Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-01-10/Special report

Discuss this story

I intend to subsist solely on kale and quinoa so I can categorize Picasso on commons on my 198th birthday. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright terms are ridiculously too long.Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 14:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial I believe is correct when it says to avoid involving politicians But I believe that courts have taken a broader view of fair use because of the 1998 extension. Many academics and libraries have formulated guidelines for fair use and encourage people to use it. Even the fact that SCOTUS declined to rule again Google's in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. shows a willingness to take the public domain more seriously. Indeed, WP editors should do all they can to exercise their right to the material that just entered the public domain. As the aphorism goes, "Use it, or lose it."- kosboot (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosboot: As a foreign, I can't speak for the US, but another good example comes from the recent statements of the Italian Court of Audit, which I covered in a previous issue. Yes, it's kind of a shameless plug, but I hope it's justified... : D Oltrepier (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In my opinion, works should be released into the public domain at most 50 years after publication in my opinion, and even that's too long.

Also, copyright laws did not consider for the fact that in their future, anybody could share and remix almost anything and everything easily. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be from creation, not publication. Determining when something was first published is difficult, and many photographs and manuscripts were never published. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing in the article

What I miss in the article is the celebration of Public Domain Day 2024 on Commons. All files that have been restored 1 - 10 January because of Public Domain Day + newly uploaded files, are now available at the project page c:Commons:Public Domain Day/2024. Romaine (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question

About 10 years ago, I took a photograph of a statue in a public park. The statue had recently been commissioned and the artist paid for it by the city government. Thus, I contributed a few pennies from my taxes for the creation of that statue in that public park that anyone could see and photograph. I posted my photograph of the statue on a Wikipedia page -- and it was removed by someone who said I was violating the copyright of the artist. Was I? Why? Smallchief (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallchief: Well... I've genuinely no idea, but maybe SnowFire can help us! Oltrepier (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert here on sculptures; I'd mostly be quoting from Freedom_of_panorama#Notable_lawsuits_concerning_sculptures and c:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. My understanding is that if the sculpture was truly generic where the "sculptor" was just a employee hammering out a paint-by-numbers generic thingy that's a glorified lamppost, then there might be no right to it (as there's either no creative element). Alternatively, if a federal government employee made it as part of performance of their duties, it might be public domain (uncharted territory here - does this even ever happen? Sounds like it was the municipal government anyway.) If the artist built a sculpture then sold it, even if it was directed by the government, then the artist probably does have some rights, and then there's all the usual questions about if the artist has freely licensed the work. However, per the Commons link above, if the statue is from before 1989, it's probably public domain due to the annoyance of registering a copyright on a sculpture. (This is not legal advice.) SnowFire (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expert comment. Smallchief (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US- kosboot (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - this is the correct link: c:COM:PACUSA kosboot (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That answers my question. I likely violated copyright law by publishing a photo of the statue on Wikipedia. But...I think the copyright law is ridiculous -- offering far too much protection to authors, sculptors, etc. Moreover, if I were the artist who created the statue I mentioned above, I would be delighted to have it displayed on Wikipedia: free publicity and recognition rather than wallowing in obscurity. Smallchief (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is, yes.

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole: you can try and look up who the sculptor was, and then ask them for permission - either via the sculptor posting on their website that they've licensed works X, Y, and Z under cc-by-sa, or via convincing the sculptor to follow the process at c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Given that the odds of someone abusing the license to create a line of knock-off statues is... remote... it should be safe-ish for the sculptor. (Technically it gives up the legal right to mess with, like, a band of Illinois Nazis using the image too, except that with Google Image search, that's nearly impossible to stop anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]