Help talk:Copyright tags

Can we think of incorporating copyright tags with Template:Header?--Jusjih 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous works intended for copyright-free distribution

Hi, I want to put the following poem on Wikisource but there seems to be no appropriate tag. The poem was distributed in Eastbourne, UK, in 1956. It is about a serial killer John Bodkin Adams - and it was distributed anonymously because at the time it was libellous. It was copied, changed by further copiers, and handed around Eastbourne and read in pubs... The link here is from an author whose book states that it came from a copy found in the Scotland Yard archives. Does that make it UK government property?

Either way, it was published anonymously and intended to be distributed and recopied - no copyright was ever intended or claimed. What tag should it have? Advice appreciated. Malick78 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Wikisource only accepts works that are in the public domain or that have free licenses. What you describe is called 'presumed public domain', but this has previously been rejected. Publication, even if anonymous, does not show an intent to release all rights in perpetuity. For historical discussion, see Help:Licensing compatibility#Presumed licensing.

Therefore, we must apply copyright law. The copyright law of the United Kingdom sets a copyright term for anonymous works published before 01 June 1957 as 70 years after publication (until 2026). Assuming this work was not published in the United States within 30 days of UK publication, copyright law extends this copyright in the United States to 95 years after publication (until 2051) due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:58:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. I checked the link you gave and one of the two allowable instances is:

"Manifestos or open letters that are not explicitly or implicitly copyrighted and are intended for widespread distribution."

Now, the poem in question seems quite similar: it was intended for widespread distribution (and more importantly, reproduction) and the writer specifically did not want copyright (s/he could have been prosecuted for libel) - hence it was not explicitly or implicitly copyrighted. I realise this is a difference case from that intended by the rule, but I feel the inclusion of the poem here would be keeping pretty closely to the letter and the spirit of this rule. What do you think? Malick78 12:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The writer may not have want attribution due to the libel, but that doesn't mean they wanted it to be redistributed, reproduced, altered, translated, etc. For {{PD-manifesto}} to apply, you would need to show that there was a concert effort to distribute it widely. Have you investigated whether the author now known? It sounds like this could be acceptable as a manifesto, however that license requires the contributor does a lot of background checking. Any chance you have an image of an edition that was distributed? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cullen, Pamela V., "A Stranger in Blood: The Case Files on Dr John Bodkin Adams", London, Elliott & Thompson, 2006, ISBN 1-904027-19-9 - describes at length how the police went round public houses where the poem had been read out for the enjoyment of the regulars. They had to track various versions of the poem, because as it was copied changes were introduced, but finally they tracked it down to a printing firm where an employee had run off a few dozen copies for himself and friends. This employee, not the writer, said that he had been passed a previous copy of it by someone else... The writer, the police suspected, was probably a Fleet Street journalist (since the poem required some literary talent and there were dozens in Eastbourne covering the story) and could easily have been in a position to claim some copyright at the time or later. The writer was, however, never firmly established. It is clear from the book though, that distribution was undoubtedly intended by the author (after all, what real journalist would write for as limited a readership as possible?;) ). Does that help? Malick78 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Furthermore, Adams died in 1983, so there has been 25 years for someone to claim copyright without the threat of being sued for libel. Perhaps that's relevant too. Malick78 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra detail. This text looks safe from copyright limitations; go with {{PD-manifesto}}. If the book contains a copy of this poem, could you note that on the talk page of the text. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Will do so. Thanks for the advice and pointing me in the right direction:) Malick78 13:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-JapanGov created

Template:PD-JapanGov has been created, probably people familiar with Japanese copyright giving it the once over before it is added to the Help page. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PD-country and 1996

Would it be worthwhile to add a small notice like the ones on {{PD-South Africa}} and {{PD-Russia}} about the whole US 1996 thing to all the PD-country tags? May also be a good idea to check the works that use those licenses and make sure they qualify. Prosody (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A notice would be good. It would also be helpful to document how someone checks that it wasnt registered in the US. We could also add a ruleUS1996checked = yes/no to indicate that a work has been checked for compliance against the 1996 rule. And all works without 'ruleUS1996checked = yes' would be placed into a hidden maintenance category. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We have {{PD-1996}} which could be used in conjunction with a PD in country of origin tag. Given that there's some discussion about the conditions of the URAA thing it seems best to wait until that's settled before changing things. Prosody (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"all rites reversed"

Many discordian works — most notably the Principia Discordia itself, as well as its Loompanics Edition Special Afterword — include or are accompanied by a notice reading "Ⓚ all rights reversed(sic!) – Reprint what you like" or similar (often with "rights" spelled "rites" instead.) Are published works thusly marked by their authors or copyright holders acceptable for Wikisource inclusion? If so, what copyright tag should be used for them? {{PD-author-release}} / {{PD-release}} (depending on who marked the work) or a dedicated (new) tag separate from "public domain" ones? --Das-g (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Das-g: The "all rites reversed" nonsense has no legal significance and such works are regulated solely by general copyright rules. That is, the general rule is that they are covered by copyright and have no valid licensing terms. However, it's worth noting that early editions of the Index:Principia Discordia (1970).djvu itself are apparently in the public domain through failure to adhere to the required formalities of the old copyright act. It is likely that several other early discordian works, through sheer luck, are acceptable for the same reason. But the bottom line is that all such works have to be checked individually (which is hard due to the often obscure and convoluted publication history), and must be presumed to be in copyright unless there is clear evidence suggesting otherwise. Xover (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Does that apply even when they also have the mentioned "Reprint what you like" part of the notice? While the "rights"/"rites" and "reserved"/"reversed" puns are funny wordplay, that latter phrase seems (to me) like a clear indication of intent that the work be freely reproducible and distributable. (Assuming that "print" is a stand-in for any means of reproducing the work, not limited to actual physical prints on paper, and that "what you like" does not limit the scope to parts of the work beloved by those involved in the distribution or reproduction, but is a mere pleasantry in phrasing.) Das-g (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Das-g: Copyright law is extremely specific. What made the early Principia public domain was failure to comply with the then required formalities: namely asserting copyright in a very specific format (which is why you see all books etc. include a copyright notice of the same format). Later copyright law changes this, removing the requirement for a copyright notice in favour of the default assumption that all otherwise eligible works are automatically protected by copyright. And once a work is protected by copyright you need some kind of legal instrument that gives a third party a license to do things like make copies, distribute, make derivative works, and so forth. A license (like the Creative Commons licenses) is essentially a contract, and requires certain legal formalities to be valid. Making something public domain even more so, because copyright law is based on the assumption that copyright holders want to commercially exploit that right rather than "throw it away". In some jurisdictions it's not even possible to waive many such rights (which is why the CC-zero license contains language to regulate what happens if dedicating something to the public domain is not legally possible).

For you, as an individual, you can gamble that the copyright owners will never sue you based on those statements, or if you are sued you can try to argue that those statements constituted an implicit license to do whatever it was you did. They, on the other hand, will argue that those statements clearly weren't in the format required by law, are in fact nonsense and creative expression like the rest of the Principia, and that you should have realised this and the infringement is therefore wilful or grossly negligent. A youthful idealist whose joke book suddenly turns into a cult classic that is worth millions has a sad tendency to turn into an ageing capitalist. Or a dead idealist whose children (or heirs, or successors in interest, or...) turn out to be greedy money-grubbing opportunists.

I'd be fairly optimistic that older discordian works are public domain through failure to provide visible copyright notice. It's just that it needs to be checked thoroughly before we can host them here (or on Commons for that matter). Xover (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Xover, for this detailed answer!

I was aware of most of these aspects, with the notable exception that licenses "require[…] certain legal formalities to be valid", especially as most other contracts in many jurisdictions don't. (Otherwise selling and buying stuff on the street or even in a shop would be near-impossible or very impractical.) Where can I read up on what the formalities required of a license are? (Or, if the former is legally too unclear to be answered, which wouldn't surprise me: What formalities do Wikimedia projects require of a license, for them to consider such a license valid?; I'm well aware that validity alone wouldn't make thusly licensed works eligible for inclusion, as that'd also depend on what rights the license grants, and to whom and under what conditions.)

For works old enough to potentially be public domain through failure to provide visible copyright notice: What checks are necessary? And is there a place to do them collaboratively? (As one person might be able to hunt down or source one piece of information required, another person another piece.) Das-g (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Das-g: The specific requirements for a license would be food for lawyers, but the general gist is that copyright law sets up a framework of rights and limitations etc., so a license needs to operate within and address the relevant parts of it. For example, the license needs to use the same notion of "author" as copyright law would use, or the license simply wouldn't do what it was intended to do. Similarly, some legal systems simply do not have any facility for an author to waive their rights, so simply saying "I release this as public domain" has no legal effect; in order to achieve the intended aim you need to then point by point provide for the rights you wish others to have but which the relevant copyright law restricts by default. The formalities required for Wikimedia projects is simply that the license is legally valid and has the effect of giving the freedoms we've defined as important (right to distribute, modify, exploit commercially; and partly also to require attribution). There's no blanket check for this: each license will need to be discussed individually.

But I don't think you're really asking about copyright licenses here: from the context and your phrasing it sounds like what you're really wondering about are the copyright statements that used to be required in older US copyright law. The format of the statement required was: the symbol © or the word "Copyright" or the abbreviation "Copr."; the year of first publication of the work; and the name of the owner of copyright in the work (e.g. "© 1992 John Doe"). There are lots of little obscure things like what the statement covers (for example, if a book has a cover image by an artist separate from the author), but that's the gist. And the requirement for such a notice in order to be protected by copyright was a feature of US copyright law up to 1977, so works published after 1977 don't need one. Similarly, for works published before 1963 the author had to file a renewal with the copyright office in the 28th year or the copyright would expire.

The problem for the discordian works is that instead of saying "I release this to the public domain" (which probably would have been valid in the US), they used the "all rites reversed" stuff that just simply isn't a valid copyright license. But the flip side is that since it's also not a valid copyright notice, several of those works may in fact have lost their copyright protection through failure to include such a notice.

In order to accept such a work as having fallen into the public domain you would need to do the research to show where and when it was first published, and document (typically through finding a scan) that it has no visible copyright notice or that the notice is not in a valid format.

In any case, a full tutorial on international copyright law in general is a bit beyond what I have the capacity for at the moment. If there's a specific work or aspect of a work you have questions about that would be much easier to answer. If you want to discuss more general copyright issues on Wikimedia projects, the Commons village pump for copyright might be the best place. Xover (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)