I dunno if it's a good omen, starting the semi-revived Signpost out with a blatant copyright violation. Hilda, there, the gal stomping grapes, is from the 60's, not the 30s. 22:23, 24 May 2018(UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qwirkle Are you sure about that? It is marked PD in Commons:
"Copyright has expired and its author is anonymous.
This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity."
Qwirkle, 'semi'-revived? I would hesitate before belittling a lot of work that has been put in to reviving the last two issues by a team of mostly new contributors and editorial staff who think it's worth keeping going. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks boss for sticking up for me. I think Hilda might be notable enough for her own article. There really are some days when I actually feel semi-revived. Best Regards, Barbara✐ ✉ 20:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know no more damning criticism, once people are past primary school, than praising something based on the input rather than the output. Qwirkle (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests otherwise, don't it? American, not French, claimed, not anonymous, &cet. The good news is that if anyone gets in deep trouble the copyright owner is known for hiring from the pen.... Qwirkle (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still likely to be PD if there was no copyright notice [1]. I don't see one there, nor on other stuff on the Internets, like a 1964 calendar. Probably you should take this up at Commons, though. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every component piece of a work needn’t have a little circled ”cee” plastered on it, and just because you can find a copy of something with the signature airbrushed, or photoshopped, off doesn’t mean it is free for the taking. Qwirkle (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
US copyright law is complex. Read the Cornell link above (here it is again); until 1977 it did require a copyright notice. But this conversation should not be continued here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. US copyright law has never, ever required that every separable bit of a work be festooned with copyright warnings. A book might be marked once; that does not give the average yut on Wikipedia the right to excerpt all but that page as PD. Yes, copyright law is complex, but this aspect isn’t, and that primer doesn’t even pretend to address it. Qwirkle (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Humour