Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

July 30[edit]

File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. It is noted for the record that this is not a particularly strong consensus. However, the "keep" argument (that the pro forma text and border added by USPS do not meet the threshold of originality) outweighs the "delete" argument (that all USPS stamps are automatically copyrighted, regardless). –Darkwind (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 22, the copyright arguments summarized as follows: As is noted there, this stamp was published after 1978 and the US Postal Office can and does claim copyright on stamps published after that date. On the other hand per the various court cases and Copyright Office precedents listed at commons:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America taking a public domain image - in this case File:MNBPRickettsBatteryPainting.jpg - and altering it does not automatically create a new copyright by the alter-er. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete US Stamp from 2011. Even though it uses an image clearly in the public domain, the stamp itself is still subject to copyright law, and requires the permission of the USPS to redistribute. The USPS discusses the separate copyright potentially held by the image holder here: that is not an issue here, but does not detract from the fact the entire stamp is specifically under copyright. I would be shocked if a U.S. court invalidated a postage stamp's copyright because they used a public domain image as the stamp's background. SportingFlyer T·C 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
uscode.house.gov's copy of the USC that I linked at the DRV seems broken today, but here's an archive from the end of March. The paragraph we're interested in is the last one, and in particular the last sentence: "However, any copyright claimed by the Postal Service in its works, including postage stamp designs, would be subject to the same conditions, formalities, and time limits as other copyrightable works." The law makes it explicit that there's no copyright exception for stamps - neither making them automatically public domain despite being the work of a US government agency, nor making them automatically copyrighted because of that previous statement. Most stamp designs have copyrightable elements, so of course their brief general information web page about stamp reuse is going to talk about the usual case - for example, it doesn't even mention pre-1924 designs. This stamp does not have any copyrightable elements. Any other image using only these elements would be public domain. So is this one. Keep marked as public domain. —Cryptic 14:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I really have three concerns here: 1) even if the underlying image is in the public domain, the entirety of the stamp itself may still be copyrightable as a entire work/derived work, and there's nothing I can reasonably find that would suggest for or against, so calling it public domain is a conclusion of law; 2) even if the underlying image is in the public domain, stamp reproductions still have to comply with anti-counterfeiting laws, and the fact this is a coloured stamp which could be reproduced within 75% to 150% is a potential issue; 3) why do we need to use the stamp? Why can't we use the underlying image, which is unambiguously in the public domain? SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) You're not going to be able to find a ruling that this specific image is or is not a copyrightable derived work. But if you really can find "nothing" to indicate that this derived work is copyrightable, then I have to conclude that you're either actively not looking for it, or have your "reasonabl"enessometer miscalibrated. Besides the links already on this page - which should be sufficient - I'll add the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices §308 and §§313.4(A)-(D). 2) It's too low resolution to print at full size, even without the jpeg artifacts (especially around the text). Even if it were, the potential for counterfeiting is no greater here than on any other stamp image we host, and much less than many (I didn't find any stamp images in lossless formats in my one-minute Commons search, but plenty that are sufficiently large and high quality to print; File:Rotary International 50th Anniversary 8c 1955 issue U.S. stamp.jpg is a representative example). 3) It was used specifically on an article about postage stamps. —Cryptic 18:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1) Do you really think I was so thick to be looking for a ruling this particular stamp was copyrightable? I looked for any copyright cases involving whether the use of a public domain image in a stamp makes the entire stamp lack copyright status. Looking at the Compendium, §308 suggests the creativity involved is rather low, which still puts the entirety of the stamp into copyright, and I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with §§313.4(A)-(D). It still hasn't convinced me this is clearly in the public domain. 2) 18 U.S. §504 has no resolution requirement. 3) in that case, why do we need to use this postage stamp specifically? SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry for "but"-ing in here, but 1) § 313.4(A) "A work that is a mere copy of another work of authorship is not copyrightable." This stamp is a mere copy of a public domain painting, and if you think the words added to the image make it more than a "mere copy", 313.4(B) specifically cites, as an example of a modification to a public domain work that is not a copyrightable derivative work because it is de minimis: A public domain photograph of Winston Churchill combined with the word “Commitment” and the quotation “Never, never, never give up.” The stamp in question is just like that example. 313.4(C) talks about "words and short phrases" not being copyrightable. Meaning, this stamp is made up of (1) an uncopyrightable public domain image, and (2) uncopyrightable words and phrases, so the component parts are all common property, and 313.4(D) says "works consisting entirely of information that is common property" are not copyrightable. 2) I can't find an example of 18 USC § 504 being applied to prohibit a website from hosting an image of a stamp (or currency). 3) We don't need to justify use of a public domain image. – Levivich 04:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, due to Supreme Court denials of copyright in the United States for reproduction images in 1991 and 1999 . These cases apply to US corporations such as the USPS, and they standing law.

(1) Despite the blanket assertion by the USPS that all its creations are under copyright protection, at Commons: Threshold of originality we have, The threshold of originality [in the case of United States corporations such as the USPS], assesses whether “a particular work, or a portion of it, can be copyrighted.” At Threshold of originality we have, “originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author”.

This forum of WP editors is competent to judge whether an work is "original".

(2.a) In the 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court at Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ruled that copyright protection can only be granted to "works of authorship" that possess "at least some minimal degree of creativity". — “As such, mere labor (‘sweat of the brow’) is not sufficient to establish a copyright claim.”

Manufacturing a stamp alone does not make that stamp copyrightable.

(3.b) Reproductions are directly addressed in a 1999 Supreme Court ruling at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: Exact or ‘slavish’ reproductions of two-dimensional works such as paintings that are already in the public domain can NOT be considered original enough for protection under U.S. law as “original”.

- Issue #1: Considering the original out-of-copyright image for the stamp is found at its Wikicommons site without challenge at Rickett's Battery Painting, Shall this forum determine that the USPS has (a) no copyright claim for this or other images produced by National Park Service employees as a part of their official public duties, that the Wikipedia Foundation need recognize, because it does not exist under governing United States law.

- - and relatedly, there is no rationale for removing Ricket's Battery Painting from Wikipedia Foundation platforms ----- as an outcome of this July 30 forum.

- - and relatedly, the USPS has (b) no copyright claim on images produced prior to 1924 depicting paintings of (i) the Capture of New Orleans, (ii) the Battle of Antietam, and (ii) the Battle of Vicksburg — all found for five years since March 2014, at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, as they have fallen out of copyright protection.

(4) Again, at Feist, the Court asserted that . . . “Sufficiently original elements within the work itself can still be eligible for protection.”

- Issue #2: Whether the three stamp overprints (a) “USA”, (b) “Forever”, (c) “First Bull Run" and (d) "July 21, 1861”, on its stamps can be copyrighted by the USPS for its exclusive use, and so require removal of the copyrighted expression “USA” from the Wikipedia page at United States of America, and also "First Bull Run" and "July 21, 1861" at First Battle of Bull Run ----- as an outcome of this July 30 forum.

Conclusions:

- Issue #1, the Bridgeman and Fiest Supreme Court rulings govern USPS stamps producing uncopyrightable reproductions of public domain images, in this case, a stamp reproducing a public domain painting of Rickett's Battery at the Battle of Bull Run.

- Issue #2, USPS overprints on images do not create copyright privileges on reproductions without copyright protection in the United States, including uncreative and widely used mark-ups such as initials, date conventions, and historic battle titles, "forever" stamp denominations, and solid black framing around their published images. Restore. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain/restore – I have nothing to add to TheVirginianHistorian's and Cryptic's comprehensive analyses. The Compendium sections cited by Cryptic above more or less settle Issue #2 in TheVirginianHistorian's analysis. Per the Compendium, a public domain image + words and phrases ≠ copyrightable. This stamp does not have any copyrightable elements, and thus it is public domain. – Levivich 04:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per SportingFlyer. In my opinion (and I am no copyright expert, by any means), if I take a public domain painting and add various text/letters to it, and reproduce it as a "new" painting, then obviously it is not a sufficiently original work for copyright protection. However, this is not the issue. What we have is the USPS taking a public domain image and creating a "stamp" (a "new" work that is different, both in design with words/letters, the flourish around the edge of the image, its reduced size, and its conversion from a painting to a stamp), which based on the law that gives the USPS authority to claim copyright on stamps, would appear to be original enough to provide copyright protections. I say weak delete because my knowledge of this subject area is limited and I tend to read legal issues more literal than most. As a note to the closer of this discussion, I was the admin that originally deleted the image. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting to say the "stamp" as a new work as described above is how I see this as well. I think it's reasonably likely a court would find this is not in the public domain, and since we don't have any case law showing stamps made after 1978 which use public domain images are in the public domain, just a blurb saying stamps aren't afforded any extra rights in copyright law, I don't see how we can keep this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Stamp as a new work" was rejected in Gaylord v. US, 595 F. 3d 1364 (2010) (see also the Bridgeman case TVH linked to above), and that argument wasn't even attempted in Davidson v. US, Court of Federal Claims 2018 (the $3.5M Statue of Liberty case). Both of those were fair use cases, but in public domain cases it's the same result, for example Earth Flag Ltd. v. Alamo Flag Co., 153 F. Supp. 2d 349, a guy took a PD photo of the Earth and put it on a flag, and the court found that wasn't copyrightable. I'm not aware of a case where taking a PD image and putting it on a stamp (or a flag, or a coffee mug, or whatever) was considered to be derivative or transformative. – Levivich 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Gaylord has nothing to do with this. In Gaylord, the government argued the use of a copyrighted photo was transformative enough to qualify for fair use. At no point in time is the copyright of the stamp itself discussed - it's all about whether the government could use the copyrighted work in the stamp. And in terms of public domain works, there's nothing in the stamp which restores the original copyright of the painting - it's all about whether the additional features of the stamp, the text, the border, create something which as a whole can itself be copyrighted. See [1] at "If you're using a derivative work, watch out for these..." or [2]. We can't conclusively claim the derivative work is public domain just because the photo used is public domain! SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel like it is somewhat a semantic issue. In my opinion, you create a stamp, you don't put an image on a stamp. A "stamp" with no text or pictures isn't a stamp, it's just a blank sticker. Both examples given (a mug and a flag) are unique objects that you can put an image on. A blank flag is still a flag. Again, I know it sounds minor and is semantic, but the fact that US law specifically carves a niche out for stamp design swings me to the belief that the legislative intent was that stamp designs are unique works eligible for copyright protection in all cases. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which US law specifically carves a niche out for stamp design? – Levivich 21:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. See the notes of 17 US §105. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to link to here, which Cryptic posted above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this again, I still think that the "carve out" arguments were thoroughly addressed by Cryptic and THV's citations above. The § 105 notes require copyright "conditions" to be met, one of which is threshold of originality. There is nothing here that suggests the threshold of originality is met. The Compendium § 313.4 is very explicit that adding texts to public domain pictures doesn't meet the threshold (they use, as an example of something that doesn't meet the threshold, adding "never give up" to a PD image of Churchill, a right-on-point analogy to adding "Bull Run" to a PD image of Bull Run). The argument that just being a stamp, in and of itself, meets that threshold, has been rejected by US courts (see the Bridgeman and Gaylord cases linked above). I see no legal authority put forward here that suggests this stamp would be copyrightable (for example, no case in which a stamp made up of a PD image plus text was found to be copyrightable). – Levivich 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already noted above neither Bridgeman nor Gaylord apply here, since they have to do with the image the stamp uses, not the entirety of the stamp itself, which is a separate, derivative work specifically subject to copyright. There's also no instance in which a stamp issued after 1978 which uses a public domain image has been definitively found to be in the public domain, which is what we're arguing over - whether we can correctly classify the image of this stamp as public domain, which we cannot do. It's possible a court would find these stamps in the public domain, it's also possible a court could find this stamp is subject to copyright. I'd be a really fun case to be a trial attorney for, to be honest! SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a stamp were a separate, derivative work, the Federal Claims Court wouldn't have just ordered the Postal Service to pay $3.5 million for using a copyrighted image on a stamp without permission (the Davidson case). I just don't see any basis to the view that a stamp, because it's a stamp, in and of itself, is a separate, derivative work, as opposed to just an image printed on a special kind of paper. The Postal Reorg Act, to my reading, explicitly doesn't carve out a niche for stamp design; it says a stamp isn't special and must conform to the same conditions, etc., as any other work claiming copyright. This Bull Run stamp can't meet the threshold of originality because there are no original components: not the picture, not the text added, and not the stamp format. Agree to disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Levivich 04:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still think you're confusing "derivative work" here. The stamp itself is unquestionably a derivative work of the artwork, since it's a completely different work - the question is, since part of the stamp was originally public domain, does that make the entirety of the stamp public domain? Just because the Postal Service failed to secure the rights to the images it used doesn't mean there's not still potentially a copyright in the stamp itself. The stamp and the artwork are two separate works. Furthermore, the Postal Reorganisation Act was important because it meant stamps could be copyrighted, something the postal service has secured since 1978. I'm sure the postal service would assume they have a copyright interest in this stamp, and all of the legal advice I've seen has been very simple: is it created after 1978? If yes, then the USPS holds a copyright in the stamp. Saying the stamp is public domain because it incorporates artwork in the public domain is an interesting argument and one which might win in court, but it's not something we can assume. SportingFlyer T·C 05:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I understand where you are coming from and I do appreciate your reasoning. I would wholeheartedly agree with your comments if the image we were discussing was just a PD image with some text on it. The distinction, in my opinion, is that the image that was uploaded was a stamp design. The niche I was referencing about stamp design in the law comes from the fact that the status quo for works by US Government employees in their official roles are, in almost all cases, public domain; however, Congress felt the needed to clarify that stamp designs are a unique work requiring specifically noted exceptions to the copyright status quo. Based on this language, I cannot definitely say that I am correct, or that you are correct. However, it does provide a reasonable level of doubt that the image we are discussing is compatible with our licensing requirements. Based on my understanding of our image policy, the burden of proof falls on the uploader (or in this case, the editor(s) arguing to keep the image on Wikipedia under a free license) to clearly show that the image uploaded to Wikipedia is compatible with our licensing requirements. Although you make a compelling case that may end up being true before a legal body, I don't believe that you have provided sufficient supporting evidence to remove the reasonable level of doubt that exists regarding this image. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago there was a debate over stamp image use where it was noted that the USPS allows reproduction of its stamp images when the image is used for educational (non-commercial) purposes, as would be the case here at Wikipedia. However, for the life of me, I can't find this stipulation anywhere. Any ideas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers, per our image policy (WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT): "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." Thus, even if USPS allowed images to reproduced for educational (non-commercial) purposes, they would still be ineligible to be uploaded to Wikipedia under a free license. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Sojourner-truth.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This fair-use image has been superseded by File:Flickr - USCapitol - Bust of Sojourner Truth.jpg, a higher-quality image on Commons. Ham II (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless Artis Lane's work was done as "[an] employee of the Architect of the Capitol, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." Otherwise US FOP § Artworks and sculptures applies. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tbhotch. Our article on Artis Lane and specificially this ref say the statue was commissioned by the National Congress of Black Women, so there's no reason to think the underlying art is PD. The Commons image should be deleted instead, and I'd nom it right now if a recent computer death hadn't broken the glue that lets me use their Twinkle-equivalent gadget (or if I had the patience to figure out how to do it manually). —Cryptic 23:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.