Commons:Deletion requests/Illustrations extracted from Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Illustrations extracted from Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith|year=2025|month=January|day=08}} to the description page of each file. Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Illustrations extracted from Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith|plural}} ~~~~ Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Illustrations extracted from Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith}} at the end of today's log.

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.

Illustrations extracted from Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith

• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of Justice Kagan, page 8 image 2.jpg, artwork by Andy Warhol
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of Justice Kagan, page 8 image 1.jpg, artwork by Andy Warhol
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of Justice Kagan, page 7 image.jpg, photograph by Lynn Goldsmith, taken 1981
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Appendix.jpg, artworks by Andy Warhol
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 7.jpg, artwork by Andy Warhol.
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 6-2.jpg, artwork by Andy Warhol and photograph by Lynn Goldsmith
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 6-1.jpg, photograph by Lynn Goldsmith (duplicate image)
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 5-3.jpg, magazine cover, incorporating artwork by Andy Warhol
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 5-2.jpg, magazine cover, unlikely to be public domain
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 4.jpg, magazine cover, unlikely to be public domain
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 3.jpg, magazine cover, incorporating artwork by Andy Warhol (duplicate image)
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 2.jpg, magazine pages, incorporating artwork by Andy Warhol
• File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 1.jpg, photograph by Lynn Goldsmith (duplicate image)

These are illustrations extracted from File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.pdf, which is a document published by the US Supreme Court relating to the case Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith.

They are images of artworks by Andy Warhol (1928–1987), of a 1981 photograph by Lynn Goldsmith (born 1948), and of pages from recent magazines. These works are clearly in copyright, and were presumably included in the Supreme Court document on a fair-use basis. The {{PD-USGov-SCOTUS}} license tag is not valid for these images because these are not works of "an officer or employee of the Supreme Court of the United States". The entire document appears to be public domain, but these images are not public domain and we cannot extract them from the document.

File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 7.jpg is one of Warhol's images of Campbell's Soup Cans (see w:en:Campbell's Soup Cans). In spite of the simple design, this artwork should not be treated as a 'utility object'. It is included in the fair use image at w:en:File:Campbell's Soup I.jpg. The caption in the Supreme Court document is "A print based on the Campbell’s soup can, one of Warhol’s works that replicates a copyrighted advertising logo."

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of Justice Kagan, page 33 image 2.jpg, for another image from the same document.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern page 19 image.jpg, for an illustration from a different Supreme Court document.

Verbcatcher (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have added these files to Category:Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete These are under fair use in the original document, they can't be published separately. Yann (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete The license covers the original text created by the Supreme Court, not copyrighted evidence presented. --RAN (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination. Other images already deleted from this document also under the same rationale Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Andy_Warhol_Foundation_v._Goldsmith,_opinion_of_the_Court,_Figure_5-1.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Andy_Warhol_Foundation_v._Goldsmith,_opinion_of_Justice_Kagan,_page_6_image.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Andy_Warhol_Foundation_v._Goldsmith,_opinion_of_the_Court,_Figure_5-4.jpg. Günther Frager (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. In the first place, this and your other nominations are purely retaliatory. As to the deletion rationale, these images are derived from a Supreme Court opinion, which is of course PD-USGov (or PD-USGov-SCOTUS per Commons terminology). The images are simply derived from the opinion; and derivations of works share the original copyright. The images and the opinion share the same copyright; either they are in the public domain, or they are copyrighted. If they are copyrighted, then, presumably, all of the files marked PD-USGov-SCOTUS—if not PD-USGov—would need to be deleted; but this is nonsense. I only separate the images from the document because it is a technical requirement, not to encourage copyright violations or to enable reuse of the images in different contexts. Günther Frager’s other cases had incredibly limited discussion, compared to the analogous case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf. That case describes the exact same issue, and did not result in the file being deleted. (Despite that, the file is banned from use, but that’s a different problem.) Again, as to copyright and extraction, the images are only separate because it is necessary to do so to use the file—I would not upload images on Commons if it was not required. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  The resolution of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf states:

  The included copyrighted content is de minimis in the whole document. However this content may not be uploaded as a separate file, in the same way as some copyright content can't be imported separately in other cases.

  We are not discussing the deletion or censorship of File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.pdf, we are discussing images extracted from this PDF file and uploaded individually. Something that the cited DR states we cannot do. Günther Frager (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I have responded to your accusation of retaliatory nominations on your user talk page. Please explain what you mean by 'a technical requirement' and 'it is necessary to do so to use the file', as there may be other ways to meet these requirements. A deletion request may have limited discussion because the situation is clear. In the discussions linked by Günther Frager, Yann opposed your views and Pi.1415926535 closed the discussions. They are both Commons administrators: trusted users who should have a good understanding of copyright issues. It is possible that they have made a mistake; you could start a discussion at Village pump/Copyright on the licensing of images extracted from public domain documents. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)