Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2005-12
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
This work is taken from Gutenberg. Unlike most GB works, however, this one is still under copyright, according to the title page of the work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure. Do we know when the translator died ? Do we know when was the translation first published ? Yann 21:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the translator is still alive since the page shows a copyright of 2002. I think he did a brand new translation for Gutenberg. There is another PD version at [1]. Another unattributed translation can be found at [2]. CSN 23:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- I say we delete this page and replace it with the translation that's definitely PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, if there is another PD translation, definitely. Yann 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, and PD text added in its place.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The author page says it is a 2004 work. And Wikisource:Authors-T says he was born in 1986. This is definitely not PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki:Why I Am Not a Painter is a copyright violation from [3], and should not have been transwikied from en.wikipedia. User:Zoe. 172.194.143.211 23:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it and its talk page.--Jusjih 09:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This speech was originally posted at http://wikisource.org/wiki/安南秘书长在北京清华大学的演讲Secretary-General%27s_speech_at_Qing_Hua_University in Chinese and English at 10:21, 29 August 2005 by 222.141.12.108. It was moved to Chinese Wikisource per my suggestion and an administrator there deleted it. I moved the English part here. However, as I just found the Chinese page zh:安南秘书长在北京清华大学的演讲 as a possible copyright violation, I suggest deleting it pending further discussion even though no one has questioned this article before.--Jusjih 05:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it.--Jusjih 09:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe this has popped up before, and we have tanked it. It's come back, and I'm sure it's another copyvio. See it talk page for reasons why.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is still at http://wikisource.org/wiki/Siddhartha with a talk page.--Jusjih 08:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Don't confused the original in German (PD in USA) with an English translation (probably copyrighted). Yann 17:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This is from the book Getting Even (New York: Vintage Books, 1978 [originally published in 1971]) --CSN 19:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, it's a copyvio.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
This way first published in 2003 under a CC license. So it's not Public Domain or FDL licensed. --86.139.116.235 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah but it's Creative Commons. Why does it have to be PD or GFDL? Also, I think Wikisource:Copyright#Users.27 rights and obligations is wrong. You can of course copy any public domain article content you want off of wikisource with no restrictions whatsoever. You certainly don't have to agree to the GFDL. Any work that is licensed with something else, like CC, just needs to be marked as such unless I am mistaken. If it is the non-commercial part that's the problem then the foundation needs to explore relaxing that restriction for wikisource. Wikisource is not Wikipedia. --CSN 01:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. CC is a free licence. Yann 18:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It is not a completely free license — it is CC-by-NC-SA. The NC stands for "non-commercial", a stipulation which is not allowed on Wikipedia or Commons. I've looked over the (very confusing and frankly not helpful) Wikisource copyrights page and couldn't figure out whether they are allowed here or not. But that's what it probably comes down to, either way. --Fastfission 02:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- we've talked about this issue lately on scriptorium. my impression is that we have a rough consensus to accept anything that we can legally post — our objectives differ from wikipedia. we should probably put together a proposed policy page, gather comments, and see if there really is a consensus. Wolf man 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Tolkien died in 1973, and I find it hard to believe that the copyright holders would allow us to upload it. It is still a stub by an anonymous contributor, but we may as well stop him before he wastes too much time on uploading it. --Christian S 07:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- As of 23 October, Lord Of The Rings, The has been re-created. Please delete it again and protect the page. --Angr/Talk 10:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it, but I see no way to protect the page once deleted.--Jusjih 03:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, at Wikipedia, the way to do it is to click on the red link, add the template Deletedpage, and then protect that. Template:Deletedpage doesn't exist here, but it should be easy enough to copy it over. --Angr/Talk 12:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
For similar reasons as LotR. It is highly unlikely that The Hobbit is PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This is still copyrighted, shouldn't we delete this page (albiet just redlink chapter headings) to prevent it being added. AllanHainey 08:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- The author, J. R. R. Tolkien, died in 1973. It cannot be tagged PD-old-50 until 2024 or PD-old-70 until 2044. Unless very good reasons to keep it exist, I agree deleting it.--Jusjih 21:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Copyvio up to 2044 (sadly :( ). There is no way to include it here. Deleted. Yann 19:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
This was published in 1941 and was authored by James Thurber, who didn't die until 1961. This is probably not PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- As an American writer, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc may have the answer. I do not know if the copyright has been renewed in the 28th year since publication. If no evidence shows it in PD, I suggest deleting it 7 days later.--Jusjih 07:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it due to lack of strong argument for retention.--Jusjih 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thurber also wrote The Greatest Man in the World in 1940, so I've marked that as a copyvio too. --Angr/Talk 21:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it due to lack of strong argument for retention.--Jusjih 10:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This English translation of the constitution is copyrighted by the Associated Press. Maybe some Arabic speaker could make a free translation, but unfortunately that has not happened yet.--Pharos 09:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Why not copy the official Arabic version onto Wikisource.
- It could be at The Arabic Wikisource, but this domain is for texts written in English only. --Angr/Talk 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have read that the UN have translated the constitution as well. This document is surely in the Public Domain. If we can find it, we'll put that here instead. But for now, we should remove the page before AP finds out we've snatched it. ☺ --HymylyTC 15:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted that page. For the UN, I see http://www.un.org/copyright.htm and http://www.un.org/terms.htm . Can anyone prove that UN documents are in PD? See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_resolution where I asked a question.--Jusjih 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Written in 1963. Most likely PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just went to copyright.com and it said Amelia Bedelia was not copyright
- A search of the US copyright records produces numerous results for Amelia Bedelia. There is strong reason to believe that it still protected under copyright. As Peggy Parish died in 1988, the copyright would not have expired on her works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- See [[4]] for Peggy Parish's biography. A number of her books are still in print at Harper Collins. I things is most unlikely this is public domain Apwoolrich 15:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- A search of the US copyright records produces numerous results for Amelia Bedelia. There is strong reason to believe that it still protected under copyright. As Peggy Parish died in 1988, the copyright would not have expired on her works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Author: Shel Silverstein,Year Written: 1964 Wolfman 01:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- He died in 1999. I support deleting it after 7 days.--Jusjih 03:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it.--Jusjih 09:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
This is by C. S. Lewis who died in 1963. It appers to be part of a series of radio broadcasts he made on the BBC in 1943 See [[5]] No doubt this is a copyvio. Apwoolrich 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it per your info.--Jusjih 06:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a translation of a very recently published article. I have a hard time seeing how this is in the PD, and I could find no indication that actually is.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Copyright granted, see: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:The_mystery_of_Dewinter%27s_%22unalloyed_Fascism%22
- Jvb November 10, 2005
This is Crown copyright material. The waiver on reproducing such material is not compatible with the GFDL. It contains conditions like the material not being used in a derogatory or misleading manner, and that the Crown copyright status of it must be acknowledged. David Newton 00:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Is wikisource restricted to GFDL? Wolfman 00:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- As I understand it Wikisource is restricted to GFDL materials, public domain materials and those materials that have a licence which is compatible with the GFDL. As I have posted elsewhere the situation on the copyright page for Wikisource is a little contradictory. For the moment, until this is sorted out, I suggest that sticking to those three categories of materials would be safest. British laws can be reproduced pretty freely under the Crown copyright waiver, but there are conditions within that waiver that are contrary to the GFDL. Therefore for the moment I would suggest that it is not safe the reproduce British laws on Wikisource if those British laws are still in copyright (ie 1955 onwards). David Newton 23:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, here is the HMSO waiver for Crown Copyright. This GFDL-only business would put a horrible crimp on what we can do — from what authority does that come? For wikipedia, it makes sense; here, I don't see it. Wolfman 04:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- "If you contribute material to Wikisource, you thereby license it to the publicunder the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
- In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either
- you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
- you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL."
- In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either
- That is a quote from the Wikisource:Copyright. David Newton 08:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Reading the site you supplied, Wolfman, it seems that the Hunting Act can stay here, provided we say that it is reproduced under the terms of the HMSO copyright waiver. Am I correct on my interpretation of that site?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Legally, yes. I believe David's objection, correct me if I am wrong, is that under Crown this work could not be re-distributed under GFDL.
- The GFDL policy seems to be up to us, except for original contributions. Various wiki's have had votes on inclusion of non-GFDL stuff and chosen various policies. En.wikipedia, for example, voted to allow "fair use" images -- and those can't be redistributed under GFDL. We should probably have a discussion of licensing issues on What Wikisource Includes. My view is that our objectives differ from wikipedia, and we should include anything useful that we legally can. To beat a dead horse, I also think this falls in the public domain under U.S. law, but Crown Copyright definitely works anyway, if non-GFDL isn't a problem. Wolfman 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to agree. If we can legally distribute it, I see no reason why we shouldn't. As long as we don't infringe upon someone's copyright, the works shouldn't be excluded.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you can legally distribute the Hunting Act 2004 then yes go for it. I just have serious doubts over whether it can be legally distributed here. The Crown copyright waiver is quite liberal in its terms, but it is certainly not compatible with the GFDL. Until and unless I see information that definitively says that material at Wikisource does not have to be GFDL, public domain or GFDL-compatible then I will maintain the position that we should not have British legislation from later than fifty years ago (the period copyright is claimed) on the site. David Newton 08:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Where do you see something that says definitively that Wikisource has to be GFDL? The best I can figure from reading m:fair use is that it's up to the participants here to decide policy, except that any original contributions by us must be GFDL-compatible. Certainly, we have for a long time accepted GPL, Creative Commons, Crown Copyright, US-only public domain, and various other licenses which would prevent some or all people from creating GFDL-derivative works. I understand the useful purpose of GFDL at Wikipedia, where original content is created. I don't see what purpose limiting pre-existing content serves here. Wolfman 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
We do have Template:Fairuse here.--Jusjih 10:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)- "British laws can be reproduced pretty freely under the Crown copyright waiver, but there are conditions within that waiver that are contrary to the GFDL." Isn't it a licensed use as described at Wikisource:Copyright? I just wonder why we may not include something that allows free of charge reproduction only here. How about the conditional copyright waiver of Hong Kong laws that permits free of charge reproduction and distribution but requires specific permission to sell? I need info before I will ever post Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance here. Isn't licensed use more liberal than fair use?--Jusjih 05:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest allowing this page to stay while proper copyright tag has been added.--Jusjih 08:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. There is a lot of reason pointing in the direction that this qualifies under Crown Copyright waiver. We probably should create a template for that one, though, since we might get more British works that would qualify.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I created a template to put on any page that is reproduced under the Crown Copyright waiver. Take a look and make any creations.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The Disclaimer Page for Singapore Statutes OnLine at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/Disclaimer.htm says:
"Copyright(c) 2001 Government of Singapore. As a user of this website, you may only make copies incidental to your access of this website. You may also print out, and copy portions of the text in line with provisions of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63). You may not disseminate, incorporate in printed or electronic form, the contents of this website and its sample documents without the prior approval of the Government of Singapore."
Does this statement allow us to copy Singaporean laws here? As I do not yet think so after reviewing the Singaporean Copyright Act at that web site, I have tagged the page as possible copyright violation and asked its contributor.--Jusjih 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. From what their disclaimer says, it seems like we can't have this page here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot find anything in the Singaporean Copyright Act to readily allow us to keep the text and fair use may not be well applicable here, so I have deleted it.--Jusjih 10:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a book, can't remember who wrote it off-hand but it is definitely copyrighted as it is relatively recent & the author is still writing. AllanHainey 12:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Its by Orson Scott Card, so clearly a copyvio, and should be deleted. Apwoolrich 16:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This song is still copyrighted, it was copyrighted in 1935 & is now owned by TimeWarner.AllanHainey 15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- If it was copyrighted in 1935, it will be in the public domain in 18 days, on Junary 1st, 2006, isn't? Yann 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia (W:Happy Birthday to You it expires in 2030, I don't know the legal reasons though. AllanHainey 11:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Found on the web here http://nutmeghr.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=health&action=display&thread=1122639480 Author info is at bottom. Also on How Stuff Works but that site was has problems--BirgitteSB 17:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
© Bill Drummond, Jimmy Cauty (at bottom). Wolf man 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Bokonism
- Introduction - "All material contained below was written by Kurt Vonnegut and scattered throughout Cat's Cradle", apparently referring to following pages
Wolf man 02:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- All deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
A poem written in response to the First Lady's cancellation of the February 12, 2003 White House poetry symposium. not sure whether he might have implicitly placed this in the public domain. the text is present at some commercial sites. Wolf man 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This Is The Beat Generation by John Clellon Holmes The New York Times Magazine, November 16, 1952 Wolf man 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an uploaded pdf, again by WC, it's clearly marked as copyrighted. Wolf man 03:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"Copyright 2002. Bahá’í International Community. All rights reserved." Wolf man 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Full text of 1959 concert review from the New York Times. Use of entire text here not likely fair use, especially since it is not being used for any sort of constructive commentary but just being stored on a server. --Fastfission 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
From Googling the author, it seems like he's still alive. In this case, and since I can't find any indication he's released this into the PD, I believe this is a copyvio.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)