Commons:Deletion requests/File:Randy's donuts1 edit1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Sorry, but there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. Dura lex, sed lex. Please crop the donut from the image. 84.62.204.7 17:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Object in question is a pre-1978 work first published in the United States. The donut at Randy's Donuts was erected in the United States, in 1954 or earlier, as the second location of the Big Do-Nut chain. If it is considered part of the architecture, then there is no copyright against photography because there is indeed freedom of panorama in the United States for architecture. (This is why {{FoP-US}} exists.) Also, regardless of whether this is architecture or another sculpture, the donut is a work "published" prior to 1978, and almost certainly published by its rights-holder without a copyright notice. (As a pre-1978 work with the copyright notice omitted by the rights-holder, the donut itself becomes {{PD-US-no notice}}.) In either case, no prohibition on photography of it; the only copyright is that of the photographer. (I note that the deletion nominator, 84.62.204.7 (talk · contribs), seems to be nominating this image as a response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Google lawn.jpg, but is having trouble understanding the "lex" part of "dura lex, sed lex", as demonstrated in User talk:84.62.204.7.) --Closeapple (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, lest someone say I missed a loophole: From what I can tell, because this donut was first published around 1950 (and therefore before 1964), any alleged copyright holder also would have had to file a renewal on paper before about 1978 (1950 28 years) for it to still be copyrighted. Note that the article en:Randy's Donuts and some of its sources that the chain was originally called Big Do-Nut Drive-In, and that the owner of Big Do-Nut sold off all the shops to various other people in the mid-1970s. So, for the giant donut to still be copyrighted today:
- the copyright holder of the giant donut "sculpture" would have had to place a copyright notice on each pre-1978 giant donut when it was erected; and
- the original copyright holder from 1950, despite selling his shops off separately to various people throughout the 1970s, would still care enough about his giant donut "sculpture" to pay for filing a renewal around 1978. (Or, if you want to really stretch credibility: It is theoretically possible that, despite none of the new owners of the various buildings using the Big Do-Nut name anymore, someone decided they just had to have the copyright to make copies of that particular version of an enormous donut, and then, having convinced themselves that every donut been duly inscribed with a copyright notice, payed to renew it, all before 1978, instead of just making their own original giant donut sculpture instead.)
- I hope that clears things up. --Closeapple (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, lest someone say I missed a loophole: From what I can tell, because this donut was first published around 1950 (and therefore before 1964), any alleged copyright holder also would have had to file a renewal on paper before about 1978 (1950 28 years) for it to still be copyrighted. Note that the article en:Randy's Donuts and some of its sources that the chain was originally called Big Do-Nut Drive-In, and that the owner of Big Do-Nut sold off all the shops to various other people in the mid-1970s. So, for the giant donut to still be copyrighted today:
Kept: Searched on "Donut" in the usco renewal database. 112 hits, but none of them were any of the possible names here. Therefore this is PD-US-norenewal. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
