Commons:Deletion requests/File:2004 Landmark v Ross answer.pdf

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion 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:2004_Landmark_v_Ross_answer.pdf

[edit]

Not a work of an employee of the Federal Government; same of almost everything else in Category:Landmark Education litigation. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, {{PD-USGov}} does not apply to this document authored by Peter L. Skolnik, a lawyer acting for his client. The only alternative tag that I can see would be {{Fair use}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this and skimming links in Bard's links, I see no evidence for such documents being exempt from copyright protection. The issue that is not settled is whether fair use also covers commercial use by publishers of legal cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links to blog posts and unreliable sources do not change the fact that once filed, these documents become public domain - as filings in court cases in United States Federal Court. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright protection is not primarily for the protection of internal documents, but for the protection of works that are accessible to the public. It is automatic for any work, with some exceptions (like Federal Government works). Your calling the references "unreliable sources" is just empty rhetoric as long as you cannot point out copyright exemptions in law. The links make clear that nobody knows of any such exemption in US legislation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need not have bothered Godwin; Commons does not usually care much what he says. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then this can be kept, but it still leaves lots of other files in Category:Landmark Education litigation. When this DR is closed, discussion about the principle can continue in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mary Sue Hubbard notes on Congressman Leo Ryan.gif. Note that Skolnik did not release this in the PD, but that he is licensing it on a much more restricted license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, I really think you can relax about this. I think the question of whether there is a copyright claim here is disputable. But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply). There's a strong risk of reading copyright law in an overreaching way, and while I respect editors' impulse to remove what they see as presumptively copyrighted material, I wouldn't want this impulse to act as a chilling effect that prevented publication of relevant information when others reasonably believe that publication is not barred by copyright law. MGodwin (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I agree: Commons should change policy. Not just for this, but also for all those flags, coats of arms, photos of buildings, statues, and placques, for antique photos, for coins and banknotes, etcetera, etcetera. Just put a clear button on every file page where people claiming copyright can demand removal. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Ticket Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2004_Landmark_v_Ross_answer.pdf&oldid=37279802"