I am currently translating this guide into Russian and I found that site ivanhoffman.com is no longer working (See Links section: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/beanie.html (Citing a court case in which photographs of Beanie Baby dolls are treated as derivative works)). I can't find it in the Internet Archive either. What to do? --Khinkali (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Zezen: as also noted in the article, it is very much debated. I presume Commons admins chose to follow COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle in dealing with the famous cartoon character. Mickey "will be set free" anyway on January 1, 2024 (having had his copyright "extended" thanks to the w:Copyright Term Extension Act or the so-called "Mickey Mouse Protection Act"). The one in the image may be COM:De minimis(?). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 07:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hm. One should take the whole country to court first and that over a decade ago:
Mickey Mouse & Friends logo
and if the poor mouse indeed cannot be uploaded, then the admins went against this principle, as "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted"
Yours "Mus Musculus de Maximis" ;) Zezen (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Character copyright status
"Character copyright status" has been used to delete several public domain images and the rationale comes from this page. There is a misunderstanding about character copyright I would like to correct.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co. involved the use of James Bond elements from the films which were still under copyright in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co. No exception was made for fair use.
I want to correct the wording in the few sentences we have on the topic to:
"Character copyright protection" covers any details of the character that are not depicted in the public domain works, but only appear in later works still under copyright. This applies to making new content using the characters. For instance in a case involving the fictional character Sherlock Holmes and the film, Enola Holmes, it was argued that mannerisms, costuming, and other habits depicted in later works under active copyright cannot be used in the new fictional work. In another example a James Bond like character was used by Am. Honda Motor Co in a commercial, and claimed "fair use" of the character. In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co. the ruling was that the Am. Honda Motor Co. character used elements of the character James Bond from the copyrighted films. See this summary for more information.
I added it. --RAN (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm afraid your new wording is not entirely accurate and is misleading other editors about the nature of character copyright (e.g. Category talk:PD Cartoon - Superman). The wording needs to be reverted. Your version suggests that depictions of a copyrighted character in a public domain work are public domain, but this is not accurate. So long as the original depiction of the character is copyrighted, all other depictions that reflect elements from the original depiction are also copyrighted, even within an otherwise public domain work. Hope that makes sense. The cases you are describing are about non-copyrighted characters that may have recently-created copyrighted aspects, but that is a different issue than what the section is about (per the section header). Kaldari (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The difference between your opinion and mine, is that I cite specific case law. Elements of a character that only appear in works under active copyright are protected, not the entire character. The character of Sherlock Holmes is public domain so long as you do not include elements that only appear in the later works still under copyright, for instance traits or apparel that only appear in the movie version of the character. --RAN (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I agree with everything you're saying except the word "only". I also think we are talking past each other a bit, as I'm talking about copyrighted characters and you're talking about public domain characters. The topic of the section is copyrighted characters. If you want to address the law around public domain characters, feel free to create a new section of the page. I wrote the original version of COM:CHAR in 2013 and it cites four court cases, so I don't think it's entirely fair to say that I'm not citing case law. To be honest, though, character copyright protections have been applied inconsistently by courts, and my interpretation is not the only interpretation possible. That said, my interpretation is based on the outcome of numerous deletion discussions that predate COM:CHAR and reflects the consensus of Commons' application of relevant copyright law and jurisprudence, e.g.: Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif, Commons:Deletion requests/Donald Duck from Spirit 43, etc. If you want to change that consensus, I think you would need have a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright and present your case there. (Especially if you can get Carl Lindberg to agree with you, I would be open to modifying our guidance here.) Kaldari (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
This page is entirely on derivative works of copyrighted entities of non-free sources, and closes with "mark derivative works for speedy deletion." Shouldn't there be a policy page somewhere on the far more common and relevant case of derivative works of free works? In particular, issues of license compatibility. If using a work marked as cc-by 3.0, is it acceptable to mark the derivative work as cc-by 4.0, for example? What about a collage of a work marked cc-by 3.0, cc-by-sa-4.0, and cc0? Is there a way to explicitly license the user's contributions to a derivative work under a specific license, if this is distinguishable from a derivative part? And so on. If that isn't covered here, it should be covered somewhere - even if the page is rather short. SnowFire (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. That said, all three of these are marked as "essays"... is it possibly worth elevating one of them to a policy, or to create a section in this policy specifically covering it? SnowFire (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Games Workshop miniature figures
I want to draw attention to an issue that impacts probably all images of Games Workshop figures. I posted a question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Tau Cadre Fireblade Dario Colasanti.jpg because it was the one specific file that raised the question but the impact is of wider scope. Additonal views and discussion would be welcome from editors familiar with derivative works. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Winnie the Pooh note
Hey all. This is quite trivial, but nonetheless relevant. Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain in 2022 - should we swap in an example that Disney still holds some rights to?:) - Corqe (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Disney did not create Winnie the Pooh, the character was created by A.A. Milne and his literary works are now PD. Disney owns the copyright of the image of their version of Winnie the Pooh. Just like if you make your own original drawing of the character you will have the copyright to that. Disney's version will become PD 70 years after the death of Walt Disney (or if Disney has corporate authorship, could it then be until 70 years after the company is dissolved?) IANAL. Prolete (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Acrilic on canvas
I inherited a painting Sunset on Pleasant Lake Near Hackensack. By Mrs. Walter G Richter. Is it worth anything? Trytti701! (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not an art appraisal site. Prolete (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Add a section to better describe when a derivation creates a new copyright
The introduction to COM:DW already discusses this today, my emphasis added:
Many creative works are derivative works of something else, entitled to their own copyright. A derivative work is one which is not only based on a previous work, but which also contains sufficient new, creative content to entitle it to its own copyright. However, if the underlying work is still copyright protected, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse. In other words, a derivative work is not merely a work that is "based on" another work, a derivative work is considered a new work because of some significant amount of additional creativity that went into its production—all subsequent works based on another, previous work but lacking substantial new creative content are merely considered copies of that work and are entitled to no new copyright protection as a result and should not be referred to as "derivative works", as this has a very specific meaning in copyright law.
However, to my knowledge, this isn't discussed further in the body, nor is it discussed at COM:TOO or COM:Colorization. I feel like this could be explained in more detail, with better examples, to answer questions such as when does colorization or post-processing create a new copyright.
Objective: How can we more clearly explain when a derivation constitutes a Derivative Work, specifically in the space of colorization but ideally in a more general sense, where users can be directed should they wish to better understand our practices?
My proposal is to add a section to COM:DW, and link to it in COM:TOO and COM:Colorization - I've created a first draft below but invite all kinds of feedback and improvements (including if there are better ways to attain this objective than the direction I'm going). -Consigned (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Draft proposal 1
When does content "based on" something else constitute a derivative work? (section heading)
A derivative work is a work where the derivation contains new copyrightable work which exceeds the threshold of originality (TOO). If the derivation does not contain substantial new creative work exceeding the TOO, the derivation is merely considered a copy, and generates no new copyright or licensing requirements.
Many countries have different definitions of threshold of originality, and the determination of whether a derivation is considered a derivative work or not depends on the country and the case. The threshold of originality policy has more information.
Some examples of derivations which typically are not considered separate derivative works, and thus on Commons rely only on the copyright status of the original work, are
General image post-processing and color adjustment
Colorization based on existing data
AI photo enhancement
Some examples of derivations which typically are considered derivative works, and thus on Commons rely on the copyright status of both the underlying work and the derivation, are
Performing a musical composition (the performance is copyrightable, while a derivative of the composition)
Feel free to make edits to the above proposal if you can, including correcting it or trimming it to make it more clear. Or feel free to propose another draft below. Thanks! -Consigned (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)