File talk:MAD-alfie-1960.jpg

 

Copyright/PD chain

Can someone (maybe with OTRS) clarify which PD tags actually apply to this image? I noticed that an COM:OTRS user tagged this image as {{PD-ineligible}} despite being an identifiable part of a computer program, but before that, another OTRS user tagged it as {{PermissionOTRS|id=2010080810000791}} and the uploader tagged it {{PD-self}}. Commons:Deletion requests/File:MAD-alfie-1960.jpg was closed with simply "{{PD-ineligible}}" and no further remarks after a very confused discussion. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that the discussion was happening, and still can't figure out what lead to the closing decision; there is lots of talk about Time-Warner in there, but it seems quite off-topic: the "MAD" name in the printout notwithstanding, Time-Warner has no power over Alfred's face generally, as he was created by others and fell into the public domain long before Mad magazine's artists adopted and named him. (Commons:Fan art#Out of copyright and freely-licensed works addresses this type of situation, in case someone wants to see guidelines.) I presume that {{PD-self}} and the OTRS ticket is for the Michigan work directly.

So, all that said: What is it that is {{PD-ineligible}}, then? Alfred's original face (which would have taken some originality to create, but is pre-1923) or the Michigan art (which would have taken some originality to create, but is presumably released by the author via OTRS)? It seems to me so far that neither is PD from ineligibility: Alfred's general image (a pre-1920 creation) is {{PD-US}} or at least {{PD-anon-1923}}, and therefore that the Michigan work (and this Commons scan of it), assuming verification through OTRS, would be properly {{PD-self}} (public domain by author's wish) derivative of an already {{PD-US}}/{{PD-anon-1923}} character (Alfred's face from pre-1923). In any case, the way it is tagged now does not explain which step is PD-ineligible and which step is either PD-old or PD-self. --Closeapple (talk)

As I said during the deletion disussion, the image is transformational, just like Andy Warhol's portraits of Marilyn Monroe and some other examples i posted. Believeing that copyright can be applied to a person (fictional in this cae) as such, is a complete fallacy: "The technique is such a dominating feature of this portrait that it clearly qualifies as an autonomous work of art. Applicable US copyright practice states "[the] amount of originality required for copyright protection" as the criterium for fair artistic use, furthermore that "it is clear that the originality requirement imposed by the Constitution and the Copyright Act has particular significance in the case of derivative works based on copyrighted preexisting works," and that is undoubtedly present here. This is no copyright violation. There are bucketloads of precedents for this, e.g. w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., w:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and w:Rogers v. Koons. See also w:Transformativeness, by the way." I can't see any other relevant criteria to overrule this priciple, and the image clearly is no copyright violation. Public domain issues a.s.o. don't play into it at all. Asav (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. So, under this theory, the Michigan computer program's face would be an original copyright work for which no prior work need be considered (because the Michigan work was highly transformative), and the Michigan output has been given permission (as PD-self) explicitly by an OTRS ticket? --Closeapple (talk)

An OTRS permission is no absolute guarantee, as OTRS volunteers can make mistakes, too :) But I feel this case is clear-cut per the examples and legal precedents I've quoted. Again, the work is clearly transformative to the degree where copyright to an original image of Alfred E. no longer is relevant, and the persona Alfred E. as such has no copyright protection — it does have a trademark protection, though, but that's a completely different matter, and of no consequence here. Asav (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)