Jump to content

Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2008-03

Add links
From Wikisource
< Wikisource:Copyright discussions | Archives
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Cowardly Lion in topic Deleted

Kept

Other

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Three Stories and Ten Poems

The following discussion is closed:

Six poems kept, the remainder deleted. 17:25, 7 March 2008 ResidentScholar


This early work of Ernest Hemingway was published privately in Paris in 1923. I went to WorldCat and there's no record of simultaneous publication in the U.S. So it seems it was copyrighted in France, which at the time was a member of the Berne convention, which allowed for a duration of at least 50 years after the author's death (see w:French copyright law). This further implies it was still copyrighted in 1996 in France and would thus be subject to United States 95 year protection. ResScholar 09:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, sadly. I can't find any evidence that this work was published in the U.S. within 30 days of its publication, or was registered with the U.S copyright office. The Literary Encyclopedia reveals that "six of the ten poems in the collection had appeared in Poetry: A Magazine of Verse", so those 6 would be PD, but it frustratingly doesn't say which six. I'd buy a copy of the book myself to check, but they're a wee-bit expensive. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Six of the ten poems (instead of five, as erroneously printed in the Acknowledgment) were previously printed in "Poetry: A Magazine of Verse" in January, 1923. This book, however, is the first appearance of "Oklahoma", "Captives", "Montparnasse", and "Along With Youth". Regarding the three stories, "Out of Season" and "My Old Man" were reprinted in "In Our Time" some 15 months later. "Up in Michigan", on the other hand, was not reprinted until it appeared in "The Fifth Column" in 1938. - so now we know which six definitely are public domain. The remaining four poems, and the stories, remain in the air. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Sabine Baring-Gould 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
January 1923 is still within the ambit of U.S. copyright protection. And in France, they recognize the droit d'auteur so they may not need any kind of formal copyright registration (see w:French copyright law). So I have a feeling that all the works in this book by "Papa" were "grandfathered" into U.S. Copyright protection. ResScholar 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It would only be under US Copyright protection if the poems had been renewed, which they do not seem to have been. Therefore, the six poems that were first published in the United States in 1923 are Public Domain. That seems fairly straight-forward, what is less clear is admittedly the status of the remaining four poems and three stories. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Sabine Baring-Gould 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excuse me, Sherurcij, I assumed "Poetry: A Magazine of Verse" was a French publication!
Well my reasoning borrowed from a chapter from the Book of Quadell. If I may quote:
If a non-U.S. work was not published in compliance with U.S. policies, and if it was first published in 1923 or later, then the magic year is 1996. If the work was in the public domain in its country of origin on January 1, 1996, then it's considered public domain in the United States. But if that work was considered copyrighted in its home country on January 1, 1996, then the U.S. still considers that work to be under copyright, even if the copyright expired in the work's home country. (See Mike Godwin's comments here and here.)
I would add that, as considered copyright in the U.S., it gets the full 95 year term in the U.S.
France followed the w:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works since before 1923, and that law called for protection for at least 50 years after the death of the author (Hemingway died in 1961) regardless of formal copyrighting. So the book shouldn't have gone into the public domain in its country of origin before 1996.
Or were you unclear about something different? ResScholar 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but Poetry: A Magazine of Verse is a Chicago-based (American) magazine, meaning those six poems were published in the United States before they were published in France, meaning that it doesn't matter what France's law says about them - US law says they're Public Domain. I repeat, only the four poems and three stories can be argued to be copyrighted, the six poems first published in Poetry: A Magazine of Verse are Public Domain. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Sabine Baring-Gould 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not being sarcastic! I wasn't trying to refute you, I was agreeing with you, and then quickly moving on to the remaining four poems and three stories that I had begun to address as a whole with the other five poems at the start of my ruminations on the subject. I felt you had burst my bubble so spectacularly, that there was no need for a segué. Sorry for the confusion. Please re-read my explanations as being addressed towards the four poems and three stories that you aptly discerned were the only relevant items. ResScholar 05:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not assuming Good Faith then, it can be difficult to interpret tone. I admit at this point it seems "likely" that the remaining poems/stories are copyrighted, but I'd appreciate some brainstorming and time to look into libraries and such before they're deleted. If in two weeks, nothing has turned up, we can delete them.Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Sabine Baring-Gould 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted

Latest comment: 16 years ago35 comments11 people in discussion

Mystery of Being

The following discussion is closed:

The consensus was Delete


Tagged as a {{copyvio}} since August 2005, but never listed here. Based on Gabriel Marcel it looks like a copyvio. Mystery of Being:Introduction also needs to go. John Vandenberg 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Translated in 1951 in London (not sure if there was concurrent US printing), there is no US copyright renewed. Not sure how European copyright was working at the time of his death, though the "we judge based on his native copyright" vs "we judge based on our servers being in the US" argument could apply. shrugs Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Haile Selassie 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Cowardly Lion 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Letters to Sheldon Vanauken

The following discussion is closed:

Delete


Work by a recent author C. S. Lewis, who died in 1963. No evidence it is in the public domain. Yann 23:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This book at least suggests the note on the article is correct, and that Arthur Balfour believes Vanauken released them into the public domain. Does Sheldon Vanauken have the right to release them on behalf of C S Lewis? Suicidalhamster 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
In short: No. If CSL actually transferred copyright, in writing, to SV, then there's no problem. Otherwise Vanauken is trying to give away what he only borrowed. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no evidence that C.S. Lewis formally transferred the copyright. No doubt, Vanauken was acting in good faith, and Lewis probably wouldn't have objected, but still . . . Cowardly Lion 15:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Poems (Mansfield)

The following discussion is closed:

moved to wikilivres


This book of poems by New Zealand author Katherine Mansfield was copyrighted in the U.S. in February 1924 and renewed, according to renewal record R89295. Another good candidate for Wikilivres, but it will take a number of page moves. Unfortunately, it's another contribution by User:Phaedriel. ResScholar 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified poor Phaedriel ? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
She has been on a wikibreak since September 2007. I wrote a message to her about the last one on her wikipedia page. I'll find a way of breaking it to her gently. ResScholar 06:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Her archiving robot malfunctioned, so you have to type in "/Archive 60" to see the message. ResScholar 07:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Another weird case. As the work is out of copyright in New Zealand since 1974, I wonder when the copyright expires in USA. Yann 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
95 years after publication, or December 31, 2019. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Because: "if a non-U.S. work was published in compliance with all U.S. policies, such as being published with a © notice and registered and renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office, then you can treat it as a U.S. work (even if it was never published in the U.S.)" ResScholar 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So I am copying it. It will take some time... unless someone helps [1]. ;o) Yann 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied, thanks to ResidentScholar. Yann 13:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can go ahead and delete, or should I wait? Cowardly Lion 15:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll answer my own question. I see the top of this section has {{closed|moved to wikilivres}} , so I'll assume that means I can delete. I'll start now. Cowardly Lion 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted! Cowardly Lion 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Death and What Comes Next

The following discussion is closed:

Delete


This is by Terry Pratchett so cannot be out of copyright unless Pratchett has explicitly declared it PD.--Poetlister 16:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Cowardly Lion 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sportvereinigung Dynamo

The following discussion is closed:

Delete. 08:40, 7 March 2008 Yann


Hello,

30 Years Sportvereinigung Dynamo‎ and Statute of the Sportvereinigung Dynamo are recent documents with unknown copyright status. Beside the translator is not mentioned. Yann 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a Wikisource translation, and [ http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zoeoe&oldid=392081 User:Zoeoe] may know more about it. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
While this is more an issue for Commons than for here, I'm wondering about the image. It looks a bit like a derivative work to me. John, you have more experience than I have. Quadell, are you around? Cowardly Lion 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much all "Sportvereinigung Dynamo" material on Wikimedia projects is contributed by one guy, a neo-Nazi named "Kay Körner" who grew up in East Germany and has some sort of affiliation with the club. His English is very poor, and he's usually unresponsive to any discussion. When he does respond, he spews unrelated accusations against both Jews and Christians, who he despises equally (odd, that, isn't it?). He has no interest in following copyright policy or any other Wikimedia policy, and his many sockpuppets have been banned on the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, and Commons. Sorry to see him here. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The was User:Quadell is talking is racism against Germans, which calculated as none jews and christs. that isn't a copyright violation because it's speech of Erich Mielke.

Speeches aren't copyrighted just like statutes or reather law texts.

User Quadell discriminates other users as Neo-Nazis. He is a modern witch hunter. —unsigned comment by Zoeoe (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2008.

  • Delete. The copyright law of the Federal Republic of Germany protects, among other things,
…works of language, such as written works, speeches, and computer programs…[2] (emphasis mine.)
The FRG is the legal successor of the GDR, so this law applies to 30 Years Sportvereinigung Dynamo‎. Certain official works, such as official proclamations, are exempt from copyright [3], but, IMO, not official speeches in general (and it's not even clear this speech was official). The statues are not even a speech, so without a free licence or some kind of waiver, they are in all likelihood a copyvio.--GrafZahl (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't think that the Government of the originating country was decisive. There are plenty of British works on Wikisource that are still copyright in Britain under the 70 year rule but not in the US under the pre-1923 rule.--Poetlister 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
To § 52 Uhrheberscutzgesetz is a Statute necessarily to be published, otherwise the club may not exist.—unsigned comment by Zoeoe (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2008.
Sorry, I don't see what you mean here. §52 is about certain fair use rights in the context of renditions. If you mean §5 (2): that clause allows reproductions in the official interest, but specifically prohibits derivative works.
With regard to Poetlister's comment: I believe we had similar discussions before. Can someone more experienced in copyright matters give a comment?--GrafZahl (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. considers all pre-1923 works to be PD, even if they are copyrighted in their home country. But for post-1923 German works, if they were considered copyrighted in Germany in 1996 then the U.S. considers them copyrighted. This work was (and is) copyrighted in Germany, and it was created after 1923, so it's a copyvio. Okay, I'm off to hunt more witches now. :-) —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2008-03&oldid=14587323"