File talk:Peachoid-gaffney.png
  | This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. This template should only be used on file pages. |
Copyright discussion edit
See this discussion related to copyright of the Peachoid. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
_001.jpg){kind=link}
- This water tower does have a copyright as sculpture, see registration VAu000051231 / 1982-12-06. FieldMarine (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information FieldMarine. The same links were provided at c:COM:VP#FoP in the US. Even though no freely licensed equivalent of the peach imagery can be created per Rwxrwxrwx because there is no FoP for such structures, I still think a free license (perhaps {{Self}} or {{photo of art}}) might be needed for the actual photo in addition to the non-free use rationale for the peach imagery. It seems that the photo itself of a 3D-element could be considered to have a creative element to it and therefore be a derivative work. Since the file's description says the photo taken by the uploader, I think that all Owen1962 needs to do is add a WP:ICT/FL#free license because I'm not sure if the statement "Other information" section is sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Added creative commons zero 1.0 license tag to talk page. Thank you for your help Marchjuly and sorry for the inconvenience, I'm new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen1962 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- No worries and I apologize if I caused a fuss over nothing. I am the one who is likely more in the wrong here since I mistakenly assumed that all architectural structures are equal when it comes to FoP and was not aware of the previous discussions about the tower's imagery on Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Added creative commons zero 1.0 license tag to talk page. Thank you for your help Marchjuly and sorry for the inconvenience, I'm new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen1962 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information FieldMarine. The same links were provided at c:COM:VP#FoP in the US. Even though no freely licensed equivalent of the peach imagery can be created per Rwxrwxrwx because there is no FoP for such structures, I still think a free license (perhaps {{Self}} or {{photo of art}}) might be needed for the actual photo in addition to the non-free use rationale for the peach imagery. It seems that the photo itself of a 3D-element could be considered to have a creative element to it and therefore be a derivative work. Since the file's description says the photo taken by the uploader, I think that all Owen1962 needs to do is add a WP:ICT/FL#free license because I'm not sure if the statement "Other information" section is sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this is OK -- the photograph is licensed properly and although the tower itself is copyrighted, the use here of the image is certainly fair use.
Marchjuly, FYI, as I think you know, in order for FOP to apply in the USA, the created work must be architecture. The Copyright Act (17 USC 101) says,
- "An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features."
The key word is "building" -- a man-made structure intended for human use or occupation. Thus monuments are not buildings and neither are water towers. Both, if above the threshold of originality, have copyrights as sculpture. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
