Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

July 30

File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg

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]

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]