Commons:Deletion requests/File:MAD-alfie-1960.jpg
FanArt (derivative work) Ferbr1 (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure if the discussion of this deletion proposal goes here or over on the Discussion page. I put my comments on the discussion page. W163 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This image isn't fan art. It shows line printer output from the early 1960s produced by the MAD programming language compiler following errors. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on MAD where the image is used and there is an explanation of the image and some explanation of the University of Michigan's interaction with the folks at MAD Magazine about using the image. The image is an interesting historical artifact in its own right, but it also helps to add a little visual interest to what is otherwise an all text description of the MAD programming language. W163 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It tells of an agreement between the magazine and the developers about using the name for the program. It says nothing about the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- True, but I was offering the reference to MAD to put the use of the image into context and show that it "is realistically useful for an educational purpose". We don't know what the original letter did or did not include since that letter is lost. What we do know is that there was communication between the authors of the MAD compiler at the University of Michigan and the staff at MAD Magazine, that at the end of what was an apparently amusing reply from the folks at MAD they said "sure, go ahead", and from that common sense tells us that the folks at MAD were at least generally aware of what was going on at Michigan and didn't object. Based on all of this I don't believe there are copyright issues associated with this computer character art image from 50 years ago. I have been involved in several conversations over the years about the origin and use of this image by the MAD compiler and why it was eventually removed. I never heard any mention of complaints from MAD Magazine or concerns about copyright issues during those discussions. The reasons for discontinuing the use of the image are usually given as technical in nature related to upgrades to new computer platforms or the fact that students were making deliberate mistakes in their computer programs in order to get a copy of the image and in the process wasting paper.
- I'm not sure that permission is the main issue here in any case. While it may often be "very difficult to tell whether the fan art has been made by copying, or whether it is an independent work of art", it seems pretty clear that this image is a caricature and not a direct copy of something from the magazine. This is certainly not a high-resolution image of Alfred E. Neuman. There is certainly no question about commercial interest here since the MAD compiler and the computers on which it ran are long gone. What we are trying to do is use the image of the computer printout to document an amusing use of an image from the very early days of computing. W163 (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete It seems pretty clear to me. Whatever formal agreement, if any, was reached between the magazine and the developers of MAD at the University of Michigan, we can be quite sure it was not in a form as broad as our requirements. While the magazine's motto was "what me, worry", we can be sure the would have worried about a license broad enough to allow others to use A.E. Neuman for anything they pleased. Seems to me it might be "fair use" on WP:EN, but not OK here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Asav has removed the delete request from the image the same time he added a OTRS-ticket. I've asked him to clarify the situation here so somebody can finally close this. -- Cecil (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The file was properly licensed through the OTRS ticket. It is obviously a fully autonomous work, i.e. portrait of an (albeit fictional) persona, as the technique used is the distinctive mark of this image, just as Andy Warhol used publicity shots of Marilyn Monroe by Gene Korman to produce his silkscreens. Asav (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who is the ticket from -- DC Comics or its parent, Time-Warner? They are the only entity that could license this image according to our rules. Otherwise it is plainly an infringement on the DC Comics/Mad Magazine copyright, just as a drawing of Mickey Mouse would infringe on Disney's copyright.. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. The technique is such a dominating feature of this portrait that it clearly qualifies as an autonomous work of art. Applicable US copyright practice states "[the] amount of originality required for copyright protection" as the criterium for fair artistic use, furthermore that "it is clear that the originality requirement imposed by the Constitution and the Copyright Act has particular significance in the case of derivative works based on copyrighted preexisting works," and that is undoubtedly present here. This is no copyright violation. There are bucketloads of precedents for this, e.g. w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., w:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and w:Rogers v. Koons. See also w:Transformativeness, by the way. Asav (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you would simply answer my question. Saying that the OTRS ticket has given permission without saying who it is from is not helpful.
- This image has two copyrights -- the creator of the ASCII image at Michigan and the Time Warner / DC Comics copyright in Alfred E. Neuman. Bridgeman has no meaning here as the underlying image is not PD -- applying it would say that the only copyright that applies is that of the underlying image, since, Bridgeman would suggest that the Michigan copyist does not have a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is sufficiently transformative; it does not infringe copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. The technique is such a dominating feature of this portrait that it clearly qualifies as an autonomous work of art. Applicable US copyright practice states "[the] amount of originality required for copyright protection" as the criterium for fair artistic use, furthermore that "it is clear that the originality requirement imposed by the Constitution and the Copyright Act has particular significance in the case of derivative works based on copyrighted preexisting works," and that is undoubtedly present here. This is no copyright violation. There are bucketloads of precedents for this, e.g. w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., w:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and w:Rogers v. Koons. See also w:Transformativeness, by the way. Asav (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who is the ticket from -- DC Comics or its parent, Time-Warner? They are the only entity that could license this image according to our rules. Otherwise it is plainly an infringement on the DC Comics/Mad Magazine copyright, just as a drawing of Mickey Mouse would infringe on Disney's copyright.. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be a misunderstanding or ignorance of copyright law and practice on the part of Jim here. Alfred E. Neuman or Mickey Mouse or the Campbell soup can or Brillo boxes have no copyright protection as such (they mave have trademark protection, though, but that's a completely different matter.) Depictions of Alfred E., Mickey, Campbell soup aso. may be copyright infringements under certain circumstances, but these circumstances simply don't apply here. End of story.
- Furthermore, it is patent ('xcuse the pun!) nonsense to claim one image can have two copyrights. Finally, all correspondence with OTRS is confidential, so details aren't publicly available. When I authorized the license, I made sure the submitter had the copyright and I was well aware of US copyright law. I'm ususally more civil than this, but I frankly don't want to waste any more time on this, as the claim that this might be a copyright infrigement simply is frivoulous, and would be thrown out by any US court. Asav (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you find this a waste of time, but you are simply wrong in several respects. Any image that is a derivative work has two copyrights. If I take a photograph of an Alexander Calder (1898-1976) sculpture in the USA, Calder's heirs will have to license his copyright in the sculpture and I will have to license my copyright in the image. Without a license of both copyrights, Commons will not host the image.
You are correct, of course, that Alfred E. Neuman himself has no copyright, but that depictions do. The question here is whether this is a derivative work. I asset that it plainly is -- since Neuman is a fictional character, no drawing or other depiction of him can be made without it being derivative. That is exactly consistent with our policy at Commons:Image_casebook#Comic_and_action_figures which is exactly on point:
- "No photographs, drawings, paintings or any other copies/derivative works of these are allowed (as long as the original is not in the public domain). No pictures are allowed of items which are derivatives from copyrighted figures themselves, like dolls, action figures, t-shirts, printed bags, ashtrays etc."
That is a very broad prohibition and I don't see how you get around it without a license from DC Comics / Time Warner.
We also have the question of who owns the copyright in the ASCII image. If the individual who created it was on the Michigan faculty or staff, then it probably belongs to the University -- almost all universities require their employees to execute blanket IP assignments in favor of the school. If the person was a student, then it is likely that the student owns the copyright. Therefore the question of who sent the OTRS permission is very much on point here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK - the licensing of this printout looks valid to me from the original creator of the image and is for public domain without restriction. That strikes me as ok in so far as that goes.
- It is an ASCII printout plain and simple and to me is far less a derivative than other stuff around but I am not an expert in that field at all. --Herby talk thyme 15:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Jim, the matter of sculptures is altogeteher another matter, as you would have seen if you had read the relevant texts. They cover that question in detail. As for the protection comic strip figures aso. enjoy, the point is that this in not a derivative work that infringes on copy right; it's an autonomous work. Asav (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is derivative in some senses of the word - it certainly is not "original" and owes something to the comic strip. --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please stick to US copyright law, not your personal understanding of "original". Is Andy Warhol's portrait of Marilyn Monroe original artwork according to copyright law? His soup cans and Brillo boxes? Are Duchamp's readymades original artwork? Is this image an original artwork? Of course. I have quoted a number of legal precedents above, and if you have no law or precedent to quote, you obviously have no copyright law to quote. If you say otherwise, please add your references and sources here. Asav (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Shouting isn't helpful, unexpected to from otrs people. --Herby talk thyme 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please stick to US copyright law, not your personal understanding of "original". Is Andy Warhol's portrait of Marilyn Monroe original artwork according to copyright law? His soup cans and Brillo boxes? Are Duchamp's readymades original artwork? Is this image an original artwork? Of course. I have quoted a number of legal precedents above, and if you have no law or precedent to quote, you obviously have no copyright law to quote. If you say otherwise, please add your references and sources here. Asav (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is derivative in some senses of the word - it certainly is not "original" and owes something to the comic strip. --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)