File talk:OsceolaOcala.JPG

Unfree image?

Wait a second... the image in question is asserted to be the work of the person who uploaded it. So the only question that remains is whether this is a derivative work in violation of copyright. Doesn't this statue exist on a Florida state park? As such, isn't it property of the State of Florida, and thus a work of art commissioned in the public domain? I really don't see cause for protecting copyright in this instance. It strikes me as an overzealous defense of international copyright law, and sets a bad precedent: Do we ban photographs of public buildings next? -- SwissCelt 07:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was the person who uploaded the picture, I don't really understand the copyright laws associated with the picture. I've been told that because it is not older than 70 years then the statue is not in the public domain. Surely as this statue is in a state park where anyone can access the statue and take a photograph, that means it is in the public domain. By using the same law a building not older than 70 years would not be allowed on wikipedia as its not in the public domain. I dunno! I don't think copyright laws are clear enough for the layman to understand.--NeilEvans 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and artwork are treated differently in U.S. law. See Wikipedia:Public domain#Photographs of buildings. Dalbury (talk • contribs) 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think that if the statue is in a public park that it is fair use that a person, like a teacher of history for example, could take a picture of that work of art for educational use. I don't see how a work commissioned by a state would be anything but in the public domain?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregyankey (talk • contribs).

The copyright for artwork in public places still belongs to the artist, unless it has been transfered to someone else, or the copyright has expired (for instance, 70 years after the death of the artist). The copyright for artwork commissioned by or bought by a government entity (including the United States government) still belongs to the artist, unless specifically assigned to someone (or something) else in a contract. A teacher taking photos of artwork in a public place in order to show them to a class falls under the educational provision of 'fair use'. The use of such photos in Wikipedia may be 'fair use' in a specific article, but it has to be justified. -- Donald Albury 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

man i came here for school reserch and i found a whole conversatin on how the state laws are wronand unjust 150.176.176.240 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a 15 year-old conversation. Intellectual property, including copyright, is protected by Federal law and international treaty. The creator of art, writing, and other novel products is entitled to profit from and control the use of such products for the period and scope protected by law. I have issues about the duration of copyright currently set out in the law, but I do support the principal of copyright for reasonable periods of time. Creators of art and other intellectual property do have the right to benefit from their work. Oh, and if you want to do research, use Wikipedia only as the means to find reliable sources. Do not use Wikipedia itself as a source, as it is not reliable, and often contains material that is not supported by reliable sources (i.e., may be very wrong). - Donald Albury 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]