Commons:Deletion requests/Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images|year=2024|month=December|day=03}} to the description page of each file.
Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images|plural}} ~~~~
Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images}} at the end of today's log.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images

Despite the text of the Template:PD-USGov-money tag, this image is not in the public domain. Under the terms of the contest that brought about this coin, "Designs must be assigned to the United States Mint and will become its sole and exclusive property." Therefore, this image is the intellectual property of the Mint and it is not freely usable. As an aside, Template:PD-USGov-money needs to be radically reconsidered or discontinued because the statement "If this is an image of paper currency or a coin not listed here, it is solely a work of the United States Government, is ineligible for US copyright, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States." is simply not true. Mysterymanblue 10:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're correct; the Sacagawea dollar was an exception, and was cited as such. The Mint is fully capable of stating on its web pages that any design produced as the result of a competition is under its copyright and it has not done so, only mentioned the Sacagawea dollar which has always been understood to be covered by copyright. In any event, the reverses would be free of copyright as Phebe Hemphill, a federal employee acting within her duties, was the designer.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find some reference online to the fact that the government acquired in exchange for payment the copyright to the Sacagawea dollar, but that the rules were changed thereafter for the state quarter designs so that those competing in a coin selection competition released their rights. I don't see that the language you cite constitutes the government acquiring a copyright. Are there 21st century examples of the government asserting a copyright in this or a similar coin (not counting the Sacagawea)?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the contest page for the Apollo 11 design contest, "This means that the artist will not retain any rights in the design or drafts, and will not be able to use or allow others to use them (or designs substantially similar to them) without specific written permission from the United States Mint in its sole discretion." The Mint is asserting a right to prevent even the designer of the coin from using the design, which seems to indicate that it holds intellectual property rights over the designs and does not consider them to be freely usable. We should not assume that a mint design is public domain just because the Mint does not make the status of its IP more widely known. As for this website that is often used as a list of "exceptions to the rule" of public domain coinage, it is clearly stated that the Sacagawea $1 coin and the other things listed there are only "Examples of materials in which copyrights have been assigned to and are owned by the United States Mint". This use of the word "examples" indicates that this list does not extensively cover every case where the mint holds copyright over a design. Mysterymanblue 18:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wehwalt Randy Kryn (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has come to my attention that the contest only covered the obverse of the coin. Therefore, I am withdrawing my nomination from all of the images which only show the reverse:

My nomination for the deletion of the images containing the obverse stands as it was designed by Gary Cooper, who was not an employee of the federal government carrying out his official duties when he made the design; he therefore had copyright over the design which was then transferred to the mint. Mysterymanblue 19:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to your points, Mysteryman, I find the use of Sacagawea significant, and not simply as an example. The Mint publishes copyright notices when reproducing the Sacagawea design, see for example the tweet reproduced in this article that Vox later withdrew, here. That coin's obverse is protected by copyright. I see no indication that the Mint has asserted copyright in a similar manner in the case of the Apollo 11 obverse. Where, for example, is any copyright notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a copyright notice is irrelevant to the copyright status of the work. The active assertion of a copyright is likewise irrelevant to the copyright status of the work. You're right: Wikimedia Commons is unlikely to be sued by the US Mint for hosting images of this coinage because the mint doesn't seem to care like it does for Sacagawea design. However, the question is not "does the mint go out of its way to proclaim its copyright?" but "are these images public domain or otherwise freely usable?" Regrettably, the answer to the second question would appear to be "no", so these files do not belong here on Commons.

Interestingly, the US Mint has registered some of its copyrights with the Copyright Office (search here for "United States Mint" under "Name"). While not legally required to gain protection, perhaps this is the sort of assertion you are looking for. Included with the Sacagawea design are several other coin designs that are not explicitly listed on the Mint website, which further goes to show why the US Mint PD tag needs to be rethought. While the Apollo coins are NOT listed in the database, the Mint has registered copyright over the 2020 Basketball Hall of Fame commemorative coin design (images of which are currently being hosted on Commons - oops! In a few days, when I have time, I will probably nominate these files for deletion). Also, the language governing the transfer of rights for the baketball design are very similar to the Apollo one.

So what's the point I'm getting at? If the US Mint were able to register copyright over the basketball coin, that means it held copyright over the basketball coin. Since the rights transfer language was the same with the Apollo coins, it is likely that the Mint also holds copyright over that design as well. Mysterymanblue 08:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is not a specific design use policy for the commemorative series, here the Mint clearly states that the images are "for a story on a United States Mint product". I believe Wikipedia falls under that category. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, that sort of restricted licensing term is not considered acceptable for hosting on Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps fair use/these sorts of licensing terms are acceptable if you directly upload the images to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) for use on articles, but Commons generally does not allow files hosted for sole use on other Wikimedia projects. Mysterymanblue 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this image as I see compelling reasons. 1. Although the image is of the whole coin (one-side) it is a small publication and only a full image can be shown. Thus I argue it fulfills the public interest. 2. Given the number of coins minted, it is quite widely available (at least in its country of issue); hence copyright restrictions seem illogical. 3. It is an image of a significant American and global event, so again it's in the public interest. 4. The US Mint is a government agency, and hence is ultimately owned by every American (even ones living overseas); so "We the people" are the copyright holders, the Mint only manages it on our behalf. Just about every US Government publication I've ever seen explicitly states it is not copyright, so this should be in the public interest. I exclude those who replicate this image in cases of forgery, because that's illegal on other grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David AH Morton (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your concerns. In my ideal world, the mint, and other agencies of the US government (or really, any government anywhere) would not be allowed to hold copyright except in a very narrow set of circumstances. However, the reality of the situation is that the Mint does hold copyright over these works and Wikimedia Commons policy prohibits the hosting of non-freely usable works. The public interest, minimal usage, wide circulation, and other fair use rationales for hosting these images are neither acceptable under Wikimedia Commons policy. Additionally, the fact that the US government derives its power from the people does not imply that every piece of property it owns is usable by US citizens (see: w:en:Bundy standoff). As to your point about other government works being in the public domain: that generally only applies to cases where an employee of the US federal government made the work in the course of their official duties. In this case, an individual who was not an employee designed the coin, and their copyright was then transferred to the treasury department. In such a case, the copyright is owned by the mint and the intellectual property does not lie in the public domain. Indeed, the mint website explicitly lays out that there may be many cases where mint designs contain “copyrighted material created by third parties that has been assigned to and is now owned by the United States Mint”. Mysterymanblue 08:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For works of the US government, the default assumption is that it's public domain, and the "burden of proof" is to show it's actually under copyright. The cases where copyright is a concern - Sacajawea, some of NASA's stuff, etc. - generally have the fact they're still under copyright explicitly called out. The nominator has laid out a case for why these images might possibly not be PD, but I think something more is required - there's reams and reams of government work (including Mint work) that operates under the PD standard implicitly, without having to declare for each and every work that yes, this too is public domain. If we're to believe that this really is copyrighted and not PD, let's see something more explicit than a possible interpretation of old contest rules that doesn't sound like it's necessarily accurate, and if it was accurate, suggests that there should be more prominent disclaimers elsewhere as per the Sacajawea example. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: The law is what the law is and the law is clear:

A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.17 U.S. Code § 101

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.17 U.S. Code § 105

A copyrighted work can only fall under the scope of Template:PD-USGov, or similar PD tags, when it is a work of the United States government as defined above. These tags absolutely cannot apply in any case where a work was not prepared by an employee of the United States Government. Prepared by a contractor? Not a work of the U.S. government. (Contractors are not employees.) Prepared in a contest? Not a work of the U.S. government. (Members of the public are not employees of the U.S. government, and contests can never be considered "official duties".) Rights transferred to the U.S. government? Not a work of the U.S. government. (The mint cannot transfer copyright to itself.) Not public domain.

It seems that the standard you would demand for a work owned by the U.S. government work to be removed from Commons would be for it to have a copyright notice. In my ideal world, the U.S. government would have to publicly, loudly, and unambiguously copyright over works that it owns to receive protection. However, the law is what the law is and the law says that copyright exists from the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium. A copyright notice is not needed for a work to be protected, even if the work is owned by the United States government.

I would love it if all work done by, for, or on behalf of the U.S. government lay in the "implicit public domain". Certainly, that would make our work on Commons much easier. However, the law is what the law is and the law says that to place a work into the public domain requires an "overt act evidencing that intent" (See page 6 here). To do nothing is not enough. There has long been talk of reforming the policy surrounding orphan works so that they can enter the public domain. But this is not the law; it is speculation. For a work owned by the U.S. government but not a "work of the U.S. government" as defined above to be in the public domain requires extraordinary circumstances.

The work in question was prepared by 1) a person who is not an employee of the U.S government 2) for a contest, with 3) a rights transfer agreement to the U.S. mint. Section 105 of Title 17 of the U.S. code categorically cannot apply under these circumstances. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we therefore must assume that the works are copyrighted. Mysterymanblue 23:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an image of an original prototype personally created by Gary Cooper, or of art Cooper made on his own, sure, I'd agree. However, the actual coins were made by Real Employees and by the Mint, so the usual public domain rules would apply. The reverse case is easy as you've already noted above, but I'm not sure the art being from a contest really affects the obverse either. If Cooper did not "sign away" his copyright to allow this, and the Mint produced these under some special arrangement rather than the usual government rules, then what I'm suggesting is that there should be some sort of copyright notice, similar to when the US government produces items where the copyright is held elsewhere.

Or, to put things another way and since you bring up contractors before, suppose the federal government hires a contractor to compile some background documents (and it's not just raw data / facts which aren't copyrightable). Now suppose that these documents are then used by federal government employees to create a new publication, and the new publication even directly cites the original contractor documents or includes long-form quotes from them. This is very common. Is this new publication in the public domain, including the parts that quote the original docs? I'd argue (and I believe most courts would agree) that yes, it is. The federal government "owned" some copyrighted docs it had commissioned, and then it used them in a new work, but that new work was a government work so it's public domain.

Anyway, rather than theorycraft here among ourselves, have you considered contacting the Mint and just asking them? Might be the best way to resolve this. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: You're right that the U.S. government would not receive copyright protection in any derivative work it created based off of Cooper's design. However, derivative works are protected both by the copyright of the derivative work and the copyright of the original work. This is why, for example, both the composition and the recording of a song must be freely usable for a song to be hosted on Commons. The Navy Band's performance of Dolly Parton's "9 to 5" would not be freely usable - even though it is a work of the U.S. government, and even though Dolly Parton gave them permission to make it - because the the composition of "9 to 5" is still protected by copyright.

So if the Mint made copyrightable modifications to the design that Cooper made, the resulting derivative work would lie in the public domain. But it would still be protected by the copyright of the original design that the Mint owns.

I also cannot stress enough that a copyright notice is not required under copyright law, even for works owned by the U.S. government. For example, the Basketball Hall of Fame commemorative coins were registered copyrights of the U.S. mint, but the mint never placed a copyright notice on the designs. The lack of a copyright notice gives no information on the public domain status of a work. To get more information, I reached out to the Mint to ask them about copyright issues surrounding some of their coins, but they gave no helpful response. I may file a Freedom of Information Act request for the rights transfer agreement for these coins in the future, but I am unsure if they would even release that sort of document or how long it would take.

That being said, I mostly reached out for this information to gain more persuasive power on Commons. I don't think the Mint can really provide much more. We know these designs were not created by an employee of the federal government in the course of their official duties, so we must give them the same presumption that we give all other works: that they are protected by copyright. Mysterymanblue 22:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the term "derivative work" because I'm not sure this actually is legally a derivative work as term of art, though, is what I'm saying. All of what you say is true in the abstract, but the issue is that it's not clear it's relevant to this particular case. Yes, works can have copyright without notice; yes, it's possible the Mint could have "owned" a copyright without releasing it. But lots of things are possible: works that we believe to be public domain because the author is 70+ years dead could have it turn up that the author faked their death and actually died a decade later. You've made a case for why the resulting coin could possibly have a separate copyright bled in that is not PD, but per my original comment, I believe we need something more concrete here. The coin was a work of the federal government. Barring the rare cases where the federal government explicitly does disclaim PD-ness, the default assumption is that these resulting works are public domain fully and completely and of safe provenance. If that isn't true for this case, let's see a direct statement, not guesswork, because federal government works being PD is in fact the default rule. SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I think on Commons we can sometimes get so wrapped up in our internal conversations that we forget the ultimate origins of copyright law. We see that almost everything the federal government puts out is in the public domain, so we start to create these assumptions (federal government owned work = public domain). The issue is that these assumptions are based off of our feelings of the law and not what the law actually is. That is why I make the distinction between a work owned by the U.S. federal government and a work of the U.S. federal government. Works of the federal government are defined in statute as "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." (17 U.S. Code § 101) The origin of the public domain status of the vast majority of works put out by the U.S. government is 17 U.S. Code § 105, which states that, in general, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government". All U.S. government PD tags on Commons, including the one for the U.S. mint, ultimately rest on this law. It's the reason why Template:PD-USGov uses the specific language of the statute rather than just saying "all works published by or created for the United States are in the public domain". Indeed, the statute goes on to say that the "United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (17 U.S. Code § 105), which explicitly creates this exception whereby works transferred to the U.S. government are not in the public domain. So when you ask me for evidence that this work owned by the United States government is in the public domain, I show you that this work does not meet the statutory definition of a work of the U.S. government that would be required to make it public domain. The burden is now on you to find Wikimedia Commons a law, court ruling, or other piece of evidence that would suggest otherwise.

To use an analogy, it's like if Wikimedia Commons hosted a work published in 1931 by an artist who died the same year. It's been 100 years since death, so it's ok to use, right? Certainly, in Commons we are so surrounded by this idea that 70 years after death = public domain. But when you look at the actual copyright law, the "70 years after death" rule only applies to works created on or after January 1, 1978 (17 U.S. Code § 302). Not a single work has entered the public domain in the United States because its author died 70 years ago. In fact, a work published in 1931 that was properly noticed and renewed could still be under copyright protection today under 17 U.S. Code § 304. The key is that we always need to look back to the law, not what we think the law is. Mysterymanblue 23:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the obverses per Mysterymanblue. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per the statement at https://www.usmint.gov/news/design-competitions/apollo-11/rules, which clearly indicates that the obverse design is not public domain. Images only depicting the reverse will be kept, however. --Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images

Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images

Navigation menu

Search