File talk:Musee Herge.JPG
Need a legal opinion regarding cartoon image and signature[edit]
We need a legal opinion of whether the cartoon image is considered an "element of the architecture," if it is considered an independent work of art, or if it is considered a reproduction of an existing copyrighted (or out-of-copyright?) work under United States copyright law.
The same goes for the oversized signature: Is it a reproduction of something that is in- or out- of copyright, is it an original work of art, or is it an "element of architecture" under United States copyright law?
Until we get a legal opinion, there will be questions surrounding which copyright templates to apply to this image.
In either case, it is pretty obvious to a layman (namely me) that neither feature qualifies as "de minimus" with respect to the entire image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- See Leicester v. Warner Brothers: an artwork which can't be separated from the building is covered by freedom of panorama per 17 USC 120(a). The question here is whether the image is separable or not. If it is painted on the walls, then probably not. If it is a poster which is sometimes replaced, then probably yes.
- I don't know whether it matters, but the drawing of Tintin predates the building. The building is from 2009, but Le Crabe aux pinces d'or in its redrawn version is from 1943. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- It only matters if the age of that drawing would change its legal protection. If it were a copy of a work published in the United States before 1923, for example, then it would be PD-US and we wouldn't have to have this discussion. If it were published in the USA in the mid-20th century and the copyright was not renewed and we could prove it, the same thing would apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since the artwork is from 1943, the only question which matters is whether a US court would consider it to be inseparable from the building or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Being from 1943, it might have fallen into the public domain due to failure to renew the US copyright (as happened with the 1940 version of the lyrics to the song This Land Is Your Land) or under certain other conditions, it might be in the public domain in the United States (chart). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since the artwork is from 1943, the only question which matters is whether a US court would consider it to be inseparable from the building or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- It only matters if the age of that drawing would change its legal protection. If it were a copy of a work published in the United States before 1923, for example, then it would be PD-US and we wouldn't have to have this discussion. If it were published in the USA in the mid-20th century and the copyright was not renewed and we could prove it, the same thing would apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
