Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/American Buffalo Gold Coin

American Buffalo Gold Coin

Reason: Per this delist, this current nomination and two former failed nominations (this one and this one) it features the same cameo effect as the 4 other coins, abeit with heavy editing by other wikipedia editors. If we're gonna discuss more about this type of shop, we should also include this one to the table as well.
Nominator: 293.xx.xxx.xx

Delist — 293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I also believe theirs one more shopped US Mint coin that also got FP status, but I can't find it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cameo effect looks great and I can't see how it lowers enc --Fir0002 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Fir0002, plus it's huge. --Tewy 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to clarify. If there's a version of the same resolution but without the cameo effect, I recommend that to be nominated for FP. But in the meantime there seems no reason to delist this image. --Tewy 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Cameo and unnecessarily huge resolution. Not only is it oversampled to that resolution but I have a very hard time viewing it at full size- since it's just a coin there are very large fields of solid color --⁪froth^{T C} 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that the maximum size (without compromising quality) is generally preferred (#5). Are you saying that the original was smaller? From what I can tell from the source, this was the original size. --Tewy 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like there's less image data than pixels.. I don't know how that happened though. Looking around the image intuition tells me I see maybe 1.1 pixel sized groups of samples --⁪froth^{T C} 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cameo proofs and US Mint photography style sometimes look tacky, but not in this case. Also, the cameo style is problematic with coins that are in regular circulation because most people see them in a scuffed, non-cameo form, while a bullion coin like this is meant to be sold to collectors and most specimens should look this shiny. —Dgies^t c 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I say again elsewhere: Can you guarantee 100% that if I bought said coin, it'll look like that? I have seen examples of said coin in hand, and it DOESN'T look like the US Mint Picture.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Methinks the licence tag on all US Mint coins is wrong: [1]. This seems to be a "covered coin"", but the stament that the coin is ineligible for copyright is contradicted by the link. In particular the Sacagawea Golden Dollar has a copyright notice embedded in the picture. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The buffalo nickel seems to be covered by those additional terms. Anyway the only applicable term seems to be the last one and wikipedia does that very well: When the obverse and/or reverse design of any Covered Coin obtained from any United States Mint source is reproduced for publication, credit should be given as follows: "United States Mint image." The credit should be clearly legible and placed next to the coin design reproduction. The following may be used instead if a credit page is provided: "United States coin image [or images] from the United States Mint." --⁪froth^{T C} 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So in other words this one is a copyvio since it's not a "Covered Coin"? → "This policy does not cover use of the design of any coin not specifically defined above as a Covered Coin. For example, it does not cover the Golden Dollar coin featuring Sacagawea." In any case, the licence tag should be corrected since it's clearly not true that US coins are "ineligible for copyright" and in the public domain. Currency in my understanding is always copyrighted by the Central Bank. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-read your quote: "This policy doesn't cover use of non-covered coins. For example it doesn't cover use of the golden dollar." Therefore the golden dollar isn't covered by the terms.. but even if it was wikipedia satisfies the terms. --⁪froth^{T C} 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Covered Coins ← OK to reproduce with attribution, Non-covered Coins ← Not ok to reproduce, even with attribution. "The United States Mint will not object to use of the obverse or reverse design of (... long list ...) (each, a "Covered Coin" and collectively, "Covered Coins")" This one does not seem to be among the listed Covered Coins (since it's not the Buffalo Nickel) and so the US Mint objects and "does not grant any waiver, release, or written permission of the Director under 18 U.S.C. § 709i or 31 U.S.C. § 333". ~ trialsanderrors 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That specific policy doesn't grant any release to non covered coins, but it doesn't mean that release hasn't been granted elsewhere. Presumably since that branch of the mint doesn't have jurisdiction over all coins. --⁪froth^{T C} 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That argument sounds a bit, uh, manufactured, especially since the headline of the webpage is "United States Mint Circulating Coin Design Use Policy". ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm.. well try this argument: The policy releases the specifically mentioned coins under certain conditions that make them ineligable for Public Domain. The policy also makes it clear that these conditions do not extend in any way to coins not mentioned (golden dollar for example). Since those other coins have no specific terms, and they're the work of the US Government, they're automatically released into the public domain. --⁪froth^{T C} 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        However works of the US govenment aren't eligible for copyright protection.. they're automatically released into the public domain unless withheld by additional conditions. see [2] [3] [4] --⁪froth^{T C} 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        $105, "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise" applies here, as clearly stated on the US Mint website. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But the copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, etc is only the Covered coins. --⁪froth^{T C} 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you might have a good point about all US currency not being public domain since some of it seems to be released under conditions (albiet conditions that WP satisfies) --⁪froth^{T C} 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be marked with Template:Money? --⁪froth^{T C} 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, since when did this turn into a debate on Wikipedia policy? --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't feature fair use pictures. It's in the FP criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the designer and engraver credit listed is the designer of the 1913 Buffalo nickel, which is a "Covered coin". I think the only way this would not be PD is if there was copyright held by the photographer. Still it would be good to know for sure. —Dgies^t c 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's a phone number on the webpage. I thought I saw an email address somewhere, but I can't find it anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's licensing@usmint.treas.gov but I'd rather not be the one to ask permission. In any case, with "Federal Fridays" I doubt we'll get an answer before Monday. —Dgies^t c 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - cameo destroys enc, and should disqualify images in my opinion. Debivort 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bullion coin for collectors. A large fraction of them are cameo. —Dgies^t c 08:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry I may have used the term incorrectly. I meant to refer to the photoshopped background, and thought we have been using the term "cameo" to refer to that. In either case, I vote delist because of obvious photoshoppery in the background. Debivort 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that it is just fine with the cameo in this case. It is an excellent picture of a collecter Buffalo Gold Coin. Why1991 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep as this seems to just be up for delisting to bolster an FPC argument and to prove a point, this is hardly the place for either... the better place to mention this if you want to use this as an example why these shouldn't be listed would be just to mention it in the current noms for coins. Cat-five - talk 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not list it? We're questioning the validity of another shopped US coin, which is completely unnatural in apperance and doesn't have any equilvelent counterpart in real life. This coin also has the same questioned criteria as well. Which might be a moot point, because of the pending copyright problem above. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin images are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Raven4x4x 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I closed this User:293.xx.xxx.xx pointed out to me that the copyright status of this picture hasn't been resolved yet. I'm putting this here in 'suspended nominations' until it can be sorted out fully. Raven4x4x 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This source gives the date of original engraving as 1913, which would put it into the PD as expired copyright, but I would think it's the burden of the original uploader to confirm this. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, the design was "refreshed" for the $50 denomination, so that kinda leaves a grey area of sorts. The design might be PD, but the additions of the legends and denominations might lend the coin to be "copyright" by the US Mint. Just want to be 100% sure it's legit.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then delist pending confirmation that the coin is available under a free licence. Contact info is above. ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, because by keeping it here, we can get a clear understanding if it violates or fulfills Criteria #4. The FP tag hasn't been changed on the image page yet, and nobody has given a clear opinion on whats what. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought on the refreshing of the design: in german copyright law there is the concept of Schoepfungshoehe which describes the amount of creative work. Trivial additions such as legendtext, contrast enhancement or putting numbers on the engraving would most likely not lead to sustainable copyright claims under german law. Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. --Dschwen(A) 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. You're joking right? :p --⁪froth^T 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then so must be Cornell Lawschool [5]:

Any copyrighted expression must be “original.” Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). Although the amount of creative input by the author required to meet the originality standard is low, it is not negligible. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 362. There must be something more than a “merely trivial” variation, something recognizably the artist’s own. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 489 (9th Cir. 2000). The originality requirement mandates that objective “facts” and ideas are not copyrightable. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. (11 Otto) 99 (1879); Feist, 499 U.S. at 347; Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 1970). Similarly, expressions that are standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium are not protectable under copyright law. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). --Dschwen 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things (always considering IANAL):

In 1991 in the case of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (499 US 340) the U.S. Supreme Court basically rejected the Sweat of brow doctrine. I.e. just because something took a lot of work to create does not justify a copyright claim.
Facts are not copyrightable. Ok I mentioned this before, but the denomination of the coin: fact, the year it was issued: fact, the issuer: fact. The arrangement of the letters: trivial.

IMHO this case can be closed. And there wasn't any helpful input for one and a half months. It all boils down to the original artwork, which has already determined to be free. --Dschwen 08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded this file to Commons and nominated it for deletion there per Cool Cat's advice on IRC. The Commons deletion discussion should be able to determine the copyright status of this image. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:American_buffalo_proof_vertical_edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've been in contact with the U.S. Mint and have a phone call scheduled for tomorrow. So I hope we'll get some more info then, although I doubt it will be a decisive Yes or No. ~ trialsanderrors 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How did it go? Tomorrow was two days ago. I still stand by my argument (which nobody bothered to comment on :-( ) that we should be fine keeping this pic. --Dschwen 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The phone call never came. I'll wait until tomorrow night and if nothing happens I'll summarize the e-mail exchange on the Commons page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Info and my interpretation posted. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see above. --Dschwen 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as a featured picture (finally). --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]