Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georgia Guidestones.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Georgia Guidestones.jpg[edit]
Because this sculpture is still covered by copyright (it was installed in 1979, i.e after 1978), this photo is a non-free derivative work as the U.S. has no freedom of panorama for public sculpture. See previous discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Georgia Guidestones. —RP88 (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm actually wondering if those are eligible for copyright. Five or six rectangular stones. Is the arrangement copyrightable? Seems kinda ordinary, and if astronomically aligned, that would actually lessen the chance. The text might be, but that is more incidental here. Is there a registration on them to show they were considered copyrightable? I actually have my doubts on them. Photos directly of the text might be a little more problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- The author of this sculpture remains anonymous, it's unlikely that they (whoever they are) filed a copyright registration. You might take a look at a drawing showing the arrangement of the sculpture (from here). I think the arrangement is sufficient for the sculpture to be above the threshold of originality. However, you might also consider the rough-hewn scalloping around three edges of the faces of the slabs, I wonder to what degree that is a deliberate artistic choice on the part of the artist considering that they had no difficulty producing a smooth faced stone surface and top. Your thoughts? —RP88 (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unless they actually sculpted each of those pockmarks to simulate a rough-hewn edge, rather than just making it rough-hewn, then no that aspect is not copyrightable. That would be no different than choosing a color, which (in the U.S.) is not copyrightable. The simple fact that choices were made doesn't matter; what matters is the expression from the hand of the author which is actually fixed in its medium. If they just let it be rough-hewn from what happened naturally during cutting, then that is not expression from a human hand. And I think the anonymous author had those made by a granite slab company anyways, not himself. I think the text is probably copyrightable, certainly as a collection of phrases, but I think the only thing about the sculpture which could be copyrightable is the arrangement of the stones, and that is symmetrical... seems pretty thin to me, to be honest. If you arranged say dominoes in the same basic manner, would you really be violating copyright? That is what an arrangement copyright would imply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think your dominoes example is on point, as the drawing shows that there are three different sizes of slabs (one with a slot); no arrangement of dominoes would reproduce this sculpture. I take it you think some of the files from the previous DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Georgia Guidestones were erroneously deleted? —RP88 (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, leaning that way. There is definitely a selection and arrangement copyright on the text, and probably a literary copyright on the text itself (even though they are shortish phrases). I don't think any of the individual stones have any other copyright (the slot is a minor addition; symbolic meaning does not enter into the copyrightable equation). You are correct that it's a little bit more involved than arranging dominoes, as there are a couple of different shapes there (goes to the selection part of that), but it does seem to be a very simplistic arrangement, and I am kind of doubtful that it would amount to authorship. It's one stone in the center, four arranged symmetrically on end outwards around it, and one centered placed on top. That is a very simplistic arrangement. There is some discussion of arrangement copyrights in appeals decisions; I can't find a perfect example yet but there are things like this: The gemstones are common shapes. One is square and the other four are elliptical. Individually, each gemstone is a minor variation on a common shape or design. As a whole, the overall arrangement or composition of four elliptical stones around a square in the center is commonplace and typical, lacking the necessary quantum of original authorship. Other ones you might look at are here (photo towards the middle), here, and the court case Satava v. Lowry. Now... in combination with all of the text, that extra aspect would make for a copyrightable arrangement, even if the text was public domain, I'd guess, which would probably make for a valid registration on the whole thing. A judge did rule that this work had a valid copyright as a sculptural work (as did the Copyright Office), and thus ruled (reversing on appeal) against a company making a very similar-looking rock with that same (public domain) poem on it. If the rock was entirely sculpted to look like a rock, that is copyrightable (rather than actually using a chisel and letting the natural fragmentation stay rough). And the combination of the poem, layout, and shape of the rock was ruled copyrightable. The question to me is if that aspect is really shown in the photographs, as opposed to just the arrangement of the stones. A 3-D reproduction of the entire monument (including text) would be a problem, but photos which only show the PD portions of a work are OK, and so the question is are the photos really capturing the full arrangement including the text, or are primarily just of the stones and their arrangement (which I think is probably PD), with the text being incidental. If this photo is a derivative work, I think it's by the slimmest of margins, and I'd lean towards keeping it. But, some of the other photos may have been more problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- So to summarize, you think that the cases you cite support the idea that this sculpture is likely protected by copyright, but you feel that this particular photo is probably OK by virtue of de minimus with regards to the protectable elements? I tend to lean the other way (i.e. towards the photo being a derivative work and thus deleting the photo), however I'll add the {{De minimis}} tag to this photo so that the license reflects your argument should the closing admin choose to keep this file. —RP88 (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've added
{{de minimis|Selection and arrangement copyright on the text, probably a literary copyright on text, copyrightable arrangement on work as a whole|reason=See disucssion at [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georgia Guidestones.jpg]]}}to the license section of File:Georgia Guidestones.jpg. If this image survives this DR, I'll remove the low-res fair-use photo from en:Georgia Guidestones and replace it with this one. —RP88 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)- Most of the cases I cited above were situations were a claimed sculptural work was ruled ineligible. In this case, I think the only copyrightable claim on the work as a whole is based on the text -- if that was not there, I don't think there would be anything to copyright. As such, it's much more possible to have a photograph not be derivative of that aspect. But yes, that last case (which was very much on the edge, and may have been ruled that way also because the rock sculpture itself was copyrightable) does give a little pause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, leaning that way. There is definitely a selection and arrangement copyright on the text, and probably a literary copyright on the text itself (even though they are shortish phrases). I don't think any of the individual stones have any other copyright (the slot is a minor addition; symbolic meaning does not enter into the copyrightable equation). You are correct that it's a little bit more involved than arranging dominoes, as there are a couple of different shapes there (goes to the selection part of that), but it does seem to be a very simplistic arrangement, and I am kind of doubtful that it would amount to authorship. It's one stone in the center, four arranged symmetrically on end outwards around it, and one centered placed on top. That is a very simplistic arrangement. There is some discussion of arrangement copyrights in appeals decisions; I can't find a perfect example yet but there are things like this: The gemstones are common shapes. One is square and the other four are elliptical. Individually, each gemstone is a minor variation on a common shape or design. As a whole, the overall arrangement or composition of four elliptical stones around a square in the center is commonplace and typical, lacking the necessary quantum of original authorship. Other ones you might look at are here (photo towards the middle), here, and the court case Satava v. Lowry. Now... in combination with all of the text, that extra aspect would make for a copyrightable arrangement, even if the text was public domain, I'd guess, which would probably make for a valid registration on the whole thing. A judge did rule that this work had a valid copyright as a sculptural work (as did the Copyright Office), and thus ruled (reversing on appeal) against a company making a very similar-looking rock with that same (public domain) poem on it. If the rock was entirely sculpted to look like a rock, that is copyrightable (rather than actually using a chisel and letting the natural fragmentation stay rough). And the combination of the poem, layout, and shape of the rock was ruled copyrightable. The question to me is if that aspect is really shown in the photographs, as opposed to just the arrangement of the stones. A 3-D reproduction of the entire monument (including text) would be a problem, but photos which only show the PD portions of a work are OK, and so the question is are the photos really capturing the full arrangement including the text, or are primarily just of the stones and their arrangement (which I think is probably PD), with the text being incidental. If this photo is a derivative work, I think it's by the slimmest of margins, and I'd lean towards keeping it. But, some of the other photos may have been more problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think your dominoes example is on point, as the drawing shows that there are three different sizes of slabs (one with a slot); no arrangement of dominoes would reproduce this sculpture. I take it you think some of the files from the previous DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Georgia Guidestones were erroneously deleted? —RP88 (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unless they actually sculpted each of those pockmarks to simulate a rough-hewn edge, rather than just making it rough-hewn, then no that aspect is not copyrightable. That would be no different than choosing a color, which (in the U.S.) is not copyrightable. The simple fact that choices were made doesn't matter; what matters is the expression from the hand of the author which is actually fixed in its medium. If they just let it be rough-hewn from what happened naturally during cutting, then that is not expression from a human hand. And I think the anonymous author had those made by a granite slab company anyways, not himself. I think the text is probably copyrightable, certainly as a collection of phrases, but I think the only thing about the sculpture which could be copyrightable is the arrangement of the stones, and that is symmetrical... seems pretty thin to me, to be honest. If you arranged say dominoes in the same basic manner, would you really be violating copyright? That is what an arrangement copyright would imply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The author of this sculpture remains anonymous, it's unlikely that they (whoever they are) filed a copyright registration. You might take a look at a drawing showing the arrangement of the sculpture (from here). I think the arrangement is sufficient for the sculpture to be above the threshold of originality. However, you might also consider the rough-hewn scalloping around three edges of the faces of the slabs, I wonder to what degree that is a deliberate artistic choice on the part of the artist considering that they had no difficulty producing a smooth faced stone surface and top. Your thoughts? —RP88 (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. The fact that this is the only surviving image from the first DR, that a fair-use version (w:File:Georgia Guidestones-lowres.jpg) exists on en.wiki, and that DM is disputed, suggests that perhaps an undeletion request or discussion at VPC would be helpful. INeverCry 17:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
