Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Shortcut: CT:FOP

This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:Freedom of panorama. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Freedom of panorama may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|FOP}}.

Where in the Belgium legislation does it restrict photographs of buildings

Excuse my wikilawyering, however, I have just scanned the WIPO legislation for Belgium, and I am wondering how and where we decided that photographs of buildings are not allowable. The English translation [1] has the following opening sections ...

“

Section 1: Copyright in General ..........................................................................1–7 Section 2: Special Provisions on Literary Works ....................................................8 Section 3: Special Provisions on Works of Fine Art .........................................9–13 Section 4: Special Provisions on Audiovisual Works......................................14–20

”

Buildings will not fall into sections 2 to 4, and definitely not in subsequent sections of the law. There is no evident part of section one that can relate to a constructed building.

• Article 1 — The author of a literary or artistic work alone shall have the right to reproduce his work or to have it reproduced in any manner or form whatsoever ...
• Article 2 — The author of a literary or artistic work shall enjoy an inalienable moral right in his work...
• Article 3 — The economic rights shall be movable, assignable and transferable ...
• Article 4 — Where copyright is indivisible, exercise of the right shall be governed by agreement ...
• Article 5 — In the case of a work of collaboration ...
• Article 6 — Copyright shall belong as of origin to the natural person ...
• Article 7 — After the death of the author ...

None of those copyright in general areas go near buildings. If we are going to try and uphold and point to a restricting legislative process, then we need to be able to clearly show the section of the legislation that we would breach, and here we have not. Someone clearly needs to demonstrate how the Belgium copyright laws impact Freedom of Panorama, at this stage we have done a pretty poor interpretative approach. Again, is there case law to which we can point?  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Belgium is a member of the Berne convention. The Berne convention, in its article 2, paragraph (1), provides that the expression "literary and artistic works" includes works of architecture (and also a lot of other stuff). A case could be made that the expression "literary or artistic work" in the Belgian law should be interpreted in the light of the Berne convention. Thus, a work of architecture would be a "literary or artistic work" (more artistic than literary, I suppose) for the scope of section 1 of the Belgian law, although it is not a "literary work" for the scope or section 2 and it is not a "work of fine art" for the scope of section 3 of the law. In short, "artistic work" is broader than "work of fine art". And "works of architecture" are included in "artistic works" but not in "works of fine arts". -- Asclepias (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that gives them rights to their work, but a picture of a building (2-D image of one facet of 3-D construct) is not a copy of a work of architecture, and especially not all buildings are a work of architecture. Many countries signed the Berne convention and do not apply provisions in that sense, so someone is drawing a long bow to say that it specifically should be inferred that way when it is not covered in the legislation. We are not legals, nor international treaty experts, so we should interpret law as it is written, not some inference. Is there a significant legal opinion that supports FoP for Belgium, or is there direct or indirect case law that would do so? The legislation itself has provisions within it for special cases, and one would expect that freedom of panorama would have been equally treated.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Then if you want to make such an inference section 5 would then apply in that articles 21 and 22 could be applied to 2-D images of 3-D objects that equates to publishing when the work is open and in a public place, and all those components could apply. If you are going to say copyright equivalent, there has to be the publishing equivalent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a long bow. There have been (European) court cases which have confirmed that (and cases ruled as not derivative works under certain conditions, which directly imply that other types of photos can be derivative works). "Artistic works" is a more generic term, and is generally understood to include architecture and most any kind of copyrightable work. Rather, I think we'd need case law to show that buildings are *not* considered copyrightable -- and I think that's unlikely. Civil law countries are more likely to consider treaties self-executing (i.e. the text of the treaty becomes actual law in that country once ratified). The U.S. often does not, and definitely does not in regards to Berne, but many countries do. It seems pretty clear to me that architecture is included in "artistic works" as Asclepias said. I can't think of a country which does not consider photographs of copyrightable works either reproductions or adaptations (derivative works) -- buildings are treated like any other work, unless there is a specific provision in the copyright law indicating differently. So, we generally need to see the explicit exception listed in copyright laws, and those exceptions can't have non-commercial limitations if we want to make use of them. It's possible that some buildings are too simple to be considered "artistic works" in the first place, but that is a very hairy area where it's difficult to make judgments without specific case law guidance. You are correct that articles 21 and 22 do allow certain limited uses, but they would not extend to usages such as a photo of the work on a postcard, which would be required to be "free". Using photos on Wikipedia articles likely would not violate the law in a great number of countries, but the "free" determination is the larger problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Morocco

The WIPO version of the Moroccan legislation [2] states in article 20

“

Free Use of Images of Works Permanently Located in Public Places Article 20 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 10 above, it shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes.

”

where Article 10 is about economic rights. This clearly contradicts the advice that we give. I believe that we are in error in our advice unless we can demonstrate that there is case law to the contrary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does that contradict the advice we give? If the image of the work is the main subject of the photo, and it is used for commercial purposes, it is not permitted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if you think that it does, then consider it closed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Our advice contradicts the law because we're saying that uses have to be both incidental and non-commercial, while the law says they have to be either incidental or non-commercial. Incidental here meaning "not the main subject of such a reproduction", this might give us much better FOP than our usual de minimis cases (not similar to France at all). -- Orionist ★ talk 04:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As explained by billinghurst and Orionist, if I understand them correctly because I don't practice much English, I agree with them, and believe it's a case of logical conjunction. Some people around me, asked for their opinions, agree also. Here is a synthetic table that summarizes my perception regarding the case of Morocco (but not only, I'm also thinking for example of Mozambique).

AND

	Main subject	Not the main subject
Commercial purposes	Not OK	OK
Noncommercial purposes	OK	OK

It would be different if the text was : unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication or if it is used for commercial purposes.

OR

	Main subject	Not the main subject
Commercial purposes	Not OK	Not OK
Noncommercial purposes	Not OK	OK

--Frenchinmorocco (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There are some cases where the wording might make a difference, but it's still not FoP usable by us in the general case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm not sure I understand your reply. (1) In which cases ? (2) Does it mean that Commons can't accept images of buildings that are not the main subject and commercially usable ? --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I toke a look on the Arabic version (p.13) of the Law text (i.e. the "original version") and, as I understood it, it says that it has to be both the main subject and commercially usable to be unfree. I support Frenchinmorocco's interpretation above.

Here you got my opinion, and maybe you should ask more Arabic-speaking people to have more views.

Regards.

--Omar-toons (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It is also my anderstanding that FOP is permitted unless the work is used for commercial purposes.

Best regard. --Indif (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

O.k., but that means it is not usable for Commons, as we require all media to be free also for commercial use. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That is, for example, why South Korea and Slovenia are listed as  Not OK. In South Korea, an architect once sued a marketing company because a house appeared in a TV commercial for a bank, and in Slovenia, a sculptor once sued the publisher of a book, and in both cases, the architect & sculptor won. If you can't use buildings in TV commercials, and if you can't publish photos of sculptures in a book, then there is not enough freedom of panorama. Moroccan copyright law doesn't seem to permit photos of sculptures in books, nor does it seem to permit showing buildings in TV commercials --Stefan4 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@Túrelio: it's not exactly what I'm saying. FOP is not allowed (and thus not usable on Commons) only if the work is not freely (free as in beer) available, in other words if the work is used for commercial purposes. Say you have a protected work permanently located in a museum (which is a place open to the public), FOP is allowed if the entrance is free, otherwise it's not permitted. Regards. --Indif (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Guys, look at the text of the law again: commercial uses are allowed as long as the copyrighted work is not the main subject. See the first table above by Frenchinmorocco which is a correct representation. This makes a difference here because I see images deleted all the time because of buildings that are not the main subject, but at the same time the use is not minimal enough as to accept de minimis. The law doesn't require uses to be minimal, just not dominant, which is an important distinction. Not only this gives us more flexibility when dealing with images of urbanscape, museum halls, public parks etc. but it might also mean that for example, we can have a 10-minute video of Casablanca, that includes a couple of 30-second, full-on shots of the Hassan II Mosque. -- Orionist ★ talk 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. FoP is allowed a long as the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the republication, regardless of its possible commercial use. --Indif (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with your revert from a no-FOP to a FOP-o.k. version of our entry. To me, the situation still seems to be unclear and our general rule (for the sake of our re-users) is unclear=no.

I have checked our FOP-page for other countries who allow only "incidental use" of copyrighted public works and I found Namibia, Mali, Congo and Cambodia. All these countries are considered to have no Commons-usable FOP. Why should Morocco be different? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should aim for consistency. Can we distinguish the other cases? Mali and Namibia cover incidental audiovisual reproduction only; that's not much use on Commons (though in theory we may have or could have works where it would be relevant). Cambodia covers incidental inclusion only; that's probably covered by COM:DM anyway so no need to use their FoP, which risks confusion. I'll leave Congo as I'm not sure about it (see below). To conclude: Morocco's "not the main subject" is a more useful FoP provision than just "incidental inclusion". So it can be distinguished, and may sometimes be usable, and therefore we shouldn't just label it "not OK". Rd232 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Congo I'm not sure of - the law actually says The reproduction of an architectural work by means of photography, cinematography, television or any other similar procedure, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, journals and school textbooks, shall be lawful and may not give rise to payment of copyright. Whether that's a usable FoP depends on the meaning of "reproduction". Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

More broadly: maybe we should have more sophisticated icons for FoP than and . Even within the countries there is wide variation in the coverage. Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I modifed Morocco again, as it is simply not clear no-FOP or ok-FOP case. Namibia, Mali and Congo does not allow full commercial use for "incidental use", but Cambodia seems to be similar case (so we can revise it). --Jklamo (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Namibia, Mali and Congo does not allow full commercial use for "incidental use" - I don't see any restrictions on the incidental use there. Rd232 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We assume that we can use pictures where the copyrighted work is de minimis already. I'm sure the international law is a lot more complex then we know here, but I don't think the plain text of the law, in absence of known judicial interpretation, can be trusted to give us more then case law from France and the US imply we can have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

does FOP-Mexico really not require permanent installation?

As 2 images (File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg and File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg) that had remained deleted for nearly 2 years, as it is clearly considered a derivative of a copyrighted character, now have been undeleted [3] on the assumption that Mexican FOP-law regulation does not require a "permanent installation in the public", see this UR with more URs to follow, IMO we need a thorough legal expertise to check whether this serious assumption (Commons:FOP#Mexico and {{FoP-Mexico}}) really holds water both in the actual interpretation of Mexican copyright law and in case-law. The earlier discussions about FOP-Mexico, 1, 2, 3, were rather superficial, IMO.
Per common sense it's hardly imaginable that this assumption is true, as it would allow everybody to display a modern painting (or a poster of it) for 5 minutes in the public, make a reproduction and declare it as free per FOP-Mexico; but lawmakers rarely have common sense. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The corollary -- and probably more salient -- question is, even Mexican law is indeed so lax, would the United States honor a free license on a derivative work? As I've now said several times, the notion that this exact image (if taken on a sidewalk in Mexico) could be used on a book cover in the United States (i.e., commercial use) without the explicit permission of Disney (i.e., publication/pre-publication of a derivative) is absurd. I know no jurist who would not find infringement of the Mickey character (separate intellectual property from the photo itself) and grant to Disney injunctive relief (i.e., status in US is unfree, or fair use). These discussions seem to be the Dunning–Kruger effect in action. Эlcobbola _talk 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment The same issue exists with {{FoP-China}} and {{FoP-North Korea}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone actually read Article 148 and see the phrases "provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not affected" and "provided also ... that no alteration is made to the work". Free Cultural Works are these? Question answers itself for me. Edit: reading the previous discussions I can see these are dismissed as referent to moral rights, not copyright –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment The Mexican FOP law is not vague. It basically states that you can take pictures of almost anything anywhere if those pictures don't infringe on the exploitation (read income) of the copyright holders of the works. We may wish to add a statement or template similar to the personality, trademark, and de min templates that we have now to any FOP Mexico images. Template:Personality rights, Template:Trademarked, Template:De minimis.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Not vague" seems to be true for the letter of the law. However, as this is hardly understandable, we need also to consider case-law. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Same thing. If you profit from an FOP image taken in Mexico where the creator could have profited then he can sue your ass. In other words the creators should be contacted for any commercial work that could effect their income/exploitation. Just needs a template to warn re-users is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This translates into "no commercial use", which we actually find in several FOP-countries, that we consider as "no usable FOP". Anyway, IMO this situation requires an evaluation by a legal professional. We non-lawyers are just guessing. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't translate as 'no commercial'. It translates the same as personality rights where you can't profit from the image of a person without permission. If you made a T-shirt with the balloon image you couldn't sell it as a Darth Vader shirt in the Darth Vader section. You could probably sell it as a balloon shirt in the balloon section though. Darth people sell shirts but ballloon people don't so you wouldn't be exploiting the balloon creator's design to make money in his market. The images just need a warning template is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

But Commons requires that you should be able to sell the shirt in any section, not just the balloon one. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

They can't sell Justin Beiber shirts in any section with images from commons. This is the same as trademark images that are PD because of TOO. They have no copyright but you can't sell products with those images on them. We host many files with commercial use restrictions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't understand how a Hot air balloon can be considered as an installation. It is a moving object; also can be parked for a while. JKadavoor Jee 13:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, this is not the question here. Actually this isn't about any specific image. The question is whether FOP-rules in Mexico are really different from all other FOP-countries which do require permanent installation/placement of the original to be covered by FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's OK; I just commented because of the examples shown above. Carry on. JKadavoor Jee 13:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Compare also with this document (page 180) which suggests that ships are included in the definition of "buildings" in the Danish FOP law. COM:FOP#Denmark doesn't require buildings to be permanently installed, and COM:TOO#Denmark suggests that ships easily can be copyrightable. If means of transportation are covered by FOP in Denmark, then why couldn't this also be the case in Mexico? The issue about commercialisation is a bit troubling, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I noticed it. And the caption under File:WWFbalaobrasilia22032007.jpg says "The WWF panda logo not protected by copyright". I didn't understand the entire points though. JKadavoor Jee 13:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

FoP in Armenia

Dear all, Armenian law on copyright has been recently amended and Armenia has now freedom of panorama. Here is the official announcement on the website of Armenian Parliament. English translation:

Amendment on the "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" of the Republic of Armenia
Passed on 18.03.2013

Section 1. Article 25 of the "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" HO-142-N of the Republic of Armenia of June 15, 2006 will be amended and formulated as follows:

Article 25. Freedom of Panorama

Works which are located on streets, parks, squares and other places open for attendance can be reproduced and broadcasted, and reproduced copies can be distributed, including through internet, without permission of the author and without payment to the author, in any tangible medium and by any means and in any form.

Section 2. This law enters into force on the 10th day after its official announcement.

President of the Republic of Armenia: S. Sargsyan
13.04.2013
HO-21

Also I want to add to this that the term "works" is very broadly defined in Article 3 of the same law and includes both art and architecture. I suggest that we now change the section in this page and add that Armenia has FoP. --vacio 19:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. May not take effect for a few more days, but it does look like they deleted the "for non-commercial purposes" portion of the previous wording. WIPO does not have this amendment on its site yet, but the law it is modifying is here. The main site does not have an English translation from what I could see, but per the above and Google Translate, it sounds like there is (or will shortly be) FoP for permanently-installed outdoor public works. May need to start going through Category:Armenian FOP cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add this information on en:Freedom of Panorama ? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks very good. It may also be a good idea to search for more deletion requests about Armenian FOP cases which aren't in that category. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Images of sculptures in Armenia, which are copyrighted in the United States, should not be undeleted. --84.61.186.60 08:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we move {{FOP-Armenia}} from Category:Buildings in Yerevan? --vacio 13:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, that template should be changed to a permission template telling that Armenia does have freedom of panorama, like {{FoP-US}} or {{FoP-UK}}. Once that has been done, the template can be kept on that category page. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

{{FoP-HY}} ? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"FoP-Armenia" would be better, if changing the actual template without causing problems is possible. We already have PD-Armenia, so the naming would be more consistant. Other possible adjustments could be a new Category:FoP-Armenia (?) and cleaning up of the Category:Armenian FOP cases with 89 old cases - some deleted (permanently?), some kept for other reasons than FoP. Just some random ideas, but i have no technical template knowledge. GermanJoe (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this delay for? Can the users/admins responsible for updating the law change finally do it? --Yerevanci (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The page is not locked, feel free to update it (and {{FOP-Armenia}} as well). I do not see there any disagreement about interpretation of the new law. --Jklamo (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would if I knew how to update it. Commons is not where I usually spent my time. --Yerevanci (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Great news. I'm going to add the FOP cases category to my bookmarks and restore some of them right now. However, don't forget that lots of relevant images have now to be added to articles where they can be used (mainly in Armenian, Russian, and English WP I suppose). As we cannot filter out certain CommonsDelinker edits afaik, it can only be done manually. --A.Savin 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

When undeleting, consider being careful with adding {{FoP-Armenia}}. It can help a lot in case some users have missed the change at COM:FOP#Armenia. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - what's wrong? --A.Savin 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have done anything wrong. What I wrote was mainly meant as a general notice for everyone: if a file doesn't have the {{FoP-Armenia}} template, then someone else might come around at a later point and nominate the file for deletion again because that person hasn't noticed the change in the Armenian law. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it makes sense to add {{FoP-Armenia}} to all that files being undeleted now (but probably rather unrealistic to expect this template to be added to all relevant pictures of modern Armenian architecture & sculpture on Commons). --A.Savin 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If the restored categories can be added to articles via the commonscat template, that already saves a lot of work, since the Wikipedia users can add the pictures themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that many of the previously undeteled images are restored. Great! I hope we can undelete the others as well. --vacio 12:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I updated w:Armenia in the arts section. Should we attack the arts sections of all articles we can on Wikipedias and state whether or not FOP is allowed in those countries?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

FoP in USA: text signs

The current section on the USA isn't very clear on whether photos of textual signs (e.g. File:Echo Lake Park sign on tree about trout.jpg, File:Drexel Park Bald Cypress sign.JPG) constitute copyright violation or not. My personal feeling is that these meet the threshold of originality and are copyrighted. Can it be clarified, please? - MPF (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

USA only has FOP for architecture, nothing else. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the FoP-USA paragraph still needs clarifying, to make it clear that text is covered as well as artwork, and in particular, some guidelines as to when a piece of text meets the definitions of originality, as opposed to being too simple to copyright. - MPF (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I can see how the current wording can be a source of confusion when it arbitrarily specifies only some types of works as being "not OK". The ordinary reader will ask "what of the other types of works?" Why limit the wording to only two specific types of works if the principle applies to all types of works other than architecture? So, yes, that wording should be clarified so as to not be limited to two types of works. However, about the last part of your comment, this page about FoP is not the place to explain the different matter of the threshold of originality between copyrightable works and uncopyrightable works. The matter of FoP implies that the pictured work is copyrighted. If the pictured work is not copyrighted, then there's no reason to examine FoP. Maybe the casebook page could use a little paragraph about images of texts. It is somewhat surprising that it doesn't seem to have one. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Because those are the types of works usually given an exception in copyright laws, though I guess a few countries do allow photos of all public "works". There are also some more clear court precedents for those kind of works; not as sure as some others. Photos of text may have a lot of situational complexities and fair use/fair dealing issues (in ways which may make the photographs completely usable); I'm not sure there are any court precedents which would give clear guidance on that sort of thing, so I'm not sure we can really state anything definite on such matters. The nature of the text may have a lot to do with it -- it maybe OK to depict something in its public context, even if copying the text in other contexts is not OK -- we would be concerned about if the photograph itself is OK in commercial contexts, not what other uses the text itself could be used for. The text in the first image given above is most probably PD-EdictGov and is fine. The text in the second is probably PD-ineligible. Information is not copyrightable, and text which is really just a list of information is really not much different. There are lots of situations which get into more of a gray area to be sure... and I'm not sure we have a lot of guidance to help. A catch-all bit of guidance on all "text" may not really be accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But if the text of the second had been added verbatim to a wikipedia article, it would surely be removed as breach of copyright? - MPF (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That single partial sentence? Doubtful. You can't copyright facts and that is what most of that sentence is. A plaque of a poem would be different, of course. But again, we are concerned about the copyright of the photograph itself -- that can blur things somewhat. The question is whether the photograph would actually be considered derivative of the text, i.e. if it was the primary focus -- not all text which happens to be in the photo necessarily causes it to be derivative (even if it is fairly prominent). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• You could email http://www.valdostacity.com/ about File:Drexel Park Bald Cypress sign.JPG. They may release rights to the image. I agree that it is not probaby not protected as it is simple facts/text. If the syllables were slightly different it would be a w:Haiku and qualify as poetry. I think it can stay and if they don't respond to email then we can just wait for them to contact WMF if they really care about copyright. I doubt they would bother as their lawyers may just charge money to tell them it is not worth more money to take to court. The media may find it a cute story as well once word gets out. An artist would whine much more, probably lose in court but have his 15 min of fame and sell more bad art to people with no taste. Btw Carl I had my w:Ed Miracle painting authenticated. It is an official one but they didn't nail down a year of creation. They may not know or just not wish to state that it was before 1977. I may yet look for evidence of the original purchase date. They told me Ebay value is 1200 to 2500usd so until it goes up in value I may not spend any more effort on it. At the value now it is worth keeping and does look very nice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)