This is a list of useful cases, previous image discussions, etc that may be relevant in discussing potential deletion of images.
Useful United States court cases in image deletion discussions
editPrior to 1976, if the only copy of a photograph was transferred, that too transferred the copyright. In other words, if an old family photo was given to an heir or placed in a church photo album or some such thing prior to 1976, we only need the permission of the person in physical possession of the photo - we don't need to concern ourselves with who originally took it. THIS IS ONLY THE CASE IF THE TRANSFER WAS MADE BEFORE 1976 - the law was changed in 1976 to eliminate this rule.
- (ruling)
The court found, in this case, that there was creativity involved in "each mapmaker's selection of sources, interpretation of those sources, discretion in reconciling inconsistencies among the sources, and skill and judgment in depicting the information." The ruling in that case describes the circumstances as, "But the evidence in this case demonstrates that Mason exercised sufficient creativity when he created his maps. In his deposition and affidavit, Mason explained the choices that he independently made to select information from numerous and sometimes conflicting sources, and to depict that information on his maps. Mason's compilation of the information on his maps involved creativity that far exceeds the required minimum level." In other words, if the map is just an outline of the state of Texas and some dots for cities, it's ineligible for protection. But if the author puts skill into selecting elements to include on the map, then it's copyrighted.
This case deals with the concept of an "implied license". Since January 1, 1978, if you hand your camera to some guy on the street and he takes a photo of you and hands the camera back, he owns the copyright to the photo. This is spelled out in the law. These two cases, however, cast doubt on that principle:
In Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon, the Ninth Circuit held that a copyright owner must express the intent to restrict the scope of a license when they deliver the copyright work. 542 F.3d 748, 756 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, an implied license will be limited to a specific use only if that limitation is expressly conveyed when the work is delivered.
In other words, these two courts are arguing that when someone takes your photo with your camera and hands it back to you, if no other intent is expressed (like saying, "please don't put this on the internet", etc), then the license is taken to be unlimited. If these two court cases were to be upheld, it would seem to me that you could post the photo to Facebook, email it to your family, or even print t-shirts with it.
But does being an unlimited licenseholder of the image satisfy Wikipedia? That is a separate question.
- (ruling)
Runstadler Studios created a glass sculpture by attaching 39 identical glass rectangles to form a spiral. Though obviously the individual elements (glass rectangles, 39 of something, making a spiral out of something) are not copyrightable, the entire thing put together was considered copyrightable.
- (Summary)
Prior to the 1976 US Copyright Act (which changed the notice requirements), Paramount Pictures sent one season of Star Trek out for syndication without a copyright notice. The court ruled that because they had contracts that specified limits on what the TV stations could do with the tapes and that the tapes were to be returned at such and such a time, they had not demonstrated an intent to cede copyright and so Star Trek is still under copyright. This case is considered highly controversial and some felt that a desire to not risk litigating it is part of the reason that Paramount settled with the creators of Prelude to Axanar.