File talk:Detail - Conchita Sapphire Butterfly head with Yogo sapphire - 2011-01-07.jpg

Copyright of the piece

Pieces of jewelry are artworks subject to copyright under the copyright law of the United States. The "Conchita Butterfly" gold-and-sapphire jewelry piece was not a work-for-hire, as both Crevoshay and Kane had ownership in the piece (as indicated by the sources in the image summary). Furthermore, per the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), a commissioned work is not work-for-hire. (See: Robert A. Gorman, Copyright Law, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Judicial Center, 2006, p. 72-74.) The piece appears to be a joint work ("a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." Robert A. Gorman, Copyright Law, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Judicial Center, 2006, p. 48-49.). Sale of a piece of jewelry does not transfer copyright. (See: "Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts." Circular 40. U.S. Copyright Office. Library of Congress. November 2010. Accessed 2012-04-22.)

However, it is not clear that a brooch in the form of a butterfly is copyrightable. ("When the 'idea' and its 'expression' are thus inseparable, copying the 'expression' will not be barred, since protecting the 'expression' in such circumstance would confer a monopoly of the 'idea' upon the copyright owner free of the conditions and limitations imposed by the patent law." See: Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 [9th Cir. 1971].) Created in 2007, the work has not been copyrighted as of 2012-04-22. A search of the U.S. Copyright Office online database by me on 2012-04-22 shows no copyright registration by Robert Kane, Paula Crevoshay, or the Smithsonian Institution. (Note: Registration is not required to secure or protect copyright. Lack of registration does not mean lack of copyright.)

That the Smithsonian Institution has photographed the "Conchita Butterfly" in its entirety does not indicate that the Smithsonian Institution holds the copyright. It could mean that the Smithsonian has violated the copyright. But according to the Smithsonian Institution, content on its web site "is identified as having 'no known copyright restrictions' when the Smithsonian is unaware of any copyright restrictions on its use." ("Terms of Use." Smithsonian Institution. March 19, 2012. Accessed 2012-04-22.) Use of the image indicates that there may be no copyright, or that the copyright belongs to the Smithsonian Institution, although use of the image is a guarantee of neither.

- Tim1965 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For resolution of this see this thread.PumpkinSky talk 21:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete

After extensive discussion at Commons, it was determined that a cropped image avoided copyright issues. That cropped image was uploaded to Commons. The un-cropped image should be deleted ASAP. Since it is not a move of this image to commons, I didn't use the "Now Commons" template. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)