File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg – List at FFD. Ignoring all discussions not about the deletion or copyright, here we see a rational claim that since the USPS has the right to claim copyright to stamps made after 1978 - which has not been contested by anyone - the file might be a copyright violation. However, there is also a legitimate counterclaim that since the stamp is just a slightly modified public domain file and as noted by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and other court cases and US copyright office decisions mentioned in commons:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America people and organizations are not automatically entitled to claim copyrights on overly simple works or only slightly modified public domain works. Because of this some people are advocating a full discussion at FFD as these copyright interpretation discussions usually occur there and most copyright experts are active in FFD, plus in general contested speedy deletion cases are often settled through a deletion discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Please advise what appropriate action can be taken to restore the image of (a) the Battle of Bull Run, and to preserve the period painting images found on USPS stamps depicting (b) the Capture of New Orleans, (c) the Battle of Antietam, and (d) the Battle of Vicksburg — all found for five years since March 2014 at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps.
An ethnocentric wikipedia user on the English Wikipedia, using the characters user: 廣九直通車 has abandoned the conventional Asian use of romanji to communicate in good faith with westerners in English media, and arbitrarily initiated the removal of an image that is not subject to copyright at File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg.
(1) The USPS stamp uses an image that is NOT copyrightable, whether following the USPS practice of incorporating an image authored by a public employee in their job, or from an out-of-copyright image painted before 1924. Neither may not be copyrighted by placing an over-print title from a subsequent user to secure exclusive proprietary ownership of the image . . . it will take some digging to get the previous five-year-old discussion links at a forum page . . . prior to any "dispute resolution" with someone I cannot yet identify who does not respond to my posts . . .
(2) A “speedy removal” process initiated on 10 July 2019. There was no response to my timely posting of the rationale for maintaining the image. My post has been purged from my User page “Contributions” tab. Something that has only happened twice before in nineteen years of posting on Wikipedia.
The initiating Japanese-Korean-Chinese-Okinawan author has an “OTRS” icon on their User page. At Meta-Wiki [[1]], it is said to be software used to “handle queries, complaints, and comments from the public by email to Wikimedia projects.”
(3) There is no assertion by others anywhere on my Talk page or on the image page that any public complaint was ever made objecting to the image, other than the diktat (дѝкта̄т) proclaiming “a blatant copyright infringement.”
Another administrator User:Gonzo fan2007 removed the image on 11 July 2019 without response to my post.
(4) The subject matter is a painting by a National Park Service painter as a public employee.. Therefore, the rationale for this USPS stamp and others depicting Civil War battle scenes: “This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.”
I directly communicated with “Gonzo fan2007”, posting on his User page 14 July 2019, “Please restore image”, and his reply was “Please provide a link to the discussion, and I would be glad to assist with the request”.
(5) But there was NO discussion before deleting the image. A visitor to the image link finds all reference to the previous stamp image “does not exist”. — At the USPS webpage for the stamp The Civil War: 1861, we have “The Bull Run stamp is a reproduction of a 1964 painting by Sidney E. King titled “The Capture of Rickett’s Battery” on Henry Hill, Manassas, Virginia. We see the painting at Wikimedia, Rickett's Battery Painting.
It is in the public domain because Sidney E. King painted the image while a public employee as a National Park Service painter. “This image or media file contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee, created as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, such work is in the public domain in the United States.” USPS continues, “For the stamp pane’s background image, [USPS Art Director Phil] Jordan used a photograph dated circa 1861 of a Union regiment assembled near Falls Church, Virginia.”
(6) USPS stamps using National Park Service images are covered under the “Ownership” provision found on the NPS website on the tab "About Us". It says, “Copyright law does not protect 'any work of the U.S. Government' where 'a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties' (See, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 105). Thus, material created by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is generally considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by applicable law.”
@TheVirginiaHistorian:Please have a look at Template:PD-USGov, which explicitly state that This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. As the file is, indeed a derivative work, and the author of derivative work won't give out a free permission, therefore the file is copyrighted and unfree, and is a definite WP:F9. It should be reminded that for a speedy deletion, there is no need for discussion once an administrator finds that the involving page falls under a, or more criteria of speedy deletion. Also please refrain from making accuses of racism (An ethnocentric wikipedia user...). I am open when it comes to issues of copyright, especially if I made a mistake, but baseless accusation of racism would only force myself to fend for my rights (or course not with legal threats), regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車 and 廣九直通車: I do not post to the Chinese language wikipedia in English, although of course I have a right to do so, or do I not? There is no racism in that, one way or the other --- is there ? --- nor is there any indirect legal threat to be made in common civil discourse, surely not among collegial Wikipedians at the English Wikipedia.
I take everything I see on the English WP by wp:good faith. Of course you can use any symbols you choose in any order, unless it conveys something untoward that is prohibited by the English Wikipedia. Please link the administrator's post that translated and approved the term -- "廣九直通車|廣九直通車" -- for use on the English Wikipedia. (The qualified administrator was fluent in which of the eight major Chinese dialects; I do remember 山 means mountain, whether it is pronounced "yama" in Japanese or "shān" in one or the other of the Chinese dialects ... likewise with your 力, "power" -- well, more power to you, my fellow Wikipedian.)
I am also intellectually open-minded as an intentional personal discipline; you and I are standouts in the general population, worldwide; mutual congratulations are in order. Salud, to your health.
Point of information: Do I properly understand that the Chinese word for "foreigner" is not the English "other" person, but the English translation for non-human "ghosts" or "devils"? To avoid inadvertent racism that is unconsciously telegraphed by any source of unchanging, inflexible linguistic habit of mind, perhaps it would be best to discourse here in the more adaptable English, Shall we? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template that generically addresses USPS postage of original design does not refer to images from prior to 1924, or created by public employees and replicated by the USPS that CANNOT be legally copyrighted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車 and 廣九直通車: You have miscast the issue surrounding the USPS use of a NPS employee's painting on the job. You suppose that "the author of derivative work won't give out a free permission". But merely making an overprint of a postage amount does not make the image "derivative" in a copyrightable sense.
Further, there is no permission to be given by a public servant performing his required job responsibilities. In this case, the professional National Park Service painter has no "free permission" to give regarding the future use of his painting created on-the-job during regular work hours.
If I look up "public" in a Mandarin dictionary, 上市 , I get "on the market". But "public" officials in the English and American traditions do not sell their official services at market as a fish monger does to the highest bidder. In this culture it is a legal offense called "bribery", a crime against the people for whom the governmental employee works. He is not to convert the conduct of his office to private gain.
There is even U.S. federal law prohibiting American corporations from bribing public officials in lands where it is lawful and customary. Hence, following several trillion dollars spent to assure an independent Iraq with some innovative democratic-republican institutions at a national level, its oil contracts went to the same French, Russian and Chinese corporations who had won bids under Sadam Hussein; the Americans could not bribe openly and competitively ----- so they lost out again. It is meant to be different here from most of the rest of the world, like an exception, so to speak.
Support@TheVirginiaHistorian: OK, so you think that as the stamp is based on a public domain painting, and the words added by USPS is not eligible for further copyright protection. I think I remembered that the words added seems not to be to complex. So, though the discussion somehow went a-bit off-topic, I would support for the undeletion, and thank you for your nomination.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a more concise, better restatement of my proposal. Yes, sir. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and optionally send to WP:FFD. Speedy deletion is only for clear and uncontroversial deletions, and there is a debatable case that this image may be free. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the deleting admin, I will defer to the consensus determined at this deletion review. That said, I must caution TheVirginiaHistorian that their comments implying racism on my part are not only obviously ridiculous, but are borderline against WP policies. As you can see on my talk page, TheVirginiaHistorian requested undeletion because they said this issue had already been discussed on-wiki; I kindly requested a link to that discussion; they replied with the massive comment above implying I'm a racist, among other interesting comments. That said, based on the wording here, the stamp seems like a clear copyvio and eligible for speedy deletion. If I am misunderstanding something, I am happy to be corrected. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To further elaborate, I don't see how using a public domain image in a stamp somehow makes that stamp ineligible for normal copyright protections offered to stamps issued after 1978. The issuance of a stamp creates a new derivative work of the USPS, and thus is given its normal copyright protections. The stamp is obviously a completely new work with new artistic embellishments. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and list at WP:FFD. There's a plausible argument that this is a free image, so WP:F9 doesn't apply. The folks at FFD will be better versed in the nuances of copyright policy, since they deal with this stuff every day. It's also been around for years, so there's no harm in spending another week discussing it. I also suggest that everybody take a step back and a few deep breaths. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I'm not opposed to a deletion discussion at a different venue, but I fail to see how this isn't an obvious copyvio. "All U.S. stamp designs since 1978 are copyrighted." This is clear an unequivocal. It does not matter what the copyright status of the underlying image on the stamp is. Some further reading here. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment廣九直通車, Stifle, RoySmith, and TheVirginiaHistorian, please note the deletion was based on the USPS copyright. Note on the USPS web page: "All U.S. stamp designs since 1978 are copyrighted." This is based on the Copyright Act of 1976. The underlying image found on a stamp bears no impact on the copyright of the stamp itself. Since the stamp was issued in 2011 and the image did not claim fair use, and instead claimed public domain, it meets the standards of a clear copyvio and was speedily deleted. I recommend you review your rationales with this information in mind. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an image on a stamp is copyrighted does not make it so. If the image was public domain before, putting it on a stamp doesn't make it no longer PD. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply toGonzo_fan2007 I am informed by administrator 廣九直通車 that no discussion is required at an administrator's "speedy deletion" initiative. I really appreciate the bots and administrators who police the many wp:vandal attacks on my authored pages. I guess that's the only way things can get done in an expeditious way over such an expansive platform. Sorry I took the deletion as a personal attack, and I inappropriately replied in kind.
- Though @RoySmith: I do not get how calling out "ethnocentric" use of symbols on the English Wikipedia by others, -- pictographs that are not in common use for 600 years in worldwide commerce -- nor commonly used on 21st century English language webpage platforms -- makes "Gonzo fan20007" out to be a "racist" as he charged. (for context of the virtual extinction of inter-continental use of pictograms in commerce, see the self-imposed trade restrictions by the Chinese Empire at 1421: The Year China Discovered America)
- Thanks for all that you administrators do to maintain the integrity of my contributions from vandalism, notwithstanding any final decision on deleting stamps with un-copyrightable images that merely bear USPS over-prints on their face. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)
Thanks for the reply TheVirginiaHistorian. Dlaiming someone is being ethnocentric (i.e. one definition of the word is "characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior") can be an implication that they are not respecting other cultures/ethnicities/races. It appears that there is some mutual misinterpretation or miscommunication between what everyone is saying to each other. I would just recommend you steer clear of describing users using adjectives while commenting on Wikipedia. I think from now on we can just focus on the deletion discussion and whether this image meets our guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and if someone thinks it should be deleted, send it to WP:FFD. There are issues to consider such as whether this particular stamp is copyrighted, whether USPS's license for non-profit/educational use applies, and also whether the proposed use would be fair use. – Levivich 19:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, all stamps after 1978 are copyrighted. Non-profit/educational use only is specifically not compatible with Creative Commons or Public Domain. If someone wants to upload this again and claim fair-use, they can go right ahead! What other issues are there to discuss? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a fair use claim. [2] Besides which, the image consisted entirely of uncopyrightable elements: a portion of the public domain painting File:MNBPRickettsBatteryPainting.jpg; the text "2011", "Forever", "First Bull Run July 21, 1861", and "Usa"; and a black and grey border divided undy. Overturn. —Cryptic 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: What Cryptic and others said. Despite what our templates say or what the USPS says, "all stamps after 1978 are copyrighted" is an overstatement. A better statement is that stamps after 1978 may be copyrightable. The actual law, and analysis, is more complicated than a black-and-white rule or a before/after date divide. In this case, adding some text to a PD image and putting that on a stamp doesn’t create a copyrighted work (it’s not original enough to be a derivative work), and even if it did, there’s a viable fair use claim. All stuff that should be discussed at FFD. – Levivich 19:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore with an optional listing at WP:FFD. Since the image consists of a public domain painting with the text "First Bull Run July 21, 1861", "Forever" and "USA" added there is a reasonable claim that the image is in the public domain as the painting is PD and the additions aren't exactly creative. F9 is only supposed to apply to unambiguous copyright violations, and speedy deletion in general is only supposed to be applied to obvious cases. Other cases should be sent to FFD. Hut 8.5 20:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Even though they're a work of the U.S. government, they're not public domain - postage stamps are copyrighted, and in order to be displayed on the website, you'd need permission from the USPS. There are colourable arguments the work itself is public domain since it's a public domain photograph, so I don't mind sending this to WP:FFD to argue over it, but I believe it should remain deleted until we're sure we can use it (and I don't think we can.) SportingFlyerT·C 04:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about being a work of the USG? It's true that 17 U.S.C. §105 doesn't exempt works by USPS employees from copyright protection, but that doesn't mean that the act of printing public domain material on a stamp magically removes it from the public domain. —Cryptic 08:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
editbreak
Recap of posts to date: (a) seven “undelete”, “restore” and “overturn deletion”, (b) with four of those suggesting listing “Battle of Bull Run” USPS stamp at WP:FFD, and (c) one amenable to follow the consensus here:
Will follow consensus here: Gonzo fan2007, administrator deleting image by speedy removal: "The stamp is obviously a completely new work." There is no "fair-use claim" for the stamp image, and reference USPS assertion for collectors, "All U.S. stamp designs since 1978 are copyrighted."
Undelete, overturn - three:
- TheVirginiaHistorian, petitioner: The USPS stamp lost by speedy removal uses an image that is NOT copyrightable at "Rickett's Battery", whether following the USPS practice of incorporating an image authored by a public employee in their job (for Battle of Bull Run stamp), or from an out-of-copyright image painted before 1924 (for Capture of New Orleans, Battle of Antietam, Battle of Vicksburg). Neither practice can copyright an image by merely over-printing a title, border and postage. All four stamp images can be found at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps for the last five years, since March 2014, following a previous review, perhaps at WP:FFD.
- Cryptic: Fair use claim at [2] (see link above for administrators). The image consisted entirely of uncopyrightable elements: a portion of the public domain painting, the text "2011", "Forever", "First Bull Run July 21, 1861", and "USA”; and a black and grey border.
Undelete (restore) and list at WP:FFD (or optional, as needed) - four:
- Stifle: If the image was public domain before, adopting it on a stamp does not remove it.
- RoySmith: There is a plausible argument that this is a free image, so WP:F9 doesn't apply. FFD will be better versed.
- Levivich: re issues: if this stamp is copyrighted, if non-profit/educational use, and if fair use.
- Hut 8.5: [see Cryptic, and] F9 is only supposed to apply to unambiguous copyright violations, and speedy deletion in general is only supposed to be applied to obvious cases. Other cases should be sent to FFD.
Noted. I meant to summarize for the purpose of advancing a consensus, but NOT to dominate the discussion by replying to “almost every comment”. I am amenable to referring the issue to WP:FFD --- I think I have about a 50-50 track record there from some years back . . . learning curve . . . so that makes five, and with “Gonzo fan2007”, that’s 6 out of 8 . . . to restore and refer . . .
To summarize my participation in the thread of 20 posts, I've made 3 after initiating it: (a) 廣九直通車 and I exchanged two posts, concluding with his support to restore the image — which I hope was by persuasion, not dominance on my part (the administrator did not seem to me to be particularly intimidated in the exchange with the contributing editor); (b) “Gonzo fan2007” and I exchanged one post each to reconcile our misunderstanding.
I then summarized the first eight editors to the best of my ability. Nevertheless, I appreciate the caution to be patient . . . more learning curve . . . Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
