Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March on Washington Program

March on Washington Program[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2013 at 17:44:51 (UTC)

**Original** – The program of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, featuring Marian Anderson, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King Jr.

Reason: It has good quality for a program that was made in 1963, and has great EV for the "Official program" section.
Articles in which this image appears: March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: The unnamed organizers of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Support as nominator --buff bills 7701 17:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although the image is below size criteria, all text is clearly legible, the only concern is bleed-through of the text from the back. Brandmeister^talk 18:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: These should still be extant, so a higher quality scan is possible. Also, why is this PD? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the license, it's PD-text. Brandmeister^talk 10:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of text there- this isn't just a couple of words. A page scan from a book wouldn't be PD-text, so I'm not sure I agree that this could be. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this would not be PD if the underlying text (the contents of the brochure) are still copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the copyright status of the source doesn't matter, it's about this particular image, which has no creative elements in itself (and as such no copyright may arise). Brandmeister^talk 08:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the copyright status of the source matters. There are at least two potential copyright holders we need to worry about. The scanner, we both agree, has no legitimate claim of copyright. However, that doesn't magic away the claim of the copyright holder of the original document. Again, compare: I pick up the book next to me, and scan a couple of pages. Sure, I have no legitimate claim of copyright, but that doesn't mean that the image is public domain- the book's author/publisher(/translator/whatever) can still claim copyright. If I photographed a painting, or recorded a song off the radio or whatever, I wouldn't be able to say "I think the copyright status of the source doesn't matter, it's about this particular image [or recording], which has no creative elements in itself (and as such no copyright may arise).". J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US copyright law does not extend to simple information like this which doesn't reach the threshold of originality. Per Copyright.gov: "Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others titles, names, short phrases, and slogans... mere listings of ingredients or contents, works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)". Brandmeister^talk 12:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd how you're going back and forth with your arguments. First you tried arguing that the copyright of the underlying work didn't matter (!), now you're arguing that this would not be copyrighted because of a completely different concept. Regarding the newest argument you've brought up, it's enough text that I'd feel uncomfortable with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crisco. Brandmeister: The document you've just cited would does indicate that this may be PD, but this is drifting dangerously into IANAL territory. If we copy-pasted that amount of text from another website, it'd be reverted straight away as a copyvio: we can't really call the text free just because it happens to be in an image. J Milburn (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source (NARA) presents it as a separate, single-page document, not a part of some other work (I've rechecked it here and seems like it's indeed so). I have yet to see a proof, not mere assumptions that this text is indeed copyrighted. Smells much like Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. :) Brandmeister^talk 00:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's one page or 100 pages is irrelevant; a single page is as copyrightable as a book. As for "I have yet to see a proof, not mere assumptions that this text is indeed copyrighted.": That's not how it works- we assume things are copyrighted until we see otherwise. We don't assume things are public domain and then ask anyone concerned to provide proof that they aren't. There's no assumption of public domain status. (Also, it's nothing to do with Bridgemen v. Corel; you're again conflating two separate issues. We're not saying that the person scanning this has a copyright claim- in the US, I suspect they do not. We're saying that the creator of the programme has a copyright claim.) J Milburn (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's basically our concern to evaluate the copyright status of the file through existing laws, to me the US copyright law is sufficiently clear in this case. Dixi. Brandmeister^talk 13:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Completely unhelpful. To me, it's pretty clear that this ~~isn't in the public domain.~~ text is copyrightable. We have now reached a completely useless impasse, and, as you're unwilling to discuss it further, no progress can be made. Unless one of us happens to be a copyright lawyer, I don't think we have any business having this conversation anyway. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my opinion this picture would be of considerably greater value if the edges of the programme were visible (against a suitable background), so that its physical form was clearer. Also, it is unclear whether the "print-though" is visible to the this extent on the original or is an artefact of the scanning process. 86.167.19.165 (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's too much content for it to be eligible under PD-Text, but it probably falls under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. That said, I do not think this image adds significantly to the article - does this add something to the article that words alone cannot express? Is there any distinguishing design features of the program? I don't think so. - hahnch e n 11:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Copyright is unclear, fairly little EV from what I can see. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]