Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Sovereign Citizen" notice, Belfast (October 2013) (geograph 5824402).jpg

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.

File:"Sovereign Citizen" notice, Belfast (October 2013) (geograph 5824402).jpg

The photo may be under a Commons-compatible license, but there's nothing in the FDP to indicate that the lengthy prose in the photo itself is not copyrighted to Patrick McElroy. Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care, and it looks like I got pinged because I cropped this image once, but I suspect that this text (other then the points here and there where particular names and addresses are supplied) is just pseudo-legal gibberish boilerplate that these benighted rubes use all over the place for this sort of stuff. EEng (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no indication either that this is copyrighted. As written above, this is just pseudo-legal gibberish and Mr McElroy probably copied it from elsewere anyway. These people always use "forms" or "templates" and imitate each other's prose to construct their nonlegal documents. Psychloppos (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text mentions British specifics, marking the prose as content created in the UK. The page at COM:UK says that all works are copyrighted upon being "fixed" (see the Berne Convention), and that they do not fall out until 70 years after the death of the copyright holder. Nothing at that page (that I can find) mentions exceptions for "pseudo-legal gibberish". Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. EEng (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But is this copyrighted at all ? Psychloppos (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's boilerplate found all over the place. EEng (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was automatically, and remains so unless explicitly released or relicensed by the holder. Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was automatically only if it's original. EEng (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That text was, at some point, written by a person to whom the copyright was automatically assigned. That person may be Patrick McElroy, or it may be some other person, but there's currently no evidence present at the FDP that this text is not held in copyright. Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat: what you say is true only if the work is original. EEng (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm missing something tremendously obvious with regard to "originality". The text in question was created by someone somewhere; there is an author to whom this prose can be attributed as the originator. If not, what's the counter to that? Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
w:Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Works_eligible_for_protection: "For copyright to subsist in these works, the work itself must be 'original'. This is traditionally seen as requiring that the author exercised skill, labour and judgment in its production." Stock legal phrases strung together, with blanks filled in with names and addresses, are not original. EEng (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokie. Then, if we can verify that no authorial work went into the creation of the original text, and that it's of UK provenance, it may not qualify for copyright protection at the discretion of the discussion closer. Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. I'm familiar with SovCit gibberish and there's no original work here. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]