Talk:Wikilegal/FOP statues

Responses

Is the take-home message at the end supposed to only apply to (modern, non-govt, copyrighted) sculptures originally made in the US, or even in the country where FoP includes sculpture? --99of9 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Similar question/observation. Your argument seems to boil down to "In the U.S., photographs of statues in public places are not protected by FOP." but shouldn't it be "In the U.S., photographs of statues in public places in the U.S. are not protected by FOP." How can the US regulate photos taken, e.g. in Germany? Smallbones (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the one that originally asked for a legal opinion regarding File:ACMI 14.jpg. The statue is copyrighted in the USA, the image was taken in Australia where FOP is allowed. The image of the statue is hosted in the USA though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like the commons:Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law discussion all over again (For those who can read French, here is a summary of my understanding of the Commons discussion), or am I missing something here? Jean-Fred (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note, this is an essay, not advice nor a legal opinion for the WMF (or if it is, then WMF legal need to make that unambiguous). It is also a narrow view, so is not aimed at, say other scenarios such as creative works made in Europe and on display in Europe but with photographs published in the US. --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how more unambiguous they can be than this huge giant notice at the top of the page...

-- KTC (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

KTC, I was saying the reverse. Of course this notice says it is not legal advice, I read those words as they were at the top of the page, thanks for repeating them here. However Canoe above says they were asking for a legal opinion, if this essay is a reply to that request, then the WMF staff should make that unambiguous rather than disclaiming it, and leaving the community to argue if they should now interpret it as if it might be a legal opinion of the WMF. If a legal opinion is required, perhaps we should have one, rather than an op-ed piece? Until that time, I am not sure of the value of us going over the same community discussion that J-F points to. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

i'm curious where you read that there are "special provisions for photographs of monuments and other memorials commissioned by the government," in the Gaylord case. my reading was that the federal claim of fair use was denied. there is a distinct difference between commissioned works, and the rarer - works of government employees.

you might also want to discuss Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US.

has there been a DMCA take-down request for this image? is the photographer preparing for a counterclaim? Slowking4 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

For some panoramas in which statute or other copyrighted element is but a small, legally insignificant (de minimus) part of the uploaded picture, the picture that is uploaded would not be a derivative work. Davidwr/talk 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)