Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On this page, toll (and some free) road shields (logos), as posted on the highway and usually connecting public roads to direct drivers to it, are listed according to their copyright status. Feel free to contribute, including adding shields and determining whether older copyrights have expired, or even if older ones were never registered.

We may also be able to make approximations to use in junction lists once we determine what makes each one copyrightable.

Contents

[edit] Probably copyrighted unless expired

These should only be used in the article about the road. They are included in this page so that editors can more easily see what each one looks like and comment on it.

[edit] Almost definitely public domain

  • (in the state MUTCD supplement)
  • (ineligible for copyright due to simplicity)
  • (in the state MUTCD supplement)
  • (in the state MUTCD supplement, page 302)

[edit] Published before 1978 with no copyright notice

[edit] Published between 1978 and 1989 with no copyright notice and no copyright registration

  • (opened 1988)
  • (opened 1988)

[edit] Possibly public domain

  • (when was this design adopted?)
    • Designed by the state (?) for a public free road, so was probably not registered. May be simple enough. --NE2 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It is almost certainly PD. This is a deprecated sign design, used only within New York City and only on a few parkways, such as the Grand Central and the Interborough (now the Jackie Robinson Parkway and using the green parkway shield shown on the NY MUTCD supplement). Now only the GCP uses it, and since the parkway itself dates all the way back to 1936...--WhosAsking 14:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ineligible for copyright due to simplicity? --NE2 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The turnpike itself predates 1978. The big question is how soon was the shield updated. If this design has been in use since before 1978 (or perhaps even 1989), then it's not subject to the 1976 Copyright Law and thus PD. --WhosAsking 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (when was this design adopted?)
    • Ineligible for copyright due to simplicity? --NE2 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it'll be a hard sell. First, that shield is definitely post-1989, so that's out. Second, that pilgrim hat design could be argued as unique enough to qualify for copyright. --WhosAsking 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General legal precedents on the threshold of originality

  • Are you 100% sure of this? It sounds a bit suspect to me. The design of a typeface or font is an original creative endeavour requiring considerable skill, and is no different to any other artistic task (painting, drawing, photography) etc. So I don't see why a font isn't copyrightable. I'm sure that the various font foundries claim copyright for their fonts. But I'm not a lawyer. Sidefall 10:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's true, typefaces are not protected by copyright in the U.S. Cited excerpts from a 1988 ruling by the U.S. Copyright Office on that issue can be found here. Postdlf 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The EU, and just about everywhere else, considers typefaces to be copyrightable, but not the U.S. Incidentally, fonts (as tiny pieces of software) are usually patented, with the method of scaling being considered patented. So you can't just download a computer font freely. But the physical representation of a font at a given size (a typeface) is free. See here for details. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The way I understand it, the typeface design itself is not subject to US copyright, nor is a bitmapped font (a representation of said font). But a scalable font is copyrightable as a computer program---but not patentable (it's considered a work, not a design). AFAIK, the only patent issues with fonts concern rendering methods, not the fonts themselves. Fortunately, the patented pieces involved can, for the most part, be circumvented--WhosAsking 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other factors in whether a sign is copyrighted

If a sign was in use before 1978, it can be tagged {{PD-Pre1978}}, since roadsigns do not generally have © symbols on them.

Can you look at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Important question about copyright notices? Thank you. --NE2 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, this classification can extend right until March of 1989, for signs without a copyright notice attached that were not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within five years of their "publication", the date when they were first put out on display. Presently, User:Quadell has proposed on my talk page a template specifically to accomodate this class of images. If anyone can find a copyright registration for any of these signs, I'd sure like to see a reference to it. After 1989, I don't know what the appropriate boilerplate is; copyright/fair-use I would imagine, just to be safe. ... Kenosis 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Good points. I seriously doubt a state would have registered a copyright for a 1978-1989 roadsign, but if they did it would be here. Feel free to check. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One more question. We know that any sign listed in the MUTCD is by law PD. But what about signs appearing in state supplements to the MUTCD, as a goodly number of signs above appear (not to mention practically all WP's state route designation signs)? Does the federal PD policy apply because the supplements are connected to the MUTCD or through some other federal mandate, or is it a state-by-state call? --WhosAsking 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See commons:User:O/SHS; federal law says that states shall adopt their own MUTCDs "in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD". The MUTCD itself says that "Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain." So, unless a state supplement eliminates that clause (which we should verify for the few cases - Oklahoma and Vermont - where it matters), those too are PD. --NE2 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying and providing a link to further discussion. --WhosAsking 13:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)