposition and affidavit, Mason explained the choices that he independently made to select information from numerous and sometimes conflicting sources, and to depict that information on his maps.10 Mason's compilation of the information on his maps involved creativity that far exceeds the required minimum level." In other words, if the map is just an outline of the state of Texas and some dots for cities, it's ineligible for protection. But if the author puts skill into selecting elements to include on the map, then it's copyrighted. --UserB (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)] [[User:Strannik27|Strannik27]] ([[User talk:Strannik27|talk]]) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta1.PNG]] and [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta2.PNG]]. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Maps In the United States, many maps are in the public domain. The most common cases are:...As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: ...'''Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable''']. But [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AKarta2.PNG&diff=92620591&oldid=92561056 Only those elements that involve no creativity are public domain. In Mason v Montgomery Data et al 1992, the court found that there was creativity involved in " each mapmaker's selection of sources, interpretation of those sources, discretion in reconciling inconsistencies among the sources, and skill and judgment in depicting the information." The ruling in that case describes a similar circumstance to this map: "But the evidence in this case demonstrates that Mason exercised sufficient creativity when he created his maps. In his deposition and affidavit, Mason explained the choices that he independently made to select information from numerous and sometimes conflicting sources, and to depict that information on his maps.10 Mason's compilation of the information on his maps involved creativity that far exceeds the required minimum level." In other words, if the map is just an outline of the state of Texas and some dots for cities, it's ineligible for protection. But if the author puts skill into selecting elements to include on the map, then it's copyrighted. --UserB (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)] [[User:Strannik27|Strannik27]] ([[User talk:Strannik27|talk]]) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

−
== US FoP law and its interaction with foreign law ==
+
== Pre-1923 sculpture installed in the US protected by foreign copyright ==
 

 

−
This seems complicated, but I think there is a clear answer to this.
+
This seems complicated to me, but I think there is a clear answer to this.
 

 

 
[[:File:Gasson_in_the_morning.jpg]] was an image of [http://www.flickr.com/photos/nazianzus/2268592262/ the eagle outside Gasson College]. It was deleted as the photograph is a derivative work of the sculpture per no FoP in the US. This bronze was definitely made in 1912 or before, so I was going to request undeletion on this, but..
 
[[:File:Gasson_in_the_morning.jpg]] was an image of [http://www.flickr.com/photos/nazianzus/2268592262/ the eagle outside Gasson College]. It was deleted as the photograph is a derivative work of the sculpture per no FoP in the US. This bronze was definitely made in 1912 or before, so I was going to request undeletion on this, but..
Line 306:
Line 306:
 
The earliest record of this eagle being anywhere is [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tUSPc65Gd1sC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA58 outside Larz Anderson's house in Tokyo]. He brought it back with him to the US in 1913. If the sculpture is Japanese, then the sculptor must have died before 1962 for it to be PD, which is far from certain.
 
The earliest record of this eagle being anywhere is [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tUSPc65Gd1sC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA58 outside Larz Anderson's house in Tokyo]. He brought it back with him to the US in 1913. If the sculpture is Japanese, then the sculptor must have died before 1962 for it to be PD, which is far from certain.
 

 

−
Does the Japanese (or any foreign) copyright still apply if the sculpture is permanently installed in the US? --[[User:Moogsi|moogsi]] ([[User talk:Moogsi|blah]]) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
+
Is the photo rightly deleted as a derivative work? --[[User:Moogsi|moogsi]] ([[User talk:Moogsi|blah]]) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=92726048&oldid=92725871