Reopened (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_(Mickey_Mouse)%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif#File:.22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam.22_.28Mickey_Mouse.29.22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif)
Though I agree with you that a deletion discussion among non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law. On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the > underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole > concept of derivative works. > > The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely. > There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not sure a consenus of > wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we > consult an expert? > On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, "Anthony" <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: >> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work >> >>> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the >> >>> one on the derivative (which "extends only to the material contributed >> >>> by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting >> >>> material employed in the work")? >> >> >> >> >> >> Read the deletion discussion. >> > >> > I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not >> > address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only >> > the copyright on the derivative work. >> > >> Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and >> a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo >> Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II: >> >> "The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, >> derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter >> which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the >> underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has >> not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, >> 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, >> 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is "No"." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l