Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2009-02

Kept

Rerum Novarum

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

• Rerum_Novarum is another in this boat. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Shall we write a letter to Vatican asking the Pope for the appropriate licence? I am sure he would do so, if the thing will be explained clearly. Rembecki (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Rerum Novarum dates from 1891, so surely it is ok? Suicidalhamster (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rerum Novarum was published in 1891, and its author died in 1903. At the very least, it would be covered by {{PD-old}}, with +70 and +100, as well as pre-1921. I do not think this could possibly be considered a copyright violation. I will be deleting Pacem in Terris however, as I can't see any proof that it is free for our use. Jude (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The English translation of Rerum Novarum appears to have been created/owned by w:Vatican Publishing House ... but ... a translation appears on the last 30 pages of this. I've not checked whether that text is the same as our text. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I did not find the questioned text suggested by John on the last 30 pages here, The source listed is clearly copy righted by w:Vatican Publishing House. Though I did not find a complete pre-1923 published source on Google book, I found a number of excerpts that are pre-1923 that appear to match our version.
  • Catholic World (1920)
  • Church and Labor (1920)
  • Catholic Educational Review (1920)
  • Pastoral Letter of the Archbishops and Bishops of the United States Assembled in Conference at the Catholic University of America, September, 1919 (1920)

Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on Jeepday's research, it's obviously acceptable for the project. Jude (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept in part/Deleted in part

Various photos using PD-EE-exempt

The following discussion is closed:

Other - Some deleted some replaced by commons file Jeepday (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This series of photos of Estonian authors may be old, but age is not used as the justification for having these photos. The template lists a long list of exemptions to Estonian copyright, but none seem to apply. In the statute linked from the template Section 4 (2) 17) makes specific mention that photographic works are protected. Eclecticology (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-EE-exempt doesnt show anything like these photos, so the tag is definitely being used incorrectly. I have speedied about half of these photos. Many of these subjects are old; which makes the images likely to be old too. Here is the three left to figure out:

Image:Carl-robert-jakobson.jpg comes from w:Image:Carl-robert-jakobson.jpg, but that image doesnt give sufficient information for me to want to move it to Commons.

Image:Tammsaare.jpg doesnt look PD, and doesnt exist on the Wikipedia article.

Image:Karl Parts.jpg looks PD.

Image:Hannes Walter.jpg ((1952–2004) is almost certainly not PD.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Carl-robert-jakobson.jpg replaced with commons File:Carl Robert Jakobson.jpg Jeepday (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Tammsaare.jpg replaced with commons File:A. H. Tamsaare.jpg Jeepday (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Karl Parts.jpg, looks like the source is http://paber.ekspress.ee/viewdoc/15A2402B5781CD2DC2256FAF00371F6F which is a copyrighted work. While that does not mean that the image is copyrighted, I did not find any works about the subject published prior to 1923 (potential pd sources), the earliest work is 1948 Estonia By John Hampden Jackson, neither w:Karl Parts nor w:et:Karl Parts provide images, further suggesting no PD image exist. I can find no reasonable PD inclusion for this image so I deleted it. Jeepday (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

Operation Unthinkable: Report by the Joint Planning Staff

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

UK Crown copyright expires after 50 years in published works, however I am not sure whether this would be considered "published" - possibly not. Unpublished works are protected by copyright for 125 years from date of creation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• More research is needed, posted {{copyvio}} on article Jeepday (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From looking at NRA, it would seem that it is part of the UK cabinet papers, series CAB 120/691. Also look at [1]

[2]

Being cabinet papers, automatic 30 year embargo (minimum), which takes them to 1 January 1976 (earliest possible release). If published at that time, that still would not give 50 years clear. That said, permission may be granted by National Archives if they were asked. Usually they are quite reasonable. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted No one has shown that this was published early enough to be free of Crown Copyright which has to be our default assumption.--BirgitteSB 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Niche for Lights

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted after move to Canadian WikilivresJeepday (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

First published as Monograph Vol. XIX by the Royal Asiatic Society, London 1924, I wonder if it is still considered copyrighted in the USA even though the translator William Henry Temple Gairdner died in 1928. If so, I would like to take the page and its subpages to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep under the auspices of "It's PD in its home country...its translators home country...and American congressmen with no concept of reality are welcome to go sodomise themselves painfully with a sharpened bowling pin." Anyways, if it was published by the RAS, entirely possible that Gairdner's death date is irrelevant. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 00:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• The wiki nature of Wikisource makes enough people distrust the assurances of public domain; knowing that the copyright law is willfully ignored will tell even the savvy, wiki-happy people that our assurances of free content mean nothing. Frankly, I don't think fans of the public domain should encourage the law of the shorter term; if the citizens of the Ivory Coast or Japan believe that increasing the length of copyright will force Hollywood to pay for more of their works and direct more foreign money their way, that's a strong incentive to increase their terms. Less so if both the detriments and the advantages of a long copyright term are both local.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Or I could say it just tempts users to omit place-of-publication from the text, if they know it'll end up seeing the text deleted, whereas just stating "1924" means even if somebody runs a Stanford check, they likely won't notice and will let the article survive. Just sayin' Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 02:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Any Stanford check that ignored the URAA is rather flawed; and if you're going to lie about it, why not change the date to 1921 and make the Stanford check moot?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, because simply not including the journal name in the |notes section does not require any lying - simply refusing to take the time to search for information only likely to harm the text's position. Hypothetically, of course. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 03:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's under copyright in the US, as it was under copyright in the UK in 1996 and hence the Uruguay Round Agreements Act returned it to copyright for the full duration of 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, it's not under copyright in the United States under the URAA, since it was already public domain in the United States prior to 1996, since until 1995, the United Kingdom used the rules of death+50, meaning the translation was Public Domain in the United Kingdom from 1978 onwards. Since Copyrights on foreign works were only restored if these works were still covered by copyright or neighbouring rights in their source countries on January 1, 1996, clearly no copyright was restored on this translation. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Or I could be wrong, since I see "As a result of the European Union Directive, published works of authors who died between 1 January 1926 and 31 December 1945 came back into copyright on 1 January 1996" -- in which case I revert back to the notion that it is clearly a work created for the RAS, and we need to find the Works under Employment duration at that time Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fully imported to Canadian Wikilivres. As {{subpage-header}} is not available at Canadian Wikilivres yet, I would like to ask if it works fine while I have not deleted any pages with it. Others are deleted. Pages to be deleted or already deleted here are:

1. The Niche for Lights
2. The Niche for Lights/Acknowledgment
3. The Niche for Lights/Author's Preface
4. The Niche for Lights/Contents
5. The Niche for Lights/I. Date, Object, And General Contents
6. The Niche for Lights/II. Mysteries Left Veiled In This Treatise
7. The Niche for Lights/III. A Ghazzalian Philosophy Of Religion
8. The Niche for Lights/IV. Ghazzali Problems Raised By The Foregoing
9. The Niche for Lights/IX. Anthropomorphism And Theomorphism In Al-Mishkat
10. The Niche for Lights/Introduction
11. The Niche for Lights/PART I.--Light, And Lights: Preliminary Studies
12. The Niche for Lights/PART II.--The Science Of Symbolism.
13. The Niche for Lights/PART III.--The Application To The Light-Verse And The Veils Tradition
14. The Niche for Lights/Translation
15. The Niche for Lights/V. The Problem Of The Vicegerent In Ibn Rushd And Ibn Tufail
16. The Niche for Lights/VI. One Solution Of The Problem Of The Vicegerent
17. The Niche for Lights/VII. Another Solution
18. The Niche for Lights/VIII. Al-Ghazzali And The Seven Spheres
19. The Niche for Lights/X. Pantheism And Al-Ghazzali, In Al-Mishkat
20. The Niche for Lights:Contents

--Jusjih (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I completed the formatting there, so the remaining can be deleted. Yann (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tale of Melon City by w: Vikram Seth

The following discussion is closed:

Delete

The Tale of Melon City seems to be from Mappings by a writer who is still alive. It would seem that this is copyright violation. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• The only other option is that it is from Caravan of Dreams By Idries Shah (1968), in either case a copyvio. Jeepday (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the Value of Scepticism

The following discussion is closed:

Delete. Yann (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ingram marked On the Value of Scepticism as {{sdelete}} with the comment copyright violation. Quoted text includes

• Copyright violation. From the book Sceptical essays, see HERE

I know not the author, nor whether the piece is from the stated book or not. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Book Search.Ingram (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Author:Bertrand Russell work is copyrighted, search for PD version was not successful Jeepday (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jeepday. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tafhim ul quran

The following discussion is closed:

Delete. Yann (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The longest page on Wikisource, unfortunately without licence info. I've contacted the IP who contributed this text but it appears to be a British dynamic broadband IP. The author of the text, Abul Ala Maududi, died in 1979. I was unable to find any info on the translator.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, Don't see how it could be PD. Jeepday (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)