Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sea Beach Line 1.gif

< Commons:Deletion requests

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sea Beach Line 1.gif

edit

copyright violation of http://www.thejoekorner.com/brochures/seabch1.gif AKA http://thejoekorner.quuxuum.org/brochures/seabch1.gif - not old enough yet, and Locke Cole reverted my copyvio tag. On what basis does the PD tag apply?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, but removed Jeff's custom templates and the CC license and replaced it by {{PD-US}}. Jeff, you don't get a copyright on a PD image just because you've fiddled with brightness and contrast. Lupo 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd rather have the unretouched unthumbnailable versions? I hold the copyright on my improvements to this image's quality - it took a lot of work to get them just right. I've reverted your closing of this deletion request, as you're not an Administrator here, and only Administrators here may close deletion requests here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're American, aren't you? And the work is American, too. In the U.S., your efforts do not give rise to copyright. "Sweat of the brow" has been explicitly rejected as a reason for granting copyright, see Bridgeman v. Corel. Hence your labeling these PD-US works as CC-something is not correct. It's the same as some museums claiming copyright over PD works: copyfraud. Lupo 21:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were not slavish reproductions, they were derivative works, and my work was not performed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the only place where the decision in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is legally binding.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is utter nonsense. Also see Feist v. Rural, a Supreme Court decision which confirmed this part of Bridgeman, explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability. Also see en:WP:PD#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain, mentioning Hearn v. Meyer, in which an illustrator attempted unsuccessfully to claim copyright on his painstakingly restored versions of original Wizard of Oz illustrations. The illustrations were in the public domain, and the court found that the act of rendering them with bolder and more vibrant colors was not an original contribution sufficient to remove the restored works from the public domain.
Furthermore, how do you know that the images at the external source site had not already been post-processed there? If so, and if you're line of reasoning held, the images at the external source already would be copyrighted, and we'd have to delete these uploads as copyvios. Hence either you claim copyright, but then the images must be deleted as copyvios, or they're re-labelled as {{PD-US}} and they may stay. If you insist on labelling these images as CC-something, they must be deleted as copyfraud. (BTW, I don't think I got any copyright on Image:Vietnam child soldier.jpg, which took me several hours of painstaking work to restore from the badly deteriorated original.) Lupo 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The original image Image:Sea_Beach_Line_1.gif, as originally uploaded by SPUI, pretty clearly is not under copyright in the US, since it comes from 1915. I understand it could use some improving. I also understand that Jeff G improved it, and argues that is a derivative work since the improvement is substantial enough to make it not just rote improvement, but actual artistic work.

Now, if the original image is free, why the deletion request? If Jeff incorrectly licensed his derivation, then what we need to delete is the derivation, but not the original. That's a reversion, not a deletion. And if Jeff incorrectly licensed his derivation, why was it uploaded here? We only allow things to be uploaded here that have free licenses... Seems to me we either need Jeff to relicense his improvements in a Commons compatible way, or we need to undo the improvements, saying thank you for the contribution but since it's not licensed in a Commons compatible way, we have to go back to what we had before which was Free.

I'm all about giving Jeff credit for the improvements he did... those, it seems to me, could well be licensed under CC-By-SA or something similar, which forces credit to be given. But aren't those, if they are significant enough to be newly licensable, not revisions, but actually a new, different image? Shouldn't we have both images, the original, and the improved version, under separate names, with separate licenses? Why would we want to lose PDness on the original just because a derivative work was created? Lar: t/c 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Jeff nominated them, they were tagged with the obsolete plain {{PD}} tag. Jeff can get credit for his work by simply mentioning it on the image page. But he cannot impose attribution or other usage requirements on the improved versions: they're still PD-US. Lupo 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of harmony, I am contributing my improvements to the Public Domain.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lupo 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to clean up my opinion: as {{PD-US}} work, Keep of course. Lupo 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Sea_Beach_Line_1.gif&oldid=12335402"