Commons:Deletion requests/Cartoons

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Cartoons

[edit]

Per the same argument as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg, I don't think any of the following images are actually in the public domain. While the copyrights on these movies may have expired, the copyright on the main characters certainly hasn't. Lupo 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisting for further discussion. Need a lot more input on this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading the original discussion, it seems that they'll have to go :-( --Simonxag 00:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sorry, the argument doesn't make sense. If the entire cartoon is in public domain, then the individual frames are too. 192.208.44.100 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's a bit schizophrenic. With normal films I guess you'd be right, but with cartoons, I think you also have to consider the copyright on the character itself. I don't think one can take stills and claim they were PD—there's a whole bunch of things one cannot do with them, but that one could do with truly PD works. Imagine using Bugs Bunny (for instance, from Image:Falling hare bugs.jpg) in an advertisement without having gotten a license from Warner Bros.... To me, taking a still and publishing that transfers the image to a new medium (still photography instead of movie), and I think the quote given at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg shows that this is problematic. I think we should have very clear evidence that the characters themselves are out of copyright, too, if we want to claim these images were PD. Lupo 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it really comes down to whether the character "likeness" can be used in non-commercial ways or not, i'm sure there's a clear definition of it somewhere, we shouldn't be guessing here. --66.158.232.118 05:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "[Personality rights are] the right[s] to charge for (or bar entirely) the commercial exploitation of name, likeness, voice or "personality."" (see Personality Rights) Using these images in a non-commercial manner is 100% legal. --66.158.232.118 19:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since this images are useful for the articles.the preceding unsigned comment was added by David Pro (talk • contribs)
    That is not a useful argument in a deletion discussion. Most of the images on the front page of latimes.com would be useful for Wikipedia or Wikinews articles, but for some reason, we not upload them to the Wikimedia Commons. --Kjetil r 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every person, every logo, every caracters have rights. You can't use my photo for comercial porpuses, you can't use a photo of an American Airlines jet for comercial porpouses. But the images are still in public domain. If the movies are in public domain, his parts are too. Rossicev 14:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems it was a mistake to give an example that involved commercial usage. That was just an example. The point is that the character is still copyrighted. This means you also cannot freely do a derivative work of these stills. Consider (again, as an example) creating a derivative work of Image:Falling hare bugs.jpg by cutting out Bugs from the image. As a derivative of a copyrighted character, this cut-out would not be free! Publishing it would be subject to the consent of the copyright owner on Bugs Bunny, i.e., of Warner Bros. Sorry guys, but these are just not free unless the character copyright also has expired. It's similar to the situation with music: a particular recording may have entered the public domain, and you can thus play it freely anywhere without paying royalties. But unless the underlying score is also PD, you'll need a license for a performance of the musical work. (Note that I said "similar". It's an analogy. I am well aware of the differences between movies and audio recordings. I'm just trying to explain where the problem is.) Lupo 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Honestly, I don't know, but this isn't something that should be decided though consensus. Either it's legally fine to have these images or it's not. Personally, I'm not sure all the characters are copyrighted, because wouldn't their copyright have expired when the movies did, since they were copyrighted at the same time? You can't continuously renew copyrights. (However, they may be protected by trademark, which lasts as long as it's being used. I know most of the Disney characters are.) Rocket000 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentWould it be fare if the images are to be replaced with short animated gifs from those PD cartoons? --Alex:D 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be the same situation. The images (or movies) themselves are Public Domain, however, outside of copyright, there may be other issues which prevent them from being used in any way. Rocket000 18:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the example: Image:Americanairlines.arp.750pix.jpg. If you cut the AA logo and create derivative works, you are violating the copyright. The image is in public domain, but the logo don't. Will we delete all images with copyrighted components? Rossicev 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now you start mixing copyrights and trademarks. That's not the primary point with these cartoons. Lupo 14:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, some cartoon characters are trademarked too, but that's a seperate issue. In this case, it's not necessarily how you use the works that would be a violation (which would pertain to TM), but simply the distribution of them. They may not be copyrighted, but other copyrights can prevent their free use. Rocket000 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, leaving the trademarks... the image Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg. Cut off Pikachu, make some adjustments in photoshop and... You can't use it. The image above is an example, other photos can take images from other parts, maybe with a "clean" image of the characters. Rossicev 12:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say "keep", for the reason that the orginal frames are PD as well, and because of Rossicev's comment: in EVERY PD-image you can find SOMETHING which is, under SOME law, under copyright. Herodotus 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment We could add a comment (maybe in the form of a template), with a warning that the character is still under copyright- which makes derivative works and commercial use problematic. Herodotus 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based upon hundreds of observed samples of commercial works (public domain videos seen over the last two decades), still images from the public domain film in question, and even derivative images, are allowed when used in reference to the work itself. I've never really heard anything about studios coming after public domain video makers who use stills or derivative drawings based directly upon images in the public domain cartoons they are selling, even when said images are of recognizable characters still owned by large corporations (Elmer Fudd, Superman, Popeye, etc.). In addition, I have never seen a single one of these items credit the original copyright holders or even the holders of the current copyrights or trademarks. As I understand it, you have to copyright each and every distinct usage of a character; if a particular usage falls into the public domain, then that particular item can be used for a number of uses, so long as you are not using the likeness of a trademarked character in a new derivative work which has nothing directly to do with promoting or exhibiting the public domain film in question (because a new derivative work featuring, say, Bugs Bunny, based upon Falling Hare could easily be found to be derivative of another Bugs Bunny cartoon because they all use the same character design. Therefore, you could appear to be infringing Warners' copyright on any number of the other hundreds of Bugs Bunny cartoons. The only context you would be able to use an image of Falling Hare with Bugs' name and likeness without express permission would be some sort of educational/informational project specifically relating to that film or the film series. But that's what we do here). Someone should try and contact an entertainment lawyer before hastily deleting all of these public-domain images, but I really don't think there's an issue here, especially since this is not-for-profit educational use.

I found this link to a copyright advice website:

c. Literary Characters. To the extent a literary character becomes associated with a particular producer or source, it can be protected under trademark and unfair competition laws -- even if the character is no longer protected by copyright. For example, "Popeye," who made his first appearance in 1929 in a weekly cartoon strip called "The Thimble Theatre," will slip unconscious into the public domain on January 1, 2024. The fact the original "Popeye" character will fall into the public domain, does not preclude King Features from claiming trademark rights in the character, or protecting later strips or non-trivial changes to the original character. However, it is debatable whether they could stop you from copying the public domain strips if you carefully alerted purchasers that you were not doing it with the authority of King Features, and it was a faithful reproduction.

...and this link from an online book:

"Trademark infringement can only occur when someone's trademark is used without permission as a trademark to help consumers identify the source of goods or services. This can only occur in a commercial context - that is, where a trademark is used in advertising or on a product or merchandise.

Informational or 'editorial' uses of trademarks are always permitted - especially where they are the only way to refer to or discuss a particular product or service. Uses such as these inform, educate, or express opinions or ideas protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and of the press. For example, permission is not required to use the Chevrolet logo in an article describing Chevrolet trucks, even if the article is critical of the company. Similarly, permission is not needed if a Coca-Cola sign appears in a news report or documentary film."

I'm pretty sure that any Wikimedia uses of these works is perfectly fine (as someone suggested above, we may need a tag which prevents people from using some of these to create derivative, non-informational commerical works). --FuriousFreddy99 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That´s nonsense, Freddy. The content of Wikipedia has to be completely free, also for commercial use and not only for educational use. What you mean is fair use, but fair use isn´t allowed in Commons. And don´t mix "copyright law" up with "trademark law". These are completely different laws. Chaddy 02:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Herodotus: That also applys to you. "A comment with a warning that the character is still under copyright- which makes derivative works and commercial use problematic" is also fair use and incompatible with pillar no. 3. By the way: Delete because these images are a copyright violation. Chaddy 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment About the remark on the Snow White stills: Character copyright would be Disney's.

This is untrue. The characters of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are public domain, since they are much older than the Disney adaption (like the Grimm-adaptions). I think the debate on the Snow White -stills is another one than on the Fleischer/WB-cartoons. The Snow White-stills feature public domain-characters, they are from a public domain-trailer, but the original work is still under copyright. The Betty Boop, Popeye etc.-stills are from public domain-works, only the characters are trademarked. I propose a separation of these debates. Herodotus 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment From what is said in the Wikipedia content guidelines on the public domain with regard to animated movies (cartoons) , a movie cannot be treated as being in the public domain if it contains cartoon characters that are copyrighted. It is very possible that the images constitute copyright infringement (and possibly also trademark infringement.) -- Gazebo 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to be a contentious issue since the cartoons from which the images are taken from are in the public domain. I actually question the public domain status of the cartoons themselves. I think the copyright holders of the characters in these cartoons could enforce their copyright on these works if they wanted to and they would have a decent case. Although the cartoons have clerically lapsed into the public domain, it remains that they're derivative work of characters that are still under copyright.
Legal challenges were made about the film It's a Wonderful Life, since the film can be classified as derivative work of a copyrighted story. As a result, the film is no longer considered public domain. I think the images in question and the cartoons they come from aren't in public domain, so these images should be deleted. Jtalledo 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment But in that case, shouldn't any reproduction of the characters also be illegal? I mean, if I go to DisneyWorld and take pictures of Mickey and Minnie (the big costumes) and upload here it would still be illegal, since the Mickey and Minnie-characters are copyright to Disney? Which in turn means that no Wikipedia-pages concerning animated characters can ever be illustrated. Or does the legality of the pictures only come into question if the pictures are animated (screencaps from trailers, movies or posters, etc)? Icea 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ' Keep'. Why did we must delete it? it rights are now falled and it no belong to the DC Comics,so why delete it?
  • ' Keep' as per other comments. This is from the trailer, which comes out before the movie. If the movie is PD then anything before that in relation to this movie is PD...why would it not be? DragonFire1024 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The characters are still copyrighted even if a derivative falls into the public domain. -Nard 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they can sell DVDs of the Max Fleischer 1940's Superman cartoons for $1.00 at Wal-Mart without any form of license from DC Comics, I really don't see why we can't host screen-grabs of those same cartoons here on Wikimedia Commons. Presumably the companies that publish these DVDs can afford legal advice from actual lawyers. AnonMoos 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not Wal-Mart here. This is WikiCommons. We host thousands of free images (and other media). We must keep the copyright. Only because the cartoons get selled in a supermarket, they are not free. Or do you think, the cartoon series "the Simpsons" is free? You can buy a Simpsons DVD at Wal-Mart, too... Chaddy 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you really didn't understanding what I was saying. Cheap DVDs are sold in many places WITHOUT any license from DC Comics because the Max Fleischer cartoons are OUT OF COPYRIGHT in the United States of America (as discussed on the Wikipedia article en:Superman_(1940s_cartoons)). An "official" DC Comics DVD release of these cartoons would almost certainly cost a hell of a lot more than $1. Therefore your comments didn't particularly contribute anything useful to this discussion. 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you... May be, the cartoons are PD in the USA. But in the rest of the world, they are still copyrighted. So they can´t be used on Commons. Chaddy 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the general rule for Commons is that images should be "free" both in their country of origin and the United States. Since in this case the U.S. is the country of origin, U.S. law is the all that matters to us here. AnonMoos 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're PD. Try selling a derivative work. The character is copyrighted. They're in some limbo state until the character copyright expires. Lupo 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg is a simple screen grab from a cartoon which is in the public domain in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that super-cheap DVD's of those cartoons are sold above-the-board in many legitimate retail outlets in the United States as of this very moment. If the cartoon itself is in the Public Domain (something which DC Comics / Warner Brothers doesn't seem to have contested), then why isn't the screen grab of the PD cartoon also PD?? AnonMoos 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point made, so what's your response to the points Lupo made here? - Rocket000 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He talks about how the process of "fixing something in a different medium" mysteriously changes something from Public Domain to Copyrighted -- but as far as I can see, the cartoon is made up of still frames shown in consecutive order at a rate of 24 frames per second, so if the whole cartoon is Public Domain, then each of the individual frames which compose it must also be in the Public Domain. AnonMoos 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these frames are PD, but if I make a derivative from them? Can I crop out all these characters and make a collage? - Rocket000 02:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some cheap DVD releases may involve copyrighted works. For instance, the 1954 animated version of Animal Farm was available as a cheap DVD release. (There was also a Animal Farm release that included additional material, but this other release was probably not as cheap.) -- Gazebo 05:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) I don't understand the concept of 'the characters are still in copyright' - copyright pertains to an instance, a publication of a particular item. So some drawings, the original drawings perhaps, of these characters are still copyrighted? The 'characters' are not copyrighted (that doesn't make sense to me, unless there is some special case for characters?). If cartoons are considered derivative works, then I'd expect anyone who owns copyright of the 'original' drawings of the characters to complain - have they ever asserted this, are the cartoons not really PD? The next thing that occurs to me is that cutting frames from the cartoon strip is creating derivative works of the cartoon (the cartoon is one very long image that is usually viewed a little bit at a time (a frame at a time)) - the license status of this derivative work depends on the status of the parent work - fairly straight forward? The only important question is whether the cartoon is actually PD? --Tony Wills 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the argument (Lupo, please correct me if I'm wrong), the suggestion is that each of these images show characters that:

  • (a) appeared in some first publication (let's call it A) (eg a book or a film) which still remains in copyright, and
  • (b) that these images are stills taken from a later derivative cartoon (let's call it B) on which for some reason (eg copyright owner forgot to renew under US law?) the copyright has expired.

I agree that the expression "copyright in a character" isn't strictly speaking correct, but what is presumably meant here is "copyright in the appearance of a character as it was actually drawn in A".

On that basis, the owner of the copyright in A can eg under Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123,1128 (9th Cir. 1979) prevent others from creating new images which infringe that original copyright, even if those new images are also derivative or partly derivative of one of the PD images in B. It would be OK of course to create a new image which is derivative of B only, but for this type of character it may be in practice be difficult or impossible to make a derivative of B which is not also an infringing derivative of A.

Note that it's perfectly OK to use any B image as it is, without amendment, which is why Wal-Mart's lawyers have no doubt advised that they are free to sell copies of 1940's Superman cartoons for $1.00 without needing a licence from DC Comics. Any company that wanted to sell comics or DVDs that differed in any way from the 1940's PD cartoons would however need a licence.

Now it's clear that this only applies if there is some earlier drawing A which is still in copyright. If the character was first drawn for the cartoon B, with no earlier appearance, then once that cartoon has fallen into the public domain anyone is free to copy it, including making derivative versions.

Not all of the images listed above have the necessary information immediately available, and I think we need to look at the images and characters one by one. For each, we need to find out if we can whether there was some earlier appearance, and if so whether that earliest work is still in copyright. If so, we arguably can't release the cartoon stills (whether PD or not) under the four freedoms, as Lupo suggests. If the earliest work is now copyright-free we then need to look critically at the validity of the PD claim that has been made for the specific cartoon. If both works A and B are PD are we in the clear. Of course, if the cartoon is itself the earliest copyright work, and it is truly PD, then we are OK as well.

It's by no means clear to me that we ought to delete even if it can be shown that there exist other images, A, that are still in copyright. Surely the rule here is that we delete if an image is restricted in use by virtue of its own copyright protection. I would argue there is no consensus, yet, that we should delete an image B on the grounds that modifying it might infringe the copyright of some other image, A. By all means let's tag these images to warn people of the existence of A, and leave it to users to take their own legal advice as to the extent they can modify and re-use B without running into copyright problems with A.

In practice no-one is able to use these images B commercially anyway because of some very strongly-enforced non-copyright constraints such as trademark rights, and passing off/unfair competition rights, so any additional copyright-constraint arising from A may in fact make no practical difference. We may end up deleting large numbers of useful images that are perfectly OK if used unamended on Wikipedia or elsewhere just because there may be copyright constraints based on some other images that we don't host, copyright constraints that in practice make little or no difference to how the images can actually be used.

For those reasons, I would Keep, and tag with an appropriate warning (assuming someone can verify the claim that the cartoons have in fact now fallen into the public domain). --MichaelMaggs 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect (but then copyright law has nothing to do with expectations ;-) that derivatives consisting of short exerps of a PD film would also be PD (down to single frames?) - no creativity has been added, no new copyright is generated. I now think that problems only arise when re-arranging frames or cutting bits from frames which could truely be said to create derivative works. We have a bit of a precident for the original being free license, but derivatives being problematic: the case of freedom-of-panorama images which contain some element (eg logo in the background) which, if cut out on its own, would be a copyright violation. Perhaps just a standard warning about how derivatives might infringe copyright --Tony Wills 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split up and relist Honestly, while it would be nice to deal with an issue such as this, there are so many images being discussed here and each has their own little nuance on why they are here. I feel like we should focus on each image individually. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since w:Mike Godwin is a general cousel for the Wikimedia Foundation, it could be useful to ask him what he thinks. / Fred J (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's what Wikipedia's own article on derivative works has to say:

When a derivative work is copyrighted, 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) dictates that, [t]he copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Thus, registering a derivative work will not artificially extend the length or scope of protection of the underlying work.

To me, it sound's like Lupo is arguing that, since the characters have appeared in derivative works since the original (now expired) work, the characters are still under copyright. This does not jive with the explanation of derivative works above. Please explain if I misunderstand Lupo's argument. - 75.68.224.236 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above, let's look at a specific example: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Allegedly, the copyright on Disney's 1937 movie expired because it was not renewed. Assuming this is true, the film is now in the public domain. As for the characters, i.e. the seven dwarfs and Snow White, they (Disney's version of these characters) made their first appearance in this film. So any supposed "copyright on the characters" is the same copyright that the film was protected under. The truth is, there is no separate copyright on the characters. The entire film is a single work with a single copyright protecting it and everything contained in it.
If the characters appeared in later films, then these new films do not renew or otherwise extend the copyright term of the original film, because the creation of derivative works does not extend the duration of the copyright of the original (as explained above). Once the original film's copyright expires, so too does the copyright on all content within the film, including the characters.
Of course, the characters might be trademarked, which is an entirely different thing from copyright. And there is no problem with trademarks being displayed in an encyclopedia or other reference material, so this should not affect the ability of these images to be displayed here.
It seems to me that Lupo's argument is based on either the erroneous assumption that copyrights on derivative works can somehow extend the copyright of original works, or on the erroneous confusion of copyrights and trademarks. Again, if I'm wrong and misunderstand your argument, Lupo, please clarify why you believe that the copyrights on the characters are still in effect if the copyright on the original films (or books, or whatever) that the characters first appeared in has expired. Regards, Moulding 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: I don't think it is even possible to "copyright a character", in the sense that you could put a copyright on any and all likenesses of a character. The reason is because a copyright can only be obtained on a specific instance of some fixed, tangible work. For instance, you could copyright a drawing of Mickey Mouse standing up. But that copyright would not cover a different drawing of Mickey Mouse where he is sitting in a chair, because these are two distinct works. Now, the second drawing might be considered a derivative of the first if they are similar enough. But this is not the same thing as a copyright on a character. The copyright was on a specific drawing of Mickey Mouse. And the second drawing was a derivative of the first. Using the phrase "copyright on the character" instead of "copyright on the drawing" is a bit misleading. Moulding 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Characters are copyrighted. It would be illegal for me to write another Harry Potter book, even if I changed the names due to it being a derivative of the character. -Nard 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you may be infringing a copyright if you wrote a new book that was too similar to the Harry Potter series, even if you changed the names. But it would need to be similar enough to be considered a derivative of one or more of the existing Harry Potter books. In the end, the copyright you are infringing is not a copyright on Harry (the character) but a copyright on a specific Harry Potter novel. This is precisely the distinction I am trying to point out: it is the book that is copyrighted, not the character. But because the character appears in the book, the copyright on the book also protects the character. Some here are confusing the matter by attempting to claim that the character Harry could somehow be protected by a copyright that is distinct from the copyright on the book. This is simply not the case. Moulding 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the distinction compelling: if the first harry potter book were out of copyright, and the last harry potter book was not, creating a generally derivative work using harry potter would be in violation because for protection of the copyright holder, the latest parentage for the derivative work has to be assumed (so the latest harry potter book), whereas directly reproducing a part of the first, copyright expired book would necessarily have to be acceptable to protect any kind of fair use from the claim that a newer work under copyright happens to contain the same character. Situations different than that scenario would either imply that fair use was impossible to execute(J.K. Rowlings just wrote about Luna Lovegood in her latest book, so you can only use pages 23 and 19 of the out-of-copyright book now!) or that copyright was impossible to execute (I wrote a fan book with harry potter in it, but it's the old harry potter, so you can't sue me!). 137.238.84.70 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about these pictures? [3] [4]. It says they qualify as fair use. What is the difference with the above listed images? Anyway, I think the examples about using Harry Potter to write an alternative novel or make a new film are entirely different from showing a sample of a film character to inform about the film or character, stating who its author or owner is, in an encyclopedic work (which is non-profit BTW).the preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.241.250.3 (talk • contribs)

Every image in Wikipedia must be free for every use and everyone. Also for commercial use. Chaddy 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I note at least one of these characaters, Olive Oyl, dates back to the 1910s (originally as a newspaper cartoon character), so the character design would be PD-US as well in addition to whatever relevent copyright of the film cartoon. -- Infrogmation 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The films themselves are public domain, thus no copyright is held for these screencaps. (Ibaranoff24 05:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. By all appearances, in practice, these films are in the public domain. You could not, admittedly, create a Superman cartoon as a derivative work of them, but this is largely because you would be hard-pressed to argue that it is a derivative work only of these cartoons and not of the still-under-copyright comics. You could certainly create a spin-off of any of the villains or non-comics-based characters. As for the individual screencap, the cartoons are freely available as it stands, and the screencaps thus are as well. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The law is clear. It's not so simple as declaring that a single work is or isn't copyrighted when it adapts previously existing copyrighted works. It is not disputed that Superman as a character, including his appearance, is copyrighted. Superman was not introduced in the Fleischer cartoons, but previously in DC Comics, and DC properly renewed the copyrights in all of its titles featuring Superman. The character's copyright is therefore not dependent upon the status of the Fleischer cartoons' copyright in any way. The Fleischer cartoons then entered the public domain when their copyright was not renewed. But that means that only the elements that originated in those cartoons—whatever Fleischer studios itself authored—became public domain. As those cartoons contained elements from preexisting, independently copyrighted works (the character of Superman, the character of Lois Lane, etc.), whatever elements Fleischer Studios made use of but did not author could not be released into the public domain by their inaction (the fact that their use was licensed also has no bearing on this issue). Read the Wikipedia article on It's a Wonderful Life to look at it another way. The film is in the public domain. However, the story that it adapted is not. This means that the story's authors have rights over whatever portions of the film derive from that story, but everything else that originated in that film (still images would apply here because a photograph can't copy a non-visual narrative) is public domain. Postdlf 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're misframing the issue here - the issue is not the copyright of Superman, but the copyright of this licensed and legally created image of Superman. Which nobody, it seems to me, disputes the freedom of, since the cartoon it came from is widely distributed for free and without license fees. There is a muddied issue of derivative works here - as I said, one probably cannot create a Superman comic and claim it is derived from the Fleischer cartoons, not the comic (If only because such a claim would be laughed at). But the point remains that the cartoon itself is public domain, and is routinely distributed as such. Phil Sandifer 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the issue is entirely the copyright of Superman. Saying that a work is in the public domain is to say that no one has copyright in it. However, the nature of a derivative work is that it incorporates preexisting elements in which others have copyright. This means that multiple authors may have rights over one single work. The Fleischer Studios cartoon is a derivative of the Superman character and comic book stories. That it was licensed just means that DC gave them permission and couldn't sue them for doing this. Then Fleischer Studios didn't renew their copyrights, and so Fleischer lost their rights over the cartoons. Their rights only encompassed what they authored in those cartoons, not what they made derivative use of. What Fleischer Studios authored is now in the public domain, nothing more. Once again, the cartoons are works of composite authorship—DC's preexisting properties and Fleischer Studios' animation. The loss of Fleischer Studios' rights did not and could not affect DC's rights, which are separate and preexisting. To say the cartoon is in the public domain is only to say that what originated in that cartoon may be freely used. Postdlf 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also this prior discussion on this very issue at Wikipedia. Postdlf 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Superman is actually a different case from the other images by the looks of it. The drawings of superman in comics that are still copyrighted and predate the cartoons may well be sufficient to restrict the use of the cartoon stills. In the other cases, I don't think any copyrighted representations of the characters predate the cartoon appearances that are now PD. The argument for deleting the superman stills is therefore much stronger. WjBscribe 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that Russell v. Price and Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. Hastings have to be read to mean that in US law, the fact that a derivative is now in the public domain does not mean that distribution of the derivative does not continue to be affected by copyright on the original work or concept. In this case, if the characters are still the subject of copyright, these stills could be used in a number of ways quite legitimately - their use on Wikipedias for example would be legally sound. But they probably cannot be modified and commercially re-used. One could not for example crop bugs bunny from an image, add the character into another image and sell it as a poster. That would infringe rights to the bugs bunny character. Given that modification and commercial reuse must be possible for images to be considered "free", I think I have to conclude that these are not. Obviously local projects would be strongly encouraged to keep copies of these stills under appropriate fair use rationales. However, I would like to see more argument to confirm that these characters are indeed still the subject of copyright - how has this legal protection been maintained? Presumably simple appearances in later derivatives still the subject of copyright would not be enough. Could someone clarify the basis for saying these characters are still subject to copyright? I suspect those characters are registered trademarks but Commons hosts many images that are trademarks. I am not sure one can have "copyright" over a character, as opposed to specific representation of a character. WjBscribe 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can have copyright over a character that is separate and apart from specific works that portray or make use of that character. American copyright case law is consistent on this (I remember in particular a case involving James Bond and an infringing commercial that had a tuxedo-wearing, suave action hero). Otherwise, anyone could make derivative use of any character without licensing. Plus we're dealing with a visual representation of a character here—a graphic image consisting of the character's costume and other appearance. Postdlf 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No James Bond films or books are in the public domain though - and my vague recollection is that the case you refer to is actually about an actor's contract (Pierce Brosnan could not appear in a full tuxedo in "The Thomas Crown Affair" because of his contractual obligations from playing James Bond). If no appearances of a chracter are PD, then any recreation of them (or something similar) violates copyright - its a derivative of a copyrighted work. But it is the appearance of the character - photo, movie etc. that is copyrighted, not the character itself. The character's protection is derived from the fact that its appeances are all copyrighted. If the "first drawing" of one of the characters is still copyrighted, then derivatives of that images are a problem. But copyright on a character could not be created by their continuing to appear in copyrighted derivatives if the original appearances are now PD. But I admit my expertise is limited to European (not US) copyright law - I would like to see something that confirms this idea that US law recognises some sort of separate copyright of a character. At the moment, I think people are confused by the fact that these characters are trademarked and that they have appeared in later drawings that are still copyrighted. WjBscribe 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The James Bond case involved a car commercial, it had nothing to do with contract law; see Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ("the Court FINDS as a matter of law that Plaintiffs own the copyright to the James Bond character as expressed and delineated in their 16 films."). And as the case law discussed in that case makes clear, it's not just the visual appearance of graphic characters that can be copyrighted; purely literary characters can be copyrighted too, if they are sufficiently distinct. Whether a portraying work is PD only matters for the fate of that character's copyright if that character originated in that work. Once again, if a particular work enters the public domain, that only means that no one holds copyright to what originated in that work. Postdlf 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But in some of these instances, the drawings now in the PD are the original works. With the superman images I think it ma be right that the comics that predate the cartoons means that all we have is a PD derivative. What I am asking about is the situation where the cartoons that are now PD are the first drawings of the character. Ideas cannot be the subject of copyright by themselves. Lets try a simple hypothetical scenario. I come up with the idea of "Chloe the Kangaroo" and make some drawings of her in black and white. Years later, I make more detailed drawings of her in colour. I fail to renew the copyright on my black and white drawings but the colour ones are still in copyright. "Chloe the Kangaroo" does not exist, only black and white and colour drawings of her. The black and white drawings of her are now PD and I cannot prevent those images being used in derivatives. However if the derivative is colour and closely resembles those drawings, I may have an action for infringing my copyright on the colour images of Chloe. If it were the other way round (b&w still copyright, colour not) then it must be right that the colour images are mere derivatives and their becoming PD does not affect the original copyright. Of course, I may protect my interest in "Chloe" with a trademark but it is copyright under discussion here. Does that make sense, where all we have are drawings, the only copyright there can possibly is in the drawings. WjBscribe 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If in fact the originating works for any of those characters are in the public domain, then yes, the character as portrayed in those works would also be public domain. If the character was further developed or modified in later works that are still copyrighted, then those later changes to the character would not be public domain (you have to conceptually deconstruct the elements of a character to deal with this). So can you actually document that for any of the above characters, the images are not derivatives of prior works that are still copyrighted? Postdlf 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • My point is that this was what this discussion here needs to focus on: for each of the images deleted, is there (or is there not) a previous copyrighted representation of the character that may restrict the ability to reuse the derivative that is now in the public domain. A blanket nomination is unhelful - each of the images listed may raise separate issues that need to be investigated. WjBscribe 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, that is the issue. But there's no point in splitting any of them off from this discussion absent any proof that there are no prior copyrighted works from which these derive. The burden should be on those asserting that the image is freely usable. Postdlf 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-evaluate on a case by case basis before renominating - I have some experience in US intellectual property law and I have never heard of this idea that you can copyright a character in the sense that it is being used here. Please give a citation for this concept. People are very badly mixing trademark law in above as well, the only non-commercial/educational issues mentioned in the cases above relate to trademarks and have nothing whatsoever to do with the demands of the CC or GFDL licenses, which are copyright licenses. Under copyright law if these are in the public domain you can make any use of them you wish, on the other hand, you may end up having to pay damages to the trademark owners (who may not even be the same as the former copyright holders) or even get enjoined from using trademarks if you insist on trying to use them commercially. I understand that there is the idea of an intervening expired copyright wherein the original work could still be copyrighted, but that needs to be evaluated separately and on a case by case basis and shouldn't require deletion of the PD derivative work under our policies, unless w:User:Mike Godwin says otherwise. (I will caveat this however by saying that I am much less familiar with Commons policies than with English Wikipedia policies - my experience in the past on Commons being primarily for uploading my own images - so I may be missing something.) --BewareofDoug 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (aka w:User:Doug)[reply]
    • Could you clarify for me at all? Your answer seems to indicate that using these images would not infringe on the copyright which is currently held on the Superman character who debuted in 1939. What is the nature of that copyright? Is it possible that this image could be used in any manner which would not infringe on that copyright? For example, if I created a comic book, with my own novel story, using these images, would that be free or would it infringe any copyright held in the Superman character? If this comic book would infringe then there is still some copyright attached in this image, yes? To me, this looks like it may well be in the public domain, but with the protections that the current copyright holder already has on the Superman character, it is more likely that this image can be used similar to a creative commons no derivatives license or a rights restricted license. If that is the case, we must review Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses which clearly states: All material on the Commons must be licensed under a free license that allows anyone to use the material for any purpose (see also Commons:Criteria for inclusion). In particular, the license must meet the following conditions: Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Based on that, if it is indeed the case that not all derivatives of this image can be allowed under copyright law, then this image does not meet the commons criteria and must be deleted. This debate needs to focus on that main point of commons policy. Can all derivatives of this work be allowed, can these images be used for any purpose, including creating new comic books featuring the character depicted, or would existing copyrights on the Superman character prevent them. I believe derivatives could infringe copyright on the Superman character, and therefore the images must be deleted to comply with Commons policy. Hiding 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the Wikipedia content guidelines on the public domain with regard to animated movies (cartoons), at least some fictional characters can be copyrighted. At the same time, for a movie to be treated as being in the public domain, the guidelines specify that the movie cannot contain any copyrighted characters. (This is not to say that every fictional character is copyrighted.) There might be something to be said for considering the images on a case-by-case basis. -- Gazebo 05:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Relist on an individual basis - the copyright issues around these specific images are too fuzzy for us to draw a clear general conclusion. It's better to nominate a single image, get input from some professional IP lawyers, and begin to set a precedent for other deletions if necessary. Dcoetzee 04:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a precedent was set in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg... Lupo 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]