Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter: Difference between revisions - Wikimedia Commons

Line 319:

::::::Thanks. I see the distinction better now. FWIW, I've managed to get my hands on [http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/6/393.abstract this article in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Pracitce], but due to stupid real life work (stupid real life! :P) have not had time yet to read it. I doubt there's anything definitive in there, but it may have some implications about its subject ("Legal questions about illegal art") worth considering. I'll bring back anything I take out of it, though since it's available to subscribers, others may have managed to read it and find anything worthwhile before I do. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ([[User talk:Moonriddengirl|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::::William Patry discussed that article [http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/05/illegal-art.html here], but I haven't seen the content. That was in the wake of the case where elements of VARA (artist's rights) were disallowed because the work was installed illegally. That was a case though where allowing VARA restrictions would seriously inconvenience a landowner when they didn't ask for the works in the first place; pure copyright may be different. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Okay, I've read through the article. It's not as useful as I had hoped it would be. :) It is more by nature of an opinion piece with some summary of existing legislation. Rychlicki's opinion is pretty clear: "Each of these jurisdictions [Poland, UK, USA] defines an object liable for copyright protection quite broadly. It may thus be assumed that, if a piece of graffiti features individual, creative, and materialized characters, it is protected by copyright law. Additionally, neither moral nor public order circumstances, which might potentially determine whether a graffiti work is recognized as a protected work, are mentioned in them." He also argues that "It cannot be assumed that graffiti cannot be recognized as a work to which the author waived his rights on the sole basis that it is illegal and such works do not enter the public domain immediately. Nor is there any presumption that the author agrees to any licence in the absence of clear evidence of his consent." He points out that there have been legal challenges to copyright based on the legality or morality (obscenity) of content: ''English v. BFC&R E. 11th St. LLC'' is referenced (the case you mention above, of course), but draws no conclusion about the pure copyright issues. I can't access the court documents, so I don't know specifically if the court address the issue.

I don't hang out much on Commons, but it seems like it might be useful to generate a licensing tag to be associated with images of graffiti, since the legal question has not evidently been resolved. (At least as of 2008.) This would facilitate addressing them if it should in the future be nailed down to permit copyright protection, and it would also alert reusers that there are unresolved legal questions that may impact them and their use in the future. That seems like responsible stewardship while at the same time not being overly cautious. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ([[User talk:Moonriddengirl|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

== Drawings ==