Image talk:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Not GFDL
The image is a derivative work of In-N-Out's copyrighted sign. Cannot be freely reused. -- Cyrius|✎ 2 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion from Village Pump Miscelaneous (9th July)[1]
[edit] Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG
Could anybody that knows copyright law answer this question? The user who uploaded this image claims this under GFDL. Unfortunately, it is basically a photo of a copyrighted sign - the printed menu of the In-N-Out burger chain. So would it actually fall under fair use instead? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 1 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
- These signs are just thrown together. The copyright belongs to the photographer. A word of advise, if you eat at In-N-Out, you will regret it. — Ŭalabio July 1, 2005 23:41 (UTC)
- I agree, it's similar to taking a photo of La Gioconda or any other work of art, the photo's copyright belongs to the photographer, or in some cases, the photographer's employer. I am not a lawyer, but the principle seems translatable from the fine arts. Pedant 2005 July 2 03:36 (UTC)
- Bzzt. Photographer's copyrighted work is a derivative work of the In-n-Out copyrighted work. Not GFDL. -- Cyrius|✎ 2 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
- There are two issues here that I know of:
-
- First is the fact that you are photographing a two-dimensional object. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for some food for thought on whether this constitutes enough creativity to register as a new work, one which would trump the copyright claims of the original creator. I don't think it does.
- Second is the problem of the logos and soforth, which are problems with trademark law, not copyright law.
- So my basic answer is... it probably would not hold up in a court of law unless it fit under the various legal uses of copyrighted material (i.e. fair use, parody, critique, etc.). But people have threatened legal trouble for far less -- see Lessig's note on Jon Else's problems in getting permission to use a tiny snippet of The Simpsons in the background of one of his documentaries in Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture (a good primer for thinking about copyright questions, very easy to understand, a very quick read). (I am not a lawyer) --Fastfission 2 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
- Well in my opinion, Cyrius and Fastfission have it right. There probably is an effective copyright on the original sign, and your photograph is a derivative work. You can GFDL your mechanical copyright, but the image still infringes the original copyright so overall it is not GFDL unless you can secure a similar release from In-N-Out.
- However, Fastfission's interpretation of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. seems a bit flawed. There is no question of trumping - it only really applies if the original work is out of copyright. The issue is that a straight photograph of a flat 2D work can be argued to be non-creative and therefore inelligible for copyright. So the photographers claim for mechanical copyright in reproducing a PD painting is considered invalid. -- Solipsist 2 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
- Ok, my reading is, that if we chop this up to show no borders, or otherwise, it's a two dimensional picture of a two dimensional image, and thus not eligible, and should be clear. Comments? Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works Wikibofh(talk) 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, cropping would only be necessary if we didn't have the permission of the photographer and wouldn't change the underlying copyright. Rather it needs changing to 'fair-use' with a note that the mechanical copyright of the photograph itself is released under GFDL. -- Solipsist 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=18616011#Image:IN-N-OUT_BURGER_MENU_BOARD.JPG){kind=link}
