Commons:Deletion requests/PD-ineligible signatures?

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.

PD-ineligible signatures?

[edit]

Several similar uploads of User:Darldarl bother me, I would like to have them discussed here.

I am bothered by the choice of PD-ineligible tag and the rationale Under United States Copyright Law, signatures are not eligible for copyright, as they are "titles, names...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring (see here)". I think the rationale is a misunderstanding or miinterpretation of the law. Okay, names (personal names, family names) are not copyrightable, but signatures are not equivalent to names. Different people may have one and the same name, while the signature is a unique mark of identity. I am puzzled by the mentioning of "typographic ornamentation", as signatures are not reproducible in various fonts and typefaces...

The top of it all is that the source explicitly reads These items are posted as a reference for collectors and are not for sale. which is not in accord with the idea of a free license like PD-ineligible... →Spiritia 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment THIS and THIS --Darldarl 11:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, you comment this. Obviously, not only me but another wikipedian has also detected the above described discrepancy.
Unfortunately, you seem to have been misled, since the information, on which you have relied, was not enough accurate, compared to the content of the cited source. Please, take into consideration that due to the unstable nature of the wiki technology, wikipedian articles by themselves should not be considered as sources of statements. This is why it is of primary importance that articles cite reliable sources which precisely support the statements and their wordings.
Nevertheless, if you manage to find a source that precisely support the claims under discussion, please make sure you provide it. →Spiritia 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other wikipedians seem to be more tolerant in respect of signatures... Please, see:
Image:Baba signature.jpg, Image:Darwinsig.png, Image:Albert Einstein signature.png. Much Ado About Nothing? Or? --Darldarl 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacies of others are not really valid arguments in your favour. (But if you have more of these images, pass them on, they provide even better basis for discussion and eventually deletion.) →Spiritia 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more fishy ones, por favor: Image:David Suzuki sig.jpg, Image:Paul Maar Signature.jpg, Image:Göran Persson signature.svg, Image:Euxropa Konstitucio Fina Akto subskriboj (Litovio).PNG, Image:Euxropa Konstitucio Fina Akto subskriboj (Germanio).PNG, Image:Jenny zietz autogramm.jpg, Image:Piscator Autogramm.jpg, Image:HermanHuiSignature.jpg, Image:Umberto-eco001.jpg and a lot of similar other Signatures Enjoy! 'If you think you've done enough It's enough' --Darldarl 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary explanation:

"These items are posted as a reference for collectors and are not for sale" means: We don't sale them bacause we are not the owners - they are free, which is totally in accord with the idea of a free license like PD-ineligible... Have a look here to see how Havel's House of History sells some own Autographs, but not the signatures of NOBEL LAUREATES. Sorry for being right! --Darldarl 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sarcasm, but I really find it useless here. No need to play on the defensive, because nothing in the present discussion may be considered a personal attack against you, this is just a discussion whether several uploaded images are or are not permissible to stay on Commons. As I have already told you once, taking images from sources that do not provide information about copyright status and authorship is a risky business and I would not advise you to upload these on Commons. And I thought that you agreed then. If you need, read (again) Commons:Licensing, en:Wikipedia:Public domain and the related links.
"Not for sale" was not central for my argumentation, just a remark on something weird written on the website that needs to be commented. Thanks for the explanation that this site sells "own autographs"... well, from what I saw they just sell books, postcards and other items with autographs, but they do not own (hence, are not able to sell) copyrights over autographs. And this is the very thing that we are discussing here. Your conclusion "We don't sale them bacause we are not the owners - they are free", however, is a pure sophism. That someone is not the owner of something does not mean that it is free. It only means that he is not in position to reserve or grant rights. That's it. And you cannot claim an autograph is PD-ineligible, because it does not fall in any of the categories described in the law. Personal signatures are neither common property, nor they are free of original authorship. Look, several examples of what PD-ineligible really is:
  • A chemical formula
    A chemical formula
  • A number and its image
    A number and its image
  • A road sign
    A road sign
  • A circuit diagram
    A circuit diagram
Can you compare these samples of copyright ineligibility to the signature of a famous poet? If you were a famous poet, would you regard your own signature as a "common property"? Beware, some of the people whose signatures you've uploaded here freely are still alive (Günter Grass), and should still be able to exclusively use their own signatures! :-)
I may only get convinced that some signatures fall in the public domain due to their age (70+ years since the death of the signee) but I would again have my reservation, because (as far as I know) in the US public domain means "free use without any conditions", while the mandatory attribution of the sigunature to the signee seems to be the most natural and fundamental reserved right in this case. In countries like Bulgaria some rights (like the right of proper attribution) are irrevocable by law and always reserved on the behalf of the author.
I admit, I might be in mistake in this case and that is why I raised the discussion. I do hope that more people will have their say, share experience on similar deletion requests and copyright issues, and help us wisely judge the future of these images on Commons. Best regards, →Spiritia 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't respect the opinions of at least 12 wikipedians who have uploaded the mentioned signatures under PD-ineligible or another free license. Some uploads are several years old. Are all wikipedians blind except YOU? It's your sarcasm that you appreciate my sarcasm... I say it with a touch of bitterness. As you know I am already a dead man in the Bulgarian wikipedia: Вървете на майната си.--Мико Ставрев 07:00, 18 декември 2007 (UTC) (Go to fuck your mother!) - thundered in beautiful Bulgarian. This was also appreciated with general rejoicing! Thanks! Obviously, I have to go from here too. It disagrees with me the pleasure of destruction... I wish you best. --Darldarl 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Signatures most likely can be copyrighted; see Sallie Spilsbury, Media Law, p. 439. To quote,
An individual's signature may be protected under law as an artistic work. If so, the unauthorised reproduction of the signature will infringe copyright. The name itself will not be protected by copyright; it is the appearance of the signature which is protected.
Sorry but "MAY BE" and "CAN BE" is not the same!--85.130.31.81 09:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the Wikipedia article in question to match. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: "May be", "If so" - this is not The Law. It is only the uncertain hypothesis of an author: Sallie Spilsbury. It means she believes that by signing a 1000 documents she creates a 1000 artistic works. Great! It is not a serious argument about copyright status! --Darldarl 09:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Spiritia: Hi! I expected that you'll put warning templates for delition also on the four days before indicated 12 signatures, as you did here and in addition here. But you didn't. Why? You should give the bad uploaders the chance to take part (with  Keep 12 times) in the discussion: Is a signature an artistic work, or not? When you sign a document do you want to be or not to be an artist? This is the question, Spiritia. Not what you told me once upon a time about photographs. --Darldarl 04:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't go on votes here, thank you. 12 votes are not worth half a good argument. Furthermore, your point about "[w]hen you sign a document do you want to be or not to be an artist" is a huge irrelevancy. When someone takes a holiday snap they're probably not thinking that they're "artists" by doing so; the fact is that such a photograph would be protected under copyright law. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. I don't contest the fact that Mrs. Spilsbury is an expert on the matter. Just as an conscientious expert she does not assert definitively "a signature IS protected under law" but she says hypothetically "a signature MAY BE protected under law". And she concludes with IF SO... Do you agree with this? Regards. --Darldarl 16:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither she says that signatures are free content available in the public domain. →Spiritia 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep See Signature Copyright [1]: Under British law, the appearance of signatures (not the names themselves) may be protected under copyright law.[7] Under United States law, "titles, names [...]; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright.[8]
Above mentioned signatures are not artworks and also do not stay under British law!--85.130.31.81 09:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. US law is irrelevant for non-US citizens signatures. British law is dubious and could only be (perhaps) applied to Elias Canetti's signature. If someone can prove the signatures to not be copyrighted in the appropriate jurisdictions, please open an undeletion request. Patrícia msg 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/PD-ineligible_signatures%3F&oldid=164711650"