Jump to content

Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2007-10

Add links
From Wikisource

Kept

Latest comment: 17 years ago54 comments15 people in discussion

The man who planted trees

The following discussion is closed:

Kept


This text was deleted in April 2006 on the grounds that while the original French version was thought to be in the public domain, there was no information about the English translation as submitted to Wikisource. It came back in September 2006 apparently on the reasoning: public domain in France, public domain everywhere. 216.165.199.50 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The French page clearly mentions that the author, Jean Giono, (who died in 1970 and could not know neither Internet nor Wikisource !) requested that this text should be made freely available. He explains in a letter ("J'ai donné mes droits gratuitement pour toutes les reproductions") that he gave away his rights for all reproductions, wherever in the world, and gives a few examples, including for "an American" (US ?) to reproduce it. I sincerely believe that if he had known Wikisource, he would have given away all publications rights and allowed it widely. Any reason not to publish this wonderful text here ? We urgently need it with the climate changes... Bregalad
I looked for further information and found something, because I was worried about it... On [1] the author of this site mentions that Direct Cinema Limited - that says having the rights on this text - requested the text to be removed. Though it is strange that a company might own rights against the will of the author, there might be reasons not to publish it on Wikisource in English, alas... It would be great if someone could find out... Bregalad
There are a lot of people who claim weird things. There is no doubt that the French original is in the public domain. I also think that the English version is in the public domain, but we need to find the translator, if possible. Yann 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Since it is a relatively short text, our best bet might be to make our own translation from the French original. Sherurcij COTW:Voltaire 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've started work on a free translation on the talk page, please feel free to contribute :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Weekhave you done your part? 06:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Our current text at the "article" page is a Babelfish translation of the French original. Hence copyright-free (no human creativity). However, I have expanded the translation started by Sherurcij. Lupo 15:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

kept with GFDL translation--Jusjih 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 Chávez speech at the UN

I believe the transcript at 2006 Chávez speech at the UN is a copyright violation. The anonymous editor who created the page claims "it's based on the UN's live translation, with some corrections" in an edit summary. The author seems to have transcribed what the translator said live during the speech (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/gastatement20.shtml, Venezuela). The UN has an All Rights Reserved copyright notice at http://www.un.org/copyright.htm. I would guess that a transcription is a derivative work, and as such, the transcription is also All Rights Reserved. ~MDD4696 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep If it was first set in a permanent form by the author then the UN wouldn't have copyright over it, the transcriber/author would. Transcribing non-permanent speech as its said isn't a derivative work it's just the first setting down of the speech in a permanent copyrightable form as it isn't possible to copyright speech (in the sense of someone talking) as it isn't permanent. AllanHainey 11:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with AllanHainey in his position but there are a lot of "ifs" in regard to this particular case. I also know reasonable minds tend to disagree on the issue of fixation. Any further comments before closing this case?--BirgitteSB 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I am voting keep but not for the reasons given by AllanHainey. My view is that speeches are copyrightable, but that this particular one is PD. I have tagged it with {{PD-UN}}, as taken from the proceedings of the General Assembly. It also appears to be PD under Venezuelan copyright law, as an "official act" (acto oficial, art. 4). Any further details concerning the speech would be useful (e.g., exact date). Physchim62 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
To clear up any further doubt, I have replaced the text with the official UN translation, which can be found in document A/61/PV.12. Physchim62 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:43:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Works of Author:Bolesław Prus

These translations are all listed as The above English translation by Christopher Kasparek appears here with the permission of the translator. Which is not compatible with copyright policy.--BirgitteSB 18:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be compatible with copyright policy? logologist 06:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The claim at w:Free Royal Cities Act I think is suggesting that it's Public Domain in its country of origin...maybe? Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 08:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The Free Royal Cities Act dates from 1791. "Mold of the Earth" (1884), "A Legend of Old Egypt" (1888) and The Most General Life Ideals (1905) are also in public domain. logologist 08:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"Mold of the Earth" ("Pleśń świata") and "A Legend of Old Egypt" ("Z legend dawnego Egiptu") are on the Polish Wikisource. logologist 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I think the problem is that the stories are in the public domain, but the translation is still copyrighted by Kasparek, not Prus. :) You would need to find a translation made before 1923, by an author who died before 1936, or create one yourself :) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
These translations were prepared expressly for Wikipedia and Wikisource. logologist 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
By w:Christopher Kasparek? Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the translations are not released under a license compatible with our Copyright policy--BirgitteSB 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How would one go about releasing the translations under a license that would be compatible with Wikisource copyright policy? logologist 01:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
On reviewing the available templates, the following seems to fit the situation. Is there any objection to restoring the three texts, followed by this notice?

This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

The Terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation require that GFDL-licensed text imported after November 2008 must also be dual-licensed with another compatible license. "Content available only under GFDL is not permissible" (§7.4). This does not apply to non-text media.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

logologist 06:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that is the proper template, as described here. logologist 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like a notarized statement from Christopher Kasparek that he authorizes his translations' publication on Wikipedia and Wikisource under GFDL? Is there a Wiki legal office to which it should be sent? logologist 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a mail to permissions@wikimedia.org saying that would be helpful. Thanks, Yann 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one would get a notarized statement to the above email address. Is there a snail-mail address? logologist 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
An attempt to email "www.permissions@wikimedia.org" yielded a notification that "delivery... failed" and that this address "does not exist." Could someone suggest what may have happened and how "permissions" might be reached? logologist 06:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
An eMail address does not contain the "www." prefix you tried to include, simply "Permissions@wikimedia.org" Sherurcij COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe 07:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While checking for messages on OTRS I've just noticed a message possible related to this. The ticket URL is https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=893073. Lugusto 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


I have offered, on this page and elsewhere, to provide a notarized statement signed by Christopher Kasparek, affirming that his translations on Wikisource are eligible for GFDL, and have requested an appropriate postal address to which the statement could be sent -- to no avail. Could someone please provide such an address? Failing that, could the translations be restored to the public, with GFDL notes duly appended? logologist 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, If you want to send a letter, the postal address of the Foundation is here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Yann 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In a few days, the Wikimedia Foundation should receive a notarized letter from Christopher Kasparek pertinent to the GFDL eligibility of his translations. logologist 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


As of May 29, 2007, Wikimedia Foundation is in receipt of Christopher Kasparek's notarized copyright-verification letter, which should be available for inspection at the Foundation's offices. For Wikisource editors' convenience, the essential content of the letter follows:


Dear Sirs,
On April 30, 2007, a question was raised in “Wikisource:Possible copyright violations” whether the presence, in Wikisource, of my English translations of the following texts by Bolesław Prus constitutes copyright violation: “Mold of the Earth”; “A Legend of Old Egypt”; and “The Most General Life Ideals.”
Accordingly I am confirming that the original Polish-language texts are in the public domain; that the above-referenced English translations are my work; that they were introduced into Wikisource with my knowledge and approval; that they are not under copyright elsewhere; and that I authorize their retention on Wikisource under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.
I would appreciate it if this letter could remain in the files of the Wikimedia Foundation and its contents be made available to the editors and staff of Wikisource.
Yours truly,
[notarized signature]
Christopher Kasparek


In reliance on Kasparek's letter, it is hereby requested that the three translations in question be un-hidden.
logologist 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So... any objection to un-hiding the three translations and labeling them GFDL? logologist 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has been demonstrated that the presence of the three above-referenced Bolesław Prus texts on Wikisource does not constitute breach of copyright. They have been hidden since April 30 — for over a month and a half. I will take the liberty of un-hiding them and appending GFDL notices, on my own responsibility. The items' status can be discussed here further, if anyone has anything more to add. (No one else has said anything substantive since May 11.) logologist 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we here at the Wikimedia Foundation never received this letter, and ordinarily, I would have gotten it. I've asked around and nobody is aware of it. Do you have a copy of the receipt? Cary Bass 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. When I return from vacation at the beginning of August, I will be happy to send a copy, if you confirm the correct address. logologist 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The return receipt shows Christopher Kasparek's May 24, 2007, letter having reached the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., on May 29 at 200 2nd Ave. South #358, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313. Is that the address to which a copy of the receipt should be sent? Should it be addressed to the attention of Cary Bass? logologist 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 2 I requested confirmation of the snail-mail address to which correspondence in this question should be sent, and the name of an individual to whose attention it should be addressed. On August 4 I copied those requests at Cary Bass' Commons page. I have received no reply. Could someone please confirm the address and provide the name of an individual who would take responsibility for responding to a letter? Surely it is time to resolve the question of the "Works of Author:Bolesław Prus," over 3 months since it was raised on April 30, 2007. logologist 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. I asked for a link on my Commons talk page to this page. You weren't able to provide it, therefore, that delayed me looking for it. In the future, to link to Wikisource from another project, use prefix :s: as in [[:s:Foo]].
  2. I was in Taiwan for ten days, and back last Tuesday. I've got a considerable amount of catching up to do.
  3. If we require the permissions in the office for something, sending the receipt to me will do nothing more than prove that someone signed for it. I stated that I do not have the permissions and the person who gathers our mail has told me that she has not received it or she would have given it to me. So if we have to have permissions, don't bother sending the receipt again. Send the permissions again. Or fax it. Bastique 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A second copy of Christopher Kasparek's May 24, 2007, notarized authorization letter, addressed to the attention of Cary Bass (Bastique), reached the Wikimedia Foundation on August 20, 2007. When may we expect the question of the Bolesław Prus-item licenses to be closed? logologist 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This has completely been blown way out of proportion. I do not understand the need for this to have been sent by post to the Foundation at your expense. Yes, we have received the letter. A simple email from the releaser to permissions (at) wikimedia.org would have satisfied the need, and saved a considerable amount of time and resources. Bastique 13:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Kasparek did email permissions@wikimedia.org, on June 20, and was advised that this was insufficient and that he must "place an updated copyright notice on an official website belonging to Christopher Kasparek, or email us from an address associated with such a website, or send the copyright notice through a verifiable and reliable lawyer. Any method that proves that you are really Christopher Kasparek is good."
Not everyone has "an official website," or a lawyer. But anyone can prove his identity to a notary public.
You're right. Permissions@wikimedia.org has blown this completely out of proportion.
logologist 03:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So... the validity of the translator's permissions having been demonstrated, and the articles in question now bearing the correct license notes, may we finally close this inquest? logologist 07:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any expressions to the contrary, I declare this discussion closed; the Bolesław Prus texts are KEPT, with licenses as currently stated. logologist 00:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Red Wheelbarrow

Poem by William Carlos Williams published in 1923. No indication this is Public Domain. I'm crossing my fingers, hoping its really PD. --Metal.lunchbox 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Published in Paris (in English), in the 1923 compilation "Spring and All". Stanford Renewal Database has no listing of a book by that title ever being renewed...for what that's worth Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I correct myself, it was published first in 1921 (presumably in the United States), and then in 1923 Paris - so should be public domain. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Britannica (1973 dead tree edn.) gives 1922 as the publication date of Spring and All, which still makes the poem PD. Williams did publish a collection in 1921—Sour Grapes, including To Waken an Old Lady, The Great Figure, The Widow's Lament in Springtime and Queen Anne's Lace. Physchim62 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:06:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the United States 1801-09/The First Administration of Thomas Jefferson/Vol. 1, ch. 2-6

The following discussion is closed:

kept


There's a notice on the University of Virginia website that states "Freely available for non-commercial use provided that this header is included in its entirety with any copy distributed" for these 5 chapters, a notice that I copied over to Wikisource. For the record, I'm also the one who cut and pasted the text of the chapters to Wikisource.

This is a well-known chestnut to some, because it has its own template on Wikipedia for images: Although Wikisource is a non-profit organization, it can't host works that are restricted commercially (as per the notice) because the GNU Free Documentation License allows unlimited use of the work, even commercial exploitation. 216.165.199.50 11:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On what legal basis do they have to make that request? Have they modified the work, creating a derivative? If they are hosting the original, then it is PD. John Vandenberg 11:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A lot of digital libraries make stipulations like this. However, there is no legal basis for them to dictate how we can and cannot use a PD text. They're just blowing steam.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Lady Chatterley's Lover

Sherurcij, one of the avant-garde of copyright inclusionists, uploaded this novel written in 1928. It may be out of copyright in the U.K. and Australia, but here in the U.S. where the servers are, it probably isn't. There's a Penguin Books edition copyrighted (renewal ID RE499510) in 1962 and renewed in 1990. 216.165.199.50 04:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(Renewal: 41027763X) says it is for the afterword only. There are earlier editions printed in the U.S. OCLC:4843007all editions (1928), OCLC:37161098all editions and OCLC:366030all editions (1959). John Vandenberg 04:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed Stanford shows no renewed texts, and Archive.org seems to consider it PD in the United States, and it's been more than 75 years since the British author died. So on all counts, it seems a fair bet. I do appreciate having at least the pseudo-compliment of "avant-garde" applied, rather than some of the less flattering ones I've heard ;) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 06:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sherurcij, I'm glad you dropped by. There are some clues that suggest that things may not be as they seem...

  1. D.H.'s widow Frieda lived in New Mexico and was presumably heir to Lawrence's copyrights. Why didn't she register them in the United States? She called the novel something like "the greatest in all literature", and was savvy enough to sell the film rights (to Baron von Rothschild).
  2. There are three editions of this tome, the first two were self-censored. Which version is the one you uploaded?
  3. Why does Project Gutenberg keep its text of the novel in Australia, but not in the U.S.?
  4. The 1962 edition that is in the Stanford and Rutgers database mentions NM which stands for new material. Does this mean the new material is exclusively what is being copyrighted? Or can it be a new edition as well?
  5. The book is listed on Archive.com, but only on Audiotape. The descriptions provided by the archive appear to be that of an amateur. Couldn't this amateur live in the U.K. and legally release it on an Archive.com European server?

To me it's a strange situation. Here's a hypothesis: The expurgated novel may have appeared in a compilation volume such as The Portable D.H. Lawrence, and was recopyrighted (as original text) under a new edition. 216.165.199.50 06:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not enough to say "This book should be copyrighted", if it were copyrighted, there would most definitely be renewal records of it - as there are not (of the original PG version I've uploaded), then it is not copyrighted. PG often just puts things on their Australian servers if they aren't pre-1923 as I understand it - even is US copyright is expired. Regardless, "This other site doesn't have it!" isn't really an argument for why we shouldn't have it, plenty of eText sites do have it, including PG, you're just worried because they have it on an alternate server. However, all evidence suggests this is PD in the United States. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, NM means new matter only. No, archive.org can not keep amateur derivative works on US servers if the original is not also PD or licensed to permit redistribution. Presumption and hypothesis are not necessary; the information required to determine this is a matter of public record. John Vandenberg 17:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. The copyright databases are not infallible, and Lady Chatterley's Lover is a well-known work, so that's what motivated me to go the extra mile for this work, which presented the unusual qualities I described, to spare Wikisource from legal complications.
For the curious (to clarify, Lawrence wrote three drafts of the work, all of which were published, and the third, named Lady Chatterley's Lover was published first in the U.S. in an expurgated version in about 1930) I never found out exactly why Lady Chatterley's Lover was not copyrighted in the U.S. (I think it has to do with it having been refused a copyright in 1928 in the U.S. until it was recreated in an expurgated version). This conflicts with John Vandenberg's seeming discovery of a 1928 Doubleday American edition on Worldcat, but I saw a copy of that edition on eBay, and it was actually undated. The first two versions, written by Lawrence, were most definitely copyrighted, however, under different names, as was the expurgated version of Lady Chatterley's Lover. But surprisingly, the database shows that none of these three "alternative" versions were renewed!
As for the expurgated version, what leaps out is that the need for copyright renewal of Lady Chatterley's Lover' occured nearly simultaneously with the challenging of its indecency status in regard to its allowability in the U.S. mail. Which suggests the publisher resented having to censor the work, or felt it would no longer be competitive with the unexpurgated version.
As for the two earlier versions of the work, called The First Lady Chatterley (1944) and John Thomas and Lady Jane (1972), as I said they were both eligible for renewal, and The First Lady Chatterley even published in later printings with some words uncensored, but apparently there wasn't enough public interest in the U.S. to justify a renewal of either in the publishers' eyes. 216.165.199.50 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

Latest comment: 17 years ago98 comments16 people in discussion

Author:G. K. Chesterton

I'm going to request speedy deletes for all of these, but I wanted to leave a record here in case someone wanted further evidence. 216.165.199.50 11:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As of January of this year, because Chesterton died in 1936, all of his works are now in the public domain, since the life + 70 rule has expired. I know he published works in both Spain and the UK, but they both have the same term limit, so any copyrights should have lapsed into the PD by now.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Zhaladshar, User:Tarmstro99 wrote in one of the commentaries above: "Under Section 302 of the U.S. Copyright Act, the rule that copyright lasts for the author’s life plus 70 years applies only to works created on or after January 1, 1978. For earlier published works, the relevant provision of the statute is not Section 302 but Section 304, which creates an initial 28-year term of copyright that can then be renewed for an extended second term...."
Is Tarmstro incorrect in this regard? 216.165.199.50 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: Pathoschild seems to agree with Tarmstro99 at this non-permalink to an essay in the scriptorium. 216.165.199.50 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue with these works is that they were originally published in the UK and/or Spain by a UK citizen. These works are in the public domain in the UK, Spain, and every Berne signatory recognizing the "rule of the shorter term" (i.e. a large majority of the world). This makes the works "free content" (see the copyright policy for a definition). Although it seems as though the US copyrights will still be valid on many, many works long years after these copyrights expire in the rest of the world, Wikisource can still legally host many of them through the archive provision of US copyright law. All of these works except The Scandal of Father Brown will qualify under the archive provisions which frees works in the last 20 years of the copyright term for situations like Wikisources. Unfortunately The Scandal of Father Brown will not be able to be leaglly archived until 2010 (unless I am mis-informed IANAL). Or else whenever Wikisource moves to a server outside the US which, unless there is some change in US copyright law, will only become more and more advantageous as the years pass. In the meantime I have moved The Scandal of Father Brown to Wikilivres which has servers in Canada.--BirgitteSB 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Birgitte, those works allowed to be hosted by Wikisource by this "archive provision" could helpfully be identified by a special copyright template, don't you think? 216.165.199.50 00:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a suggestion at the Scriptorium discussion on {{PD-old-70}} you linked to above.--BirgitteSB 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep works which are PD in their country of origin. Yann 08:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong agreement from me - though of course, ("to compromise and appease the hawks...") we should include mention on the template "This work was written by an author from Brazil, where it is in the public domain due to Brazil's copyright law stating that all works are copyrighted for 45 years after publication" Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 09:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. These works are not "free"; they are copyrighted in the U.S. The "last 20 years archives exception" of 17 USC 108(h) is not applicable. 17 USC 108(h)(2)(A) very clearly states that this exception is applicable only if the work in question is not subject to normal commercial exploitation. Tales from the Long Bow is indeed still being exploited commercially: [2]. Lupo 06:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the "last 20 years archives exception" is for non-commercial use only even if the works are out of print. This is why m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term also discusses orphan works. The petition takes signatures off Wiki sites.--Jusjih 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Captive

The following discussion is closed: deleted

This translation of a chapter of Remembrance of Things Past was done in 1929, and renewed in 1956, according to the Stanford database (R176423), meaning its copyright doesn't expire until 2023. 216.165.199.50 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep works which are PD in their country of origin (France and UK here). Yann 08:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Yann. We would not be breaking any laws by hosting this free content work which is in the last 20 years of its US copyright term.--BirgitteSB 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC) To clarify the translator is Scottish and died in 1930 so this is PD in the UK--BirgitteSB 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The text presented here is original 1929 version but not that, which was revised by Terence Kilmartin and Andreas Mayor that I checked comparing with my copy of the 1954 edition, Penguin Books (Reprint 1986). So, we are not breaking any laws by hosting this text, which can be find at the following web addresses: indexadelaide (Dmitrismirnov 22:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete. Not "free" but copyrighted in the U.S. "Last 20 years" archives exception not applicable: the work is still subject to normal commercial exploitation: [3]. Lupo 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Lupo the link you give for comercial exploitation is the revised translation by Terrence Kilmartin not the editon we have here. Any any case let us hold up on this and research to make sure this edition is out of print.--BirgitteSB 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't matter. The second condition in 17 USC 108(h)(2)(B) is that it must be impossible that "a copy [or phonorecord] of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price". Both conditions must be fulfilled. Scott Moncrieff's translation is available starting at £1.64 [4], which is certainly a reasonable price. Lupo 13:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Hm, or maybe it does matter :-) So far, I've found only a comment by the Association of American Law Libraries expressing the opinion (back in 1998) that "the fact that a copy might exist in a second-hand bookshop should not affect a library's or archive's use. Under the first sale doctrine, the owner is not entitled to any additional remuneration on the resale of that copy of the work. The market for resale in such a situation does not offer any way to measure 'reasonable price.' Only if the owner is actually marketing a work it physically possesses, or recently placed sufficient numbers of copies into commerce, could the owner accurately declare that the statutory test has been met." I have, however, not found any legal history on this precise issue, nor any statement that would confirm that this (reasonable, IMO) view was supported by courts or the U.S. Copyright Office. Indeed, if (as above) the availability of a work in antiquarian bookstores would count as "can be obtained at a reasonable price", 108(h) would basically not be applicable at all. Can someone find an official confirmation (not just an opinion) that indeed second-hand availability of a work doesn't count? If so, we at least could indeed publish the work under 17 USC 108(h). It should be marked, though, to indicate that this permission to publish does not extend to re-users of our content (unless they themselves are libraries or archives, 17 USC 108(h)(3)). Finally, note that this article 108(h) has been called "a sorry bone tossed to the library community in a sorry attempt to buy their support of the ill-conceived extension of copyright."[5] (108(h) was introduced in the CTEA.) Lupo 15:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
          • P.S.: There's a minor problem here I don't quite get: if availability of antiquarian copies of the work doesn't count, then what would be the difference between "normal commercial exploitation" and "availability of a copy at a reasonable price"? Lupo 15:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't know any more than you but I can see licensing agreements which could qualify for "normal commercial exploitation" and not "availability of a copy at a reasonable price". Especially an exclusive arrangement meant to keep a price unreasonably high. This is actually done with DVD's of remastered movies sold at a great mark-up from the non-remastered versions which are no longer made availble. Now whether that mark-up is unreasonable or not is debatable. I can imagine and unreasonable situation that would normal comercial exploitation. I first read of this section in the Orphan Works report. That report said: 108 relies expressly on the concept of reasonableness: the terms “reasonable investigation” and “reasonable price” are central to its operation. However, section 108(h) defines neither of these terms. Similarly, it does not define the important term “normal commercial exploitation.” We could find no case interpreting these terms in section 108(h) to date 102 (In his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), Justice Breyer called section 108(h) a “limited” exception, and expressed the view that the term “reasonable investigation” is “open-ended.” Id. at 252.). page 52 of the pdf So there appears not to be case law regarding "reasonable price", maybe Eldred v. Ashcroft can give some leads on the rest.--BirgitteSB 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the lead to Eldred v. Ashcroft. I had not looked there because I thought section 108 was not the main topic of that case, and thus it were unlikely that the decision would yield any useful statements. And indeed, the decision (and majority opinion) only mentions it in passing, and Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion doesn't mention it at all. But Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion does indicate that indeed availability of second-hand copies does count. :-( Breyer wrote in that opinion in 2003: "The majority finds my description of these permissions-related harms overstated in light of Congress’ inclusion of a statutory exemption, which, during the last 20 years of a copyright term, exempts “facsimile or digital” reproduction by a “library or archives” “for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research,” 17 U. S. C. §108(h). Ante, at 30. This exemption, however, applies only where the copy is made for the special listed purposes; it simply permits a library (not any other subsequent users) to make “a copy” for those purposes; it covers only “published” works not “subject to normal commercial exploitation” and not obtainable, apparently not even as a used copy, at a “reasonable price”; and it insists that the library assure itself through “reasonable investigation” that these conditions have been met. 17 U. S. C. §108(h). What database proprietor can rely on so limited an exemption—particularly when the phrase “reasonable investigation” is so open-ended and particularly if the database has commercial, as well as non-commercial, aspects?" (underlining added, Lupo).
              • Even worse, the U.S. Copyright Office also takes "used copies" into account. See Overview of the Libraries and Archives Exceptions in the Copyright Act, p. 30: "A new or used copy of a work is not available at a reasonable price. (§ 108(h)(2)(B).)" (bolding added, Lupo). That report is from the Section 108 Study Group (which includes Peter Hirtle, amongst others). It was released in April 2005 and written by Mary Rasenberger and Chris Weston.[6].
              • Hence it seems that the availability of antiquarian copies of Scott Moncrieff's translation at £1.64 indeed does make 108(h) inapplicable. A "sorry bone" indeed! Lupo 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete :(--BirgitteSB 16:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Epic of Gilgamesh

This translation by Maureen Gallery Kovacs is copyrighted 1985 and 1989 by the Board of Trustees of Stanford University. It was probably copied from Questia, which allows one to read copyrighted works licensed to them in exchange for a membership fee. 216.165.199.50 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain 1920 PDF, Gutenberg for replacements Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Feel free to recreate it with a free translation (I'll put it on my to-do list if nobody else does it). —{admin} Pathoschild 16:58:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Doan Van Toai

Biographical introduction followed by an article listed as By DOAN VAN TOAI, FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, March 29, 1981--BirgitteSB 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


A Room of One's Own

1929 Virginia Woolf story, with copyright renewed. Sherurcij COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe 18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied to Wikilivres. Yann 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

The following discussion is closed:

2 deleted, 1 kept


This user posted a biography entitled Eddie August Schneider drawn from various works that was removed for possible copyright violations in June 2006. He was asked to procure the appropriate releases, but failed to do so in two weeks time. In February of 2007, he reposted the biography, apparently removing copyrighted portions and retaining those of which he claimed to own the copyright, and annotating those (two) portions with an informal but probably inadequate release.

In researching this apparently good faith reposting, I noted Mr. Norton's user page and saw that he, AFAIK incorrectly assumed (that is, if the matter brought itself to his attention) that he could continue to preserve the material with unknown or unallowed copyright status as subpages to his user page, subpages listed under the heading of "Protected in namespace". Because unfortunately three of the four articles listed under that heading present the kind of doubtful status I just described. The first, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Osborne Titaman Olsen contains the same type of informal release (from an Encyclopedia) as the reposted biography. The second User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider matches the description of the full biography deleted in June 2006. The third User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Thomas Patrick Norton II seems relatively harmless, an autobiography of the user's father, but I suppose it's still someone else's work.

In June 2006, the user was given two weeks to present a GFDL release for or take steps for the preservation of the questionable material, and given the signs of good faith effort to comply with Wikisource policy by the user, that still seems appropriate today, yet, as it doesn't seem likely that this sporadically posting user will return within the period, it might reduce Mr. Norton's frustration to offer to recover the pieces should the pages happen to be the sole copies of the articles extant and to reallow the pieces, if he wishes, on receipt of the GDFL releases. 216.165.199.50 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [amended May 28 by same]

Update: I was able to contact Richard Norton, as he is a frequent poster on Wikipedia (top 200 poster I believe). I told him I was probably going to withdraw my nomination from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Osborne Titaman Olsen and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Thomas Patrick Norton II. The first one is so short it might qualify as being merely a quotation, and the second seems to fall under the category of appropriate personal use of a user page.
I'm not really in love with my third nomination, either, as it seems to inhabit that murky line between research and republication. But regardless, the user removed the republished text from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider, probably the content that was nominated and approved for deletion several months back. The truncated Wikisource article Eddie August Schneider remains and possibly falls outside of Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, but since I don't have the time, I will leave its inclusion status to the judgment of others.
So in short, I am withdrawing my nominations as I consider two of them to be already copyright compliant, and the third made copyright compliant by the contributor, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 216.165.199.50 14:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted /Osborne Titaman Olsen as a violation of the Copyright policy (permission to use is not sufficient), and removed text from /Eddie August Schneider for the same reason. I see no problem with /Thomas Patrick Norton II, so long as the editor otherwise contributes and doesn't only use Wikisource for personal hosting. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Drunken Boat

Translated by Oliver Bernard. The french translator I can find by that name was born in 1925 [7]

Published in the 1962 Arthur Rimbaud, Collected Poems by Oliver Bernard, copyright doesn't appear renewed in the Stanford database. Sherurcij COTW:Voltaire 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hum. A book Arthur Rimbaud: Selected Poems also exists; copyright was registered on 1962-04-19 (reg nr. TX 2-939-454), and has been renewed by Oliver Bernard on 1990-10-03. (renewal ID RE498544). The copyright covers the selection, compilation, and the English. Sure that this isn't the same book (U.S. title as opposed to UK title), or if not, that the poem wasn't also included in this one? Looks likely to me. Lupo 09:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The US/UK title seems the most likely, since they share a translator - in which case, as you said, it is a copyVio. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Weekhave you done your part? 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Author:William Butler Yeats

Three individual poems added by contributors to the Wikisource collection of Yeats poems first appeared in the 1928 collection The Tower which was copyrighted in the U.S. that year and renewed in 1956 (Renewal ID R163206). They are Among School Children, Sailing to Byzantium and Leda and the Swan. 216.165.199.50 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't actually be hosting any of Yeats' work just at the minute: he died in 1939, so British and Irish copyright (70 pma) doesn't expire until the end of 2009. Obviously all of his post-1923 works (his best, unfortunately) are under U.S. copyright until at least the end of 2018. Physchim62 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I copied Leda and the Swan to Wikilivres. What are the date of publication of the others poems? Yann 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Among School Children and Sailing to Byzantium were first published in The Tower, so their date of publication is 1928 (or 1926, depending on your source). Politics (Yeats) was written during the Spanish Civil War, so is also a U.S. copyvio (as well as a IE/UK copyvio). Physchim62 09:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I also copied these three to Wikilivres. Can be deleted. Yann 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Trap episode 1

Transcript of the first episode of The Trap, produced by Adam Curtis, which aired on British television (BBC Two) on March 11, 2007. Physchim62 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Purpose Driven Life

Obvious. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Henry Ford 07:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete. Physchim62 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --BirgitteSB 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Murder On The Orient Express

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly he or she struck! With copyright concealed beneath the original title, Murder in the Calais coach an unknown user uploaded this novel, registered in 1934 and renewed 1961 (R287470) by Agatha Christie Mallowan. Beware as this zealous mystery-lover is thought to be "still at large". 216.165.199.50 02:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

Published in 1923 see w:Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening--BirgitteSB 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


A Clergyman's Daughter

By George Orwell died in 1950, no evidence of copyright licensing means still copyrighted in the United Kingdom (source), United States, and many other countries.--Jusjih 01:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All works by Tomas O' Carthaigh

Still alive. Looks like self publications. Yann 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The world as i saw it

The World as I See It by Albert Einstein. Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database shows two possible sources for the work, both of which are still under copyright in the U.S.

Tarmstro99 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Guineas Two and Three Guineas Three

Appear to be the second and third parts of Three Guineas (1938) by British author Virginia Woolf (1882–1941). All works by Virginia Woolf are under UK copyright (until end 2011), and all post-1923 works are under U.S. copyright. Physchim62 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Copied to Wikilivres. Can be deleted. Yann 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Benediction (Baudelaire) and The Sun

Although Baudelaire's works are obviously PD, these translation was registered in 1936 (A93524) and the copyright renewed in 1963 (R319219). Physchim62 01:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The original are on French wikisource: fr:Bénédiction and fr:Le Soleil. Physchim62 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Copied to Wikilivres. Can be deleted. Yann 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism

User 71.246.95.123 posted the Introduction to this collection of essays by Ayn Rand et al., thinking that it might not be copyrighted. The entire contents are protected by copyright, of course, and the copyright page, at least in the edition I have says "This book or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher." I deleted the copyrighted Introduction but left the Contents listing which is fair use, of course. Naturally, the copyrighted material is still available through the history link, but I do not know how to deal with that -- my impression is that Wikimedia policy is to delete such material completely so I leave that to someone who has that ability.--Blanchette 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with deleting the "content listings" for books still under copyright (unless they are escaping copyright next week! j/k), I think it is still important to include the red-linked books names/dates on the author page. Not sure if that's what you were saying or not. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the book is not in the public domain, there shouldn't be a link in the author page, otherwise people will recreate the pages. Yann 08:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd just say *[[Times of Trouble]], 1954 (copyrighted until 2018)" or something, because author pages also serve to notify people of the collections of works by a certain author. It's a grey area really, I mean I'm not sure Author:Ernest Hemingway or Author:Agatha Christie need to have their common, copyrighted works listed...but at the same time, I don't feel wrong about listing all the works by Author:J. A. Brendon. shrugs Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, may be I wasn't clear enough. It is perfectly OK and useful to list works, but copyrighted works should be in a separated paragraph and with no link. See what we do in the French WS, f.e. Romain Rolland. Yann 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont think that we should be using red links when we know a work is copyright. That is asking for trouble now, and it will be absolute madness when the number of contributors on Wikisource increases. To that end, I have created a experimental template {{Copyright-until}} and used it on Author:Thorne Smith and Author:Ayn Rand to enable red links only after a specified year. Hopefully this is the best of both worlds, and will with us keep track of works about to arrive into the PD. John Vandenberg 13:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's using your noggin! 216.165.199.50 04:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (1879)/Phi Gamma Pi

I had tagged this as speedy G5, since it looks like contemporary spam just plugged into an existing work. However, there was some discussion on it, I looked a bit further. When I found the original, the site claims a copyright on it, so I blanked it.

Original text is from http://www.phigammapi.com/ & http://www.phigammapi.com/history.html. -Steve Sanbeg 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Seems to be a definite copyright vio from the site, yes. FloNight 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yoweri Museveni BBC interview, September 2004

BBC Interview... Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Yann 11:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2007-10&oldid=14661081"