Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Delta-01 Launch Control Facility

Files in Category:Delta-01 Launch Control Facility

Branching discussion from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:English-language graffiti in the United States for this particular work. The Squirrel Conspiracy says:

COM:DW of copyrighted art. There is no freedom of panorama for art in the United States. Please note that it being graffiti is not an excuse for ignoring copyright.

Jmabel believes this art is below the COM:TOO.

– BMacZero (🗩) 20:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above is supposedly indicating what I believe, I've taken the liberty of striking through the two that I believe are over TOO. {{u|BMacZero]} I realize one doesn't normally edit someone else's comment, so if you'd like to revert me and indicate this some other way, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm fine with those being handled separately. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the missile and "Minuteman II" on it, I think it is a parody. Also, the artwork is probably a product of a government employee. Bubba73 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubba73: Yeah, it is probably the work of a government employee, but {{PD-USGov}} also requires it to have been produced "as part of that person's official duties". Whether that applies here is, I think, more doubtful. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very hard for me to believe that a soldier would have been authorized to paint on the door or walls of a missile silo without some sort of orders to do so. That seems close enough to "official duties" for the purposes of PD-USGov. Omphalographer (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the parody element, that could potentially get around any copyright belonging to Domino's pizza, but not the copyright of the parody's author. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government Employees & Copyrights

Well, as a retired Administrative Officer in the National Park Service, I dealt a couple of times a year with employees and volunteers seeking assistance in taking pictures in the park, the government assumes all copyrights on artistic works created with public funds. There are exceptions.

1. When the federal government purchases artistic materials, the purchase limits the use to that specified in the contract. The final product in which material was used becomes Public Domain. The purchased image is protected if it is separated from the final government product. Thus, images of informational signs created by a federal government agency are public domain.

2. The federal government may purchase a work of art as Grand Portage National Monument did in Minnesota. The creator agreed as long as he retained the copyright on the work. A clause was added to the contract letting the creator retain the copyright for consideration, i.e., a reduced price.

Several creators, who volunteered in other capacities, requested assistance in processing or purchasing film. At that time, the agency can approve the joint venture, but the creator was notified that all the images would become public domain. Usually, the creator wanted control over the use of the images. This could not be accommodated as there was no specification that the creator had to meet as far as content or subject. Of course, the creator could use the images that created, as they were public domain.

Employees who took pictures would claim that they owned the images that took, and the government did not. This was true if they meet all of the following:

No government cameras or accessories were use. This would also include paint brushes, paint trays, or sculpture materials and tools.
The government did not provide any of the expendable, i.e., film back when there was film or paint.
The employee was not on government time.

Summary, as far as the images on the blast doors at Minuteman Missile, the security standards would suggest that all materials were government provided and that at a minimum, the employees were on duty. Per the tour guide, only the two on-duty officers and the cook were allowed in the area. So, if the images are acceptable as a parody, then the image is most likely public domain.Chris Light

@Chris Light: Thanks for your insight on that! That was a clause on PD-USGov I've always been a little unclear about, that sheds some light on it. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]