Commons talk:Public art and copyrights in the US

Status of this page

I don't mean to say anything negative about the considerable amount of work which went into this page, but usually such works by individuals are carried as user subpages and not in the Commons namespace. Having it in the Commons namespace without any sort of disclaimer at the beginning suggests that it is endorsed by the Commons community, which this clearly has not been -- and again, I do not mean to suggest that it should not be endorsed, or might not be endorsed, but simply that it has not.

Until such endorsement has happened, I suggest that either it should be a user subpage or it should begin with an explicit disclaimer along the lines of:

"This page represents the work of a single Commons editor and is not necessarily endorsed by the community."

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I do know that this was actually researched by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team, actually. SarahStierch (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is true. :) What the community does with it is, of course, up to them, but this was researched by the legal team in response to a question raised at the village pump. It was posted there on January 5. For what it's worth, the few editors who responded to it seemed to find it in accord with Commons understanding, by and large. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then, someone who understands its source, could put a sentence describing it at the top of the article. That will make it a lot more useful as a citation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean a description somewhere stating, "This was produced by in response to"? If so, I can do that. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Most of our policy or instruction pages have a comment at the top that tell what standing they have -- policy, guideline, opinion, etc. I would call this a guideline, but others may differ.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how I would flag this page. :/ Template:Essay doesn't seem right, as even though it was offered for guidance only and is not intended as a WMF directive, it's really just recapping a legal situation and editors may find that they're more or less obliged to follow it to meet other policies and guidelines they are obliged to follow. But it would be presumptive of me for sure to tag it Template:Guideline. Well beyond my scope. :) I think I'll just explain where it comes from and let the community figure out what to call it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What you wrote is exactly what I had in mind, thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Work for hire

I'd like to see more on w:Work for hire. I think it would help to have a template or a policy page here: work for hire Many staues and monuments fall under this category. [1] I would also like to seer a template like this: {{Work for hire}} Evrik (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

I have trouble understanding the implications of this box (for convenience I have added numbers to the six cells):

1978 until March 1989	Has it been published?	Requirements to maintain copyright.
1) Statue has not been published.	2) Display in a public location does not publish the work.	3) No requirements because the work has not been published. Copyright protections are maintained.
4) Statue has been published.	5) If tangible copies of the work have been sold to the public.	6) A work would not lose copyright protections if: 1) it was registered and published with a copyright notice; 2) it was registered within 5 years of publication; 3) it was published after March 1984, then the copyright did not expire before the 1989 term extension and change of requirements. {{PD-US-1978-89}} may apply.

Box 3 suggests to me that it will have copyright protection forever, which seems to conflict with "limited times" in the copyright clause. Or did it become published in March 1989? If not, would it become published if it were moved after March 1989? Or, as this suggests, is it off limits to Commons forever?

Box 5 -- "tangible copies" -- Full size 3D replicas of the sculpture? 3D miniatures? Photographs on film, the old way? Digital photographs, sold in intangible digital form? All of the above?

If box 5 includes photographs, I assume that "sold to the public" does not include a third party taking a photograph of the sculpture and selling copies to the public. Or does that move it from box 2 to box 5?

I don't understand point (3) in box 6.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about all those questions, but unpublished works will eventually be PD-old-70, if they're not {{PD-US-unpublished}} (see Commons:Hirtle chart). Possibly {{PD-old-unpublished-70}} would be a good thing to have in terms of clarity, since PD-old-70 normally applies to published works. Oh, and "sold to the public" probably means "by someone authorised to make derivative works". Rd232 (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Perhaps box 3 should read "No requirements because the work has not been published. Copyright protections are maintained until {{PD-US-unpublished}} applies.

I'm pretty sure you're right that "sold to the public" means authorized sales, but perhaps that, too, should be clarified.

Actually the paragraph above the box on the main page answers most of my box 5 questions, but there remains the emphasis in box 5 on "tangible". Is a digital image/download tangible? Is authorized use of such an image on Commons tangible? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, point (3) in box (6) was wrong, I think, and I just changed the text. Joining the Berne Convention did not end the 5-year requirement for works previously published without notice (indeed, renewal requirements themselves were still required until the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992). So if you published a work without notice in February 1989, you had five years (until 1994) to file a registration to keep the copyright. Note that the law required more than just registering the copyright within 5 years to keep copyright, but that was one of the requirements, and by far the easiest one for us to check. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

1978–1989 grave markers and other monuments

Over the last few years, I've been photographing grave markers of notable people, following the guidance from the then-current revision of Commons:Monuments and copyright in the US:

Anything from 1923 to March 1, 1989 is PD if it does not have both (a) the word "Copyright" or the © symbol and (b) the creator's name.

But now, reviewing this page, I'm questioning whether I should have uploaded photos of markers put up in the United States from 1978 to March 1, 1989. I could use some help on the following points:

• Though the vast majority of grave markers have no copyright notices and have not had their copyrights manually registered, they have also not had any tangible copies sold, so should we assume that ones installed in the US between 1978 and March 1989 are under copyright since they can't be considered published?
• Does threshold of originality apply? If so, is it reasonable to assert that any of these fall below it?

A

B

C

D

E

• For photos of markers in other countries whose freedom of panorama would normally make them PD, should they still not be uploaded to Commons if they wouldn't be PD in the US under the criteria above? Nick Number (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Anything on the pictures above (except may be File:Grave of Jesse Owens (1913–1980) at Oak Woods Cemetery, Chicago 2.jpg, where the text is longer, but still very simple) is too simple to have a copyright. As you said, there is no copyright notice, so no issue. I think these would be OK in France too, where there is no freedom of panorama. I would only worry about tombs with an artistic design (sculpture, statue, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with Yann. Most common examples are simple text (eg name, dates), sometimes short basic info (eg profession, military service) that are not copyrightable. Designs like crosses, Chi Ro, Star of David, are long old enough to be PD. (The only one I could see any possible argument that it might not be obviously PD is the Jesse Owens one, which has a paragraph of text, arguably long enough that someone might copyright it - however as it has no attribution nor copyright notice, which would have been expected if someone cared to copyright it then, so without researching I'd rank it as so extremely unlikely to have any copyright problem as to not worry about unless some new info turns up.) You seem to be acting with diligence and good faith in photographing these. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @Yann and Infrogmation: Thank you for your replies. I was wondering if I could get opinions on a few more with varying levels of ornamentation. Nick Number (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

F

G

H

I

File:Marker for Nevin William Hayes (1922–1988) at Bishops' Mausoleum, Mount Carmel Cemetery, Hillside, IL.jpg is just a list of functions and dates, and a short extract of the Bible, so no copyright. File:Grave of Lawrence Joseph Sarsfield Daly (1912–1978) at Holy Sepulchre Cemetery, Alsip, IL.jpg has some artistic design, but, as the other one, no copyright notice. The other two are even simpler. Yann (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: I was concerned that "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication" made the lack of copyright notice largely irrelevant, but if there is consensus that these images are ok then I will go with that. Thanks again. Nick Number (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)