This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
During Copyright examination of content possibly useful for the article, copyright status seemed to allow Wikipedia inclusion. Discussion can be read below. Note that this is not a final decision. The case could have been misinterpreted.
To replace the unsourced File:Campbell1885bmap.jpg, I propose adding the map from . However, the operator of that site claims copyright on the images, despite admitting that they come from an 1895 publication.  The operator suggests that their image enhacement work gives them copyright over the enhanced result. Seems to me that's not justified, but copyright laws are crazy. - Keith D. Tyler¶ (AMA) 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The US does not follow a "Sweat of the brow" copyright theory, which is basically what is being claimed here. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is the relevant case. (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991) is also relevant.) Unless his work added "originality" sufficient to make a new, copyrightable work, no matter how much work he has done, or how much skill he has used, he does not ahve a copyright: PD is PD. (Note that thes is note the law in the UK, and may not be elsewhere in the world) That said, it might be worth dropping the siteowner a polite note, as he says that he normally permits use on request. This is not, IMO legally required, but it would be polite, and a credit line on wikipedia might actually be of value to the guy, and that IMO he is morally entitled to for his work. DES(talk) 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Email request sent. DES(talk) 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And declined. The site operator wrote, in part "If I was to allow some site to use it gratis and then say anyone else could use the copyright image free also that would just let people think that any of the thousands of pages I have on line also be free to use against the copyright." She also stated that she regards the site as a fund rasing activity for the non-profit organization that provides host space for the project.DES(talk) 05:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It is my belief that the image is not leagally subject to any copyright protection, and tha we are legally entiled to upload it as PD-old, no matter what the web site owner says. Whether we want to do that, in the face of her stated opposition, and the fact that she did put time and effort into digitizing, formmating, and posting these maps, is another question. Perhaps we should just link to this image instead? What do others say here? DES(talk) 05:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Treat it just like you would if you'd known from the beginning that it had no copyright; i.e- upload it, label it as such, and forget about it. Her feelings, frankly, mean nothing to me; she has been provided with an excellent and factual explanation of how her concept of copyright in this matter is fundamentally flawed, and given a "courtesy opportunity" to release in under a free license. She has refused to do so and repeated her demonstrably false claims about the copyright status. Therefore, I don't feel like we have any obligation to respect her "feelings"; she doesn't own the image, under law. Period. Squatting is not a legitimate claim to ownership and the feelings of an angry squatter should not affect your decision to enrich a Wikipedia article. Bullzeye(Ring for Service) 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it is a 1895 image with no changes in any way (a derivative) it should be PD-old. Upload it. The web site owner doesn't own the image, and her claim is copyfraud. No one ones this image. I haven't asked the web site owner in PD-old cases like this in the past. Royalbroil 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)