Commons:Deletion requests/File:Florida Motorcycle license plate.jpg

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:Florida_Motorcycle_license_plate.jpg

This was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason "focus of the image is on the plate with plainly copyrightable elements that belong to Florida, not the uploader" by Fourthords (talk · contribs), but at least some works of Florida government are public domain under the Florida constitution. Closeapple (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep: License plate is {{PD-FLGov}}. Per en:Copyright status of work by the Florida government, the state government and local governments of Florida cannot claim copyright over their own "public record made or received in connection with the official business" of the government except when permitted specifically by state statute. What constitutes "public record" can be construed broadly, as in Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner (court ruled that Collier County cannot require private entities to sign a licensing agreement before obtaining GIS map data). The license plate design is published openly on the official Florida HSMV website — for example, at http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/newtag.html — and there has been no evidence given that license plate design is one of the categories exempted by statute. (As a side note: California is another state with a fairly broad prohibition on copyright by its own governments.) --Closeapple (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  The page to which you pointed says at the bottom: "Copyright ©2008 State of Florida", and those passenger plates exhibit the same design elements as the motorcycle plate nominated. Furthermore, the plate at the Florida website is already uploaded to the English Wikipedia (File:Florida license plate.gif) as a copyrighted image per the same website. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  It appears that Florida government agencies have often failed to acknowledge their own public domain obligations, and placed boilerplate copyright messages on things that the Florida constitution and statutes deny the agencies copyright to. See en:Talk:Copyright status of work by the Florida government for a discussion of this same issue with the MyFlorida.gov website. And, of course, the aforementioned Microdecisions, in which the county attempted to actually enforce this false copyright. (See also en:Copyfraud — this sort of false copyright assertion is commonplace. Many web portal applications even shove a copyright message onto the bottom of webpages even when the user didn't request it.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, regardless, the copyright of this derivative work doesn't belong to Stripey the crab (talk · contribs) to relicense; if appropriate, this needs to be retagged with the Floridian license. Secondly though, is it the responsibility of the uploader (or the retainer) to ensure this doesn't fall under one of Florida's specific exemptions? Does the state provide a list of these special exemptions? — Fourthords | =/\= | 06:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Taking each topic separately:

  • Copyright in a derivative work does indeed belong to the author of the derivative work, even if the work was derived from a public domain work, as long as the derivative itself is original enough that it attracts copyright. Notice the Venus de Milo example in COM:DW; the same applies here if the Florida plate is PD. Now, if Stripey's shot were solely a direct duplicate that could not possibly attract separate copyright in the US, then it could be tagged as {{PD-Art|{{PD-FLGov}}}}; however, photographing the plate frame and wheel guard is probably sufficient that it is not considered a direct duplicate. It would probably be helpful to note {{PD-FLGov}} anyway, though.
  • It is an uploader's responsibility to show that the upload is freely available; but if he has, then he has; and even if he hasn't, but we now have, then a file is not deleted just because it is someone other than the uploader that has shown it. (I assume you aren't implying that the uploader has to show exemption from every case where copyright could be applied: I doubt anyone could be expected to explain that the license plate is not part of a security plan for sheltering arrangements (119.071(3)(a)1.e) for a pari-mutuel facility that provides more than 4,000 seats for spectators (119.071(3)(b)5.a(II)(B)).)
  • In Florida law: Sections 119.07 to 119.0714 provide the main exemptions to copyright: see Chapter 119. The only thing related to license plates that I see in Chapter 119 is 119.0712(2), which involves people's personal data, not the plate design. The Gold Star license plate is eligible for copyright explicitly in 320.0894(2); the word "copyright" does not appear anywhere else in Chapter 320 (Motor Vehicle Licenses). It's worth noting that the Gold Star act was passed in 2007, then other specialty license plates appear to have been added to 320.08058 later without mentioning copyright, when the legislature was already aware the provision could exist, yet didn't provide it.
  • As far as using copyright notices as a determination of copyright: You'll notice that there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the Florida statutes themselves, which of course is a direct violation of not only Florida constitution, but of long-standing U.S. case law that edicts of government cannot be copyrighted because, since ignorance of the law is not a defense, it is necessary for people to have unrestricted access to what they must obey. So even the site with the laws disregards the law. --Closeapple (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)