Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2009-08

Kept

Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Other editions listed at Qur'an; we agreed to delete the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation in September

This is also known as the "Free Minds" translation, which is freely given away, however the PDF on their website says "Copyright © 2008 by The Monotheist Group", and it has been published in paperback by Brainbow Press (ISBN 097967154X: February 1, 2008). "The Monotheist Group" is a pen name used by the Free-Minds Organization which is an Islamic reform movement that began in 1997.

It is quite possible that this edition was explicitly put into the public domain, or under a free license, but I cant see that this was ever asserted on Wikisource or elsewhere - everyone just says "free".

Also there are a number of differences, which may be due to divergence by either Free Minds or Wikisource since it was copied (older copies are on Wayback Machine), such as:

“

1:3 The Almighty, the Merciful.. 1:4 Sovereign of the Day of Judgment.[1]

”

“

001:003 The Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. 001:004 Possessor of the Day of Judgment.Q(PMO)/1

”

“

7:206 Those who are at your Lord, they are never too proud to serve Him, and they glorify Him, and to Him they yield.[2]

”

“

007:206 Those who are at your Lord, they are never too proud to serve Him, and they glorify Him, and to Him they submit.Q(PMO)/7

”

These two pages appear to be user created content and/or facts that cant be copyrighted:

• Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)/Topic
• Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)/Index

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• The wikisource version has history going back to 2005, 3 years prior to the suggested copyright above. The 2005 version and the current version list yaqb.org as the source, which does exist but does not list a GNU compatible release or a copyright (or a translator). yaqb.org is registered to an owner in Massachusetts which I beleive means the work is copyrighted by default. It also appears that at least part of the yaqb.org source is http://www.free-minds.org/ which says "Articles and materials on this site may be reproduced, or copied and posted to other sites as long as a link is provided to www.free-minds.org or www.progressivemuslims.org", yaqb.org does not offer the link so would be in violation of the release. I don't think the release at free-minds meets GNU. I am not seeing anything suggesting that this WS version is PD. I am not familiar enough with the subject to know if there is a PD translation available, but it seems like I looked before, I am going to go look again. Jeepday (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many other editions we can put online, inc. one other that is on PG, and we are starting to work on those at Qur'an; I've moved your comment over to Talk:Qur'an#George Sale edition. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Without clear PD status or GNU release, I think we have no choice but to Delete this work from WS. Though there are several clear PD version available at Qur'an, some editor may still want to pursue finding or obtaining a GNU compatible release from free-minds.org for this version. Jeepday (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The license is explicitly granted. "Articles and materials on this site may be reproduced, or copied and posted to other sites as long as a link is provided to www.free-minds.org or www.progressivemuslims.org" http://web.archive.org/web/20080208225547/http://www.free-minds.org/ Aburizal Are updating the content to the latest release from free-minds (and remove any reference to yaqb.org) will be enough to remove the copyvio label or should we do something else? (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever may be the apparent right granted on the Free-minds site, there remains the question of how Free-minds acquired the right to grant the right. There is such a thing as a collective work where a legal entity owns those rights, but it is not clear whether Free-minds is such a corporate entity. What would help might be a formal grant of permission from the person who legally owns the rights; that grant would include a statement that the person granting the licence has the right to grant it. If the person granting the licence does not have the right to do so, he would be personally liable for any legal consequences. Eclecticology (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the case is closed (Excerpt below is the answer to how Free-minds acquired the right to grant the right? Hint: Free-Minds.Org are the same organization as The Monotheist Group):

The Message: A Translation of the Glorious Qur’an

Copyright © 2008 by The Monotheist Group

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by

any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without

the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief

quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

For information:

www.Free-Minds.Org

www.Brainbowpress.Com

www.ProgressiveMuslims.Org

ISBN-13: 978-0-9796715-4-8 (pbk)

ISBN-13: 978-0-9796715-2-4 (cloth)

ISBN-10: 0-9796715-4-x (pbk)

ISBN-10: 0-9796715-2-3 (cloth)

Excerpt Taken from: http://free-minds.org/sites/default/files/quran.pdf

So, here is my checklist

Collective works? Checked [x]

The Monotheist Group has the copyright? Checked [x]

Free-minds.org is The Monotheist Group? Checked [x]

Free-minds.org grants you license to copy the content? Checked [x]

Do you give links back to Free-minds.org? Checked [x]

Will you update the content to the latest version covered by the license? Checked [x]

Will you never copy anything from yaqb.org but directly from Free-Minds.org? Checked [x]

Aburizal (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaked classified documents like Downing Street memo

The following discussion is closed:

Kept billinghurst (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of Leaked classified documents. The issue is that they are not necessarily published documents, and it is a close call on whether they fall under Gov Edict, etc. It is unlikely we are going to be pursued about the works, however, it is a community discussion on what should happen, rather than mine. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, things are still published even if not publicly released - they are published internally. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Jung.} 20:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not what published means; to quote the 1913 Webster's Unabridged, "We {publish} what we give openly to the world, either by oral communication or by means of the press", wthat's similar to what w:publishing says, and is pretty close to the way most laws define it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; I'm not sure I understand exactly your concern. Since this is Wikisource:Possible copyright violations, the primary concern is that the non-US documents are still under Crown Copyright or the like, and don't fall under the US's exemption for government edicts?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; nevertheless, I disagree with the notion that internal circulation within a limited group necessarily implies "published". The fact that we have this document available at all suggests that somebody published it before, unless our contributor was the one violating Britain's Official Secrets Act. The Govenment Edicts argument is more faceted. The merger principle also applies since copyright does not extend to the information; it only applies to the way the information is expressed. One cannot use copyright law to suppress the distribution of information. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pickman's Model

The following discussion is closed:

kept and self-withdrawn after receiving licensing information. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1926 publication, 1937 death, no US license. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep It's a 1926 writing but a 1927 publication. HP Lovecraft's copyrights are an evil, evil mess, and this is one of the Weird Tales publications, which are messier, but there's some good information linked to from the bottom of Author:Howard Phillips Lovecraft. Going off [3], there's a good argument that the work is now in the public domain because of a failure to renew, and even if a judge doesn't buy that (and mind you there is no clearly correct answer from the information now available) there's the backup argument that Arkham House, who claims the copyrights, disclaimed the copyrights in an earlier case over royalties, and thus estoppel comes into play. On the good side, nobody can say we should just have looked harder; we know what the best scholars on the subject have to say; the answer is just inherently fuzzy with existing information. We have a good 97% claim here, I think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per argument above. billinghurst (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have I Not Seen

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

Publication in unknown year, author died in 1937. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me smack you into Google...anyways, published in DM's 1922 "Poems and Portraits" according to entering a random line of the poem into Google Books :P Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried Google but sometimes got no result. I first tagged No US license late last year but no one cared.--Jusjih (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see "Have I not known ......" in a 1922 poem through Google but it looks different. The problem is that we have too many pages without clear sources indicated to allow verification.-Jusjih (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hacktivismo Declaration

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

Anyone want to try and work out this work. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is certainly something that could be considered a 'manifesto'. I'm not entirely certain though--that's just based on the wording and a quick glance over it. Jude (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete On looking again, I am not even sure that it is published, or can be regarded as a serious work. billinghurst (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept. On reflection, I think we can rightly say that this constitutes a manifesto. Jude (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Letter to Herodotus

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

I want to address this especially to Prosfilaes, as he seems to be most knowlegeable on the subjects of copyrights. This essay was uploaded by Sherurcij and came from a book, Lives of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius, which was published in 1925, part of the Loeb Classical Library, without a copyright notice in London and New York. This was the second volume in a two volume set so there may be a notice in volume one. If this work was published in the United States without technically fulfilling copyright requirements (and there is no renewal record), is it public domain in the United States? And does the fact that it was also published in Great Britain have any bearing on the matter? The translator, R. D. Hicks died in 1929. ResScholar (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright for 1929 in UK would have been fifty years, even extending it, as under later legislation, only takes it to 70 years. The translator died 80 years ago, so it would be out of copyright in the UK. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it was not in the public domain in its presumed country of origin in the crucial year 1996 (still had three years to go), so doesn't U.S. copyright extend to protect it as if it were published in the U.S.? ResScholar (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was published in 1925 without a copyright notice, it's public domain in the U.S. Angr 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the Loeb Classical Library's copy of Apollodorus's Library from 1921, to see if their two volume works had copyright notices in the first volume only. In this typical case there wasn't one. It's hard for me to think of a reason why they wouldn't copyright these translations, but I guess they simply didn't in those early days. If simultaneous publication in the U.K. doesn't count for anything, I would agree with Angr's reasoning and want to use PD-US-No-notice as the template. ResScholar (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was published in the US within 30 days of first publication, it's now in the public domain. (If it were not published in the US in that time frame, it'd still be under copyright.) Given that it lists London and New York on the title page, I think we can assume it was published in both countries in close temporal proximity and hence is currently PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

After discussion with a couple other people, it looks likely that all of the pre-WWII Loebs are in the public domain in the US. Looking at the book itself for a copyright notice and a quick search through the renewal records would be good, but they shouldn't be big copyright concerns.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per research, tag as per recommendation Angr -- billinghurst (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Xlib - C Language X Interface

The following discussion is closed:

Keep billinghurst (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Xlib - C Language X Interface/Terms of Use there is a statement, though, not sure that it is enough for us to host. Anyone with a better clarity? -- billinghurst (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the standard X11 license; it gives us the rights to "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so". X11 has been used by the Free Software Foundation and all of the free Un*xs without a quibble about this license for over a decade, so it should be fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So which licence? -- billinghurst (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is free documentation, please read in Terms of use that:

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission
notice appear in all copies, and that the names of Digital and Tektronix not be used in in advertising or publicity pertaining
to this documentation without specific, written prior permission. Digital and Tektronix makes no representations
about the suitability of this documentation for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

So, the content without limitations for use, is compatible with licenses of this project. About names of Digital and Tektronix is for trademark reasons, as every reference to some trademark might be included in every free documentation.

Second, this page is for Possible copyright violations, Xlib - C Language X Interface/Terms of Use, clearly confirm that not is it.

Finally, i would have like that tell me about this thread, because i'm working on this book, I came here by casuality. Shooke (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting on {{copyvio}} would have blanked the page, and I was not confident enough to put it that harshly, hence the gentle question that I asked. If there had been further concerns, and a serious discussion, it would have been labelled and our concerns more overtly expressed.

Please pop over to Help:Copyright tags and pick the right licence that should apply. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarify me. The license of content really is Xlib - C Language X Interface/Terms of Use, I will see what use Shooke (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not we have template for this (Should we create one for that?), however i put the notice of attribution Xlib - C Language X Interface/Terms of Use, and in bottom of Xlib - C Language X Interface, I guess that's enough, that you think? Shooke (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

May be that this case is similar that Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types/license Shooke (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I used {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}, that is matched with this. Shooke (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

Go Wash in the Beautiful Stream

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted billinghurst (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No license, no date of publication. Yann (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks to be song lyrics recorded c.1928 for Rev. Moses Mason, though unknown if first published then. [4] Quick check doesn't show obvious dates of life. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems he was born in 1878 and a native of Mississippi[5] Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland.} 03:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How to Become a Man of Genius

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

by Bertrand Russell, died 1970. Found headerless, our page states published c1933 and British author. Would seem to be still under copyright unless anyone knows particularly different information. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no separate renewal for it, and if it was first published in an American newspaper, as some of the copies on the web claim, it would need one to be copyrighted. What due diligence is here, I don't know—I'd like to have a Russell bibliography at hand—but I could buy a claim that it is public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my strength, but I remember vaguely a requirement that it needs to be published within 30 days of the publishing in the place of origin to require a renewal to be undertaken. We should be able to dig up a rough publishing date from The Times-- billinghurst (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The National Question and the Class Struggle

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Original published 1903, with the translation quoted as being undertaken in 1937, which is a problematic date. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus the stuff from the 1935 edition; I'm not even sure this qualifies as being published; we could treat it as a Wikisource translation, but then we need to make sure both the 1935 translation and the 1937 translation are free. they're possibly clearable as non-renewals, but somebody needs to make the search (and I don't have time to write this message, much less make the search this morning).--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted billinghurst (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Documents of the Author:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not seem to have any exemption attached to them re copyright, and they are not necessarily going to fall under {{PD-EdictGov}}, so they are sitting there looking need some licence, and I cannot see one that would give it exemption from copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. Unless there is a means to specifically exclude the OECD's copyright] would seem to exclude us housing the document. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• There being no evidence that it can be kept, and with existing copyright statement. Deleted. billinghurst (talk)

Apache License Version 2.0

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

What copyright applies to a software License? If it is the work of an organisation, and has specific wording, then wouldn't it have some level of artistic merit, and hence copyright? -- billinghurst (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Apache License, Version 2.0 is itself licensed under the terms of Apache License, Version 2.0 [6]. I'm not sure if the terms of the Apache License are compatible with GFDL or not. Sagsaw (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ecce Homo

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted billinghurst (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It says it is translated by Author:Walter Kaufmann and w:Ecce Homo (book) suggests that translation was in 1967. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete looks to be Copyvio -- billinghurst (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Be Ye Men of Valour

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted billinghurst (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This work of Author:Winston Churchill would seem to be a copyright violation. Author died 1960s, and about the only thing that might save it from US copyright is if it is considered Template:PD-EdictGov. I don't know that definition sufficiently intimately to make that determination. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• There being no statement to the different, seems to be no exemption quoted. billinghurst (talk)

Oratio Imperata for A(H1N1) Virus

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted billinghurst (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This work has reputedly been spoken by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. The contributor labelled as Philippines Govt and pre 1996, neither of which seems likely. I feel that we cannot hold on to it. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to argue PD-Manifesto, I can't see any reason it would be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Demons of Disaster

The following discussion is closed:

exported to Wikilivres and deleted here--Jusjih (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication in 1946, author died in 1958. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Status unknown; like A Texan Rides the Trouble Trail, there's no copyright renewal for this alone, but without knowing where it was first published, I can't completely check it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikilivres; Blackmask says Masked Rider Western, March 1946, and the renewals for 1973 hold a renewal for that periodical. Reasonably likely that the copyright wasn't owned by the magazine, but no guarantees.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A Texan Rides the Trouble Trail

The following discussion is closed:

exported to Wikilivres and deleted here--Jusjih (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication in 1943, author died in 1958. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Status unknown, move to Wikilivres: There's no copyright renewal for A Texan Rides the Trouble Trail. There are however copyright renewals for the 1943 Thrilling Western issues, and as I understand it that obliterates any chance of easily verifying whether or not the story is in the public domain. I believe in some cases it may turn on the contract between author and publisher, contracts that haven't survived in Lovecraft's case. (I find that hilarious, but I have a dark sense of humor.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Spencer's Lullaby

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Please provide permission before text is restored.

The work was deleted by me, and subsequently restored today as the contributor Phantomsteve (talk • contribs) requested it as such. The contributor has been asked to provide a copy of the permission to reproduce to info@wikisource.org and I will allow that normal process to occur. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note applied to Talk:Frank Spencer's Lullaby billinghurst (talk)

Have yet to receive anything, as far as I can tell. If the user has already received a response, can they provide the ticket number? (Found in the Subject line of the email.) Jude (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Have still not received anything as far as I can tell. It has now been over two weeks, and without proper permission, I am deleting the text for the time being. Jude (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Trial (Kafka)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

= I considered putting this up for speedy deletion, but I decided that it was just over the line. This page is merely a table of contents; apparently someone had planned or started to put up David Wyllie's translation, but David Wyllie wasn't interested in licensing it to us. Moreover, Der Prozess (The Trial) was filed for US copyright ©1Jan25, received US copyright registration AF12080, and was renewed 28Apr52, registration R9470528. It, Ein Hüngerkunstler, Das Schloss, and Amerika (and the full text of Der Prozess, not published until 1935) are all under copyright until at least 2025.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete, If the German is copyrighted, so are all possible derivative translations, even if we made our own. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, unauthoritative, just following the cases proposed. billinghurst (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• That this is just an undeveloped table of contents is reason enough for deletion. There is nothing there to transfer to Wikilivres. I also express no opinion at this time about the translation.

  As to the original, Kafka has been dead for more than 70 years, so the work is out of copyright in most countries other than the U.S., notably in the Czech Republic. The U.S. copyright remains questionable. How did Schocken Books get the right to renew? They weren't established until 1931. Kafka himself wanted the manuscripts burned, so it seems that whoever registered the U.S. copyright in 1925 did not have the right to do so; if so, the 1925 copyright is invalid, and perhaps fraudulent. Die Schmiede, the original German publisher went out of business in 1929; it's not clear who produced the U.S. version in 1925 as was required for a valid copyright. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As Der Prozess is a German book, no US edition was necessary; US editions were only necessary for English-language books. The literary executor of his estate would have had the right to file for copyright, and Schocken Books is listed as PPW, which means proprietor of a posthumous work, which seems reasonable at first glance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I can concede the point about a US edition not being necessary for foreign language books. How is it reasonable that Schocken would be proprietor? Max Brod was still alive at the time of the copyright renewal; he was the one with the right to renew, not Schoken. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

While that may be the case, I am not sure that it is our concern or pertinent to the situation, and would be a matter for the author or their estate. billinghurst (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The pertinance relates to why renewals existed in the first place. They were there to give the author and his descendants a second chance in the case where the original contract with the publisher took undue advantage of the author. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• What is the date of death of David Wyllie? It might be possible to copy this text to Wikilivres if he died before 1959. Yann (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He made this translation for Project Gutenberg in the 21st century; as far as I know, he's still alive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Does PG recognize the copyrights of its translators, or does it treat everything so contributed as having been put in the public domain? The strongest argument for delete, in my mind, is that the page is an empty shell. There are no contents there, so there is nothing to transfer to Wikilivres, even if it is legal to do so. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gutenberg book [7] has a clear copyright on the top.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Netherlands and Flanders belong together

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted -- billinghurst (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently added work, though no licence. It mentions Leterme, which I can only presume is w:Yves Leterme which seemingly would make it a contemporary document, with no evidence of authors, source, or licence to allow us to site the document -- billinghurst (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment there being no disagreement, copyright violation billinghurst (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Instruction of the Sea-Parade of the Operation Sail 1974

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

A work from 1974 in Polish. Quotes an official translation, though no translation details. Either way it would seem that the work is Copyright being 1974, and not a government edict, nor manifesto. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be something organised by w:Operation Sail, which is a not-for-profit organisation founded in the US. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to conflate with the idea that this is a Polish Sea-Parade. Also, there was no Operation Sail, at least according to that page, in 1974. The only one in the 70s was 1976 (though there appears to be a Polish stamp dated 1972 relating to the Polish ship that was involved in the race. Perhaps the dates are all wrong?).

Either way, indications appear to be that this is not a government-run event, merely a government-sponsored event (certainly not an edict). There's also no translator information, so I'm leaning towards Delete unless someone manages to dig up something. Jude (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. There is still no evidence that this is run by a government, and there is no evidence of a free license. Jude (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Other

What Is Lojban?

The following discussion is closed:

Imported all subpages fully to Wikilivres and deleted them here.--Jusjih (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this page regarding the Open Publication License (found on the GNU website), ... it is incompatible with the GNU FDL. This would appear to make it unsuitable for Wikisource, but I'm not certain my interpretation is the correct one, hence bringing it here instead of directly deleting it. Jude (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your concern, I would like to export the article to Canadian Wikilivres where works are accepted with any types of copyright permission allowing posting there.--Jusjih (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA and CC-SA are also incompatible with the GNU FDL according that webpage. I though it didn't matter; we're hosting them as separate documents, not as one integrated document that has to be subject to one license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I'm asking. I spoke to soufron several years ago when he was doing lawyerly things for Wikimedia, and he told me that we weren't allowed to host CC-BY-SA/CC-SA texts as they were incompatible with the GFDL. However, recently, several people have told me that there are no problems hosting these texts. I'd like some clarification if we can actually host texts under licenses incompatible with the GFDL or not. Jude (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikilivres Pause as per Jusjih. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If the licensing update to close the vote on May 3 is passed, CC-BY-SA/CC-SA should be acceptable here.--Jusjih (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the licensing update vote passing will have any difference. Even if we dual-license CC-BY-SA, the question would remain: is the OPL compatible, in its current form, with the project and the GFDL? If it turns out not to be, I support it's transwiki to Wikilivres. Jude (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Licensing update? From memory, we should be at result time. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We now use CC-BY-SA=3.0 here, but OPL still seems incompatible with CC due to OPL VI. LICENSE OPTIONS potentially forbidding some kinds of derivative works. I have imported the edit history to Wikilivres. Any admin may delete here if I am correct.--Jusjih (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Apocryphal New Testament, by Montague Rhodes James

The following discussion is closed:

Imported all pages fully to Wikilivres and deleted them here.--Jusjih (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Author:Montague Rhodes James published a book entitled The Apocryphal New Testament. of which we have Acts of Paul (M. R. James translation), Acts of Pilate (M. R. James translation), Correspondence of Paul and Seneca (M. R. James translation), Epistle to the Laodiceans (M. R. James translation), Infancy Gospel of Thomas (M. R. James translation of the Latin form), Infancy Gospel of Thomas (M. R. James translation of the first Greek form), Infancy Gospel of Thomas (M. R. James translation of the second Greek form), and Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius (M. R. James translation). In all cases, it's from a 1924 book that doesn't seem to have been renewed in the United States, but is by a British author and a British publisher, so most likely didn't need to be renewed. Unless earlier publication can be shown, I don't think we can keep them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And, yes, they could go to Wikilivres.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have imported their edit history to Wikilivres. If no suitable US license is found, then delete then at any time.--Jusjih (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address, Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Seventh State of the Union Address

The following discussion is closed.

It is fairly clear that the Presidential speeches are public domain, however the opposition speeches are on behalf of a private entity (political party) not the federal government and would be copyrighted either by the individual or by the party. No copyright release is referenced here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Show me an instance of an opposition response that was not made by an elected official in the opposition party. To the extent that such addresses are delivered by sitting members of Congress they are certainly expressions of a federal government official speaking in the course of their government service. Might be dicier with state governors, but they are still government officials speaking as government officials. BD2412 T 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, I don't agree that just because a member of Congress makes a speech, even a political one, that he or she is necessarily acting in the course of his official duties. Furthermore, it's simple fact that the law only excludes copyright on work "of the United States Government", not works of the states. States can and often do assert copyright, so even if state governors are government officials speaking as government officials, their speeches still aren't in the public domain--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the members of Congress, their speeches are no different from the President's when it comes to copyright. Public statements on matters of governance enter the public domain. Regarding the governors, well, that's why I described the proposition as dicier. BD2412 T 05:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a workable argument that probably won't get us sued, but I'd still argue that it's a overly broad interpretation of a "work of the Federal Government" (which is all the text of the copyright law says). The president, as head of state, has his acts most tightly merged with his official duties, but I still find uncomfortable the concept that an employer can claim copyright on every speech someone makes about a general concept, especially one like politics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep, leaving state governors aside, anybody who is a Federal employee, whether FBI, Senator or President, who speaks in front of the House/Senate is doing so in commission of their Federal duties; and their works are thus Public Domain. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe.} 14:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the opposition response to the State of the Union is "typically broadcast from a studio with no audience." I would argue that one could come before Congress, while being a Federal employee, as a private citizen, but it's a moot point here. If it were before Congress, I wouldn't argue against labelling the Seventh State of the Union here with PD-USGov.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A private CBS Studio, or a federal studio used for that purpose? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe.} 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's being done by a private organization? Almost certainly private. This is not an official act of government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address; whatever the pro and con of the Seventh, the Sixth was done by a state governor, and hence is not eligible for PD-USGov.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. From the information provided, State Government official, not US Government official. State Government officials seems to what is quoted retain their copyright, and I have not seen evidence to the contrary provided. Note unless there is a legal definition (legislation or court ruling to the contrary) that I would consider anyone in one of the federal houses to be in government, they are involved in the governing of the US.—unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
  • The seventh was by Jim Webb, who was a US senator at the time. I don't think there's argument about whether he's in government, but the question in my mind is whether the speech was done in the course of his official duties and hence the property of his employer and not himself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It is the content of the speech, and not the circumstances of the broadcast, which brings it within the public domain. Suppose Bush delivered the State of the Union from a private studio and had it broadcast only over HBO? It would still be PD. Webb's speech (like most responses to the State of the Union) concerned the general course of governance of the nation. BD2412 T 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It is being an official act in the course of his duties that brings it within the public domain, not the content of the speech. The same rules here apply to what an employer could claim of an employee's work. The State of the Union is mandated by the Constitution; if it were another speech, for the sake of a third, private party, in a private studio, as Barak Obama and not the President of the United States, broadcast over HBO, there could very well be a case for copyright. I would argue that senators aren't as merged with their jobs as the President is, and thus wouldn't have to go as far to make the claim that the speech was not done in the course of their official duties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Except that he's doing it as part of his duty as a party official not as a government official - as noted, the 6th response to Bush was by a governor, as will the 1st response to Obama. I just can't see how the response is being done as part of a government duty. The actual State of the Union is different, of course, as some form of it is mandated by law; the response is a purely partisan (i.e. non-governmental) affair, however. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific definition from the Copyright circular 92 is

A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.

--billinghurst (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Adding Republican Response to Barack Obama's First State of the Union Address; since Author:Bobby Jindal is a governor, it's a clear copyright violation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) and Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Eighth State of the Union Address, again from a state governor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. In a parliamentary system this would be a no-brainer because "official" responses would be presented before parliament. I don't think that Jindal's status as a governor is a big factor here. The Republicans chose him to represent a national perspective, not the more limited state perspective, perhaps as an early shot in the 2012 presidential campaign. If only a state perspective were desired, why would this need to be so widely broadcast outside of Louisiana? In these circumstances a too rigid application of the letter of copyright law (or our rules) leads to an absurdity that is contrary to the public interest. An overriding "public interest" argument should not be used too lightly because it is too easily abused. It would not be in the public interest to treat all the commentaries on news talk-shows as in the public domain. Jindal's response was not the work of a single TV series nor of a single TV network, but one provided for all broadcasters by the Republicans in general. Allowing the free use of the official views of the governing party while at the same time using copyright law to constrain the official responses of the minority party strikes me as undemocratically contrary to the public interest. Eclecticology (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a parliamentary system; the State of the Union is not the official views of the governing party, it's the views of the President of the United States, and him alone. The copyright law doesn't constrain the official response at all, merely our right to reprint it as free content. You're more than welcome to ask Bobby Jindal, et la, to release their speeches as Free Content, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they aren't appreciative of the concept that anyone can translate and reprint them, in part or in whole in whatever context, without further permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree with Prosfilaes. It is not a rhetorical discussion about democracy, it is a legal discussion about intellectual property. If there is a relevant demonstration of case law to support the position, then let it be heard, even on a what constitutes "official duties", however, to this point, I haven't heard a convincing argument. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have searched diligently, and am unable to find an instance in which a member of Congress (or a governor, for that matter) has attempted to assert copyright over a public speech made by them. To the contrary, there are plenty of cases where members of Congress seek to shroud themselves in the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause for their public comments, which is essentially a concession on their part that such comments are made pursuant to their offices. BD2412 T 01:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly these fall under {{PD-manifesto}}. This is speech which is intended to be public. And at least in Jindall's case it was publically released to the press.[8] -- Kendrick7 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • PD-manifesto says "This template should only be used after a reasonable effort has been made to verify that a work is unlicensed." The people behind this speech are contactable by email, so unless someone has emailed them and waited a reasonable time for an answer, I don't see how that could apply. I doubt the premise behind PD-manifesto altogether; just because they want their manifesto widely distributed, doesn't mean that they want derivative works to be created at anyone's whim. Freely distributable, probably, but actual Free Content, much less Public Domain? I doubt it. And in these situations, where asking is trivial, I think it's our responsibility to do that first.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• All that is required is a reasonable effort to ensure that these were indeed speeches intended to be public, which is indisputable. Public speech is in the public domain, no bureaucratic finagling is needed. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's a failure of copyright law 101. There's a whole website devoted to material that's public, but not public domain; I think it's called Wikipedia? While I'm sure the Republicans have encourage reproduction of the speech, I'm more sceptical that they encourage translation by party or parties unknown, and doubt that they accept its use with the complete freedom that public domain means. Verbal material becomes copyrighted when placed in a fixed form, and it's entirely likely that this was written down before being performed publicly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm forced to agree - neither the Speech and Debate Clause nor the general release of government works applies to state governors. Barring a state law prohibition in their assertion of copyright, it attaches to their speeches every bit as readily as to Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Please note also that a speech that is broadcast over the airwaves need not be written down beforehand to fall under copyright - the speech is recorded (thus reduced to tangible form) at the time of the broadcast (which is why the NFL owns the copyright in live football games, for example). BD2412 T 15:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• But were they speaking as governors, or as representatives of the party who happened to be governors. Nobody has suggested suppressing Sarah Palin's speeches in the election campaign on the grounds that she is governor of a state. Eclecticology (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Given that the Republican Party is not an arm of the government, I don't understand the relevance of that question. Sarah Palin's speeches in the election campaign should not be posted here, as they aren't Free Content, but that's not the argument we're having at this moment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Ditto Kendrick. 70.29.76.121 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Given the above, I'm willing to accept that when a member of the United States Congress gives a political speech, that we can assume it's a work of the US government unless there's a clear claim of copyright. My opposition to the speeches of governors stands.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's relevant to the discussion but CSpan is running the Jindal response on YouTube: [9] Abbarocks (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re all the commentary, it would seem that an email to the offices of these people stating that the work is in the public arena, and ask which licence applies to their work that has been released (send them the info). This task would be incumbent on those who wish to have the material available. Go through the attempt, keep copies of the email. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best idea because the encyclopedia will freeze up if we get paranoid about this. Let's just go with the majority view here, at least that's my opinion. Abbarocks (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedia, and there are literally millions of documents we can profitably host that are clearly in the public domain. It's more likely to freeze up from legal action then from reasonable concern about copyrights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A rather difficult and confusing discussion. I have deleted all speeches by state governors as per the above discussion. This includes:

1. Republican Response to Barack Obama's First State of the Union Address
2. Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Eighth State of the Union Address
3. Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address

However, as Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Seventh State of the Union Address is by a state senator rather than a state governor, I have no deleted this. Jude (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thine Is the Glory

The following discussion is closed:

Transwikied to Canadian Wikilivres and deleted here.--Jusjih (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Publication in unknown year, 1932 death, no US license. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The translator, Hoyle, actually lived 1875-1939. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it doesn't look to be a US work. billinghurst (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Words by Edmond L.Budry in 1884, this work first appeared in - Chants Evangéliques (Lausanne, Switzerland: 1885) Translated from French to English by Richard B. Hoyle in 1923. Source Thine Is the Glory at Cyberhymnal. Currently under copyright since 1925 by World Student Christian Federation - same source. Kathleen.wright5 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible ODNB copies

The following discussion is closed:

1 Delete, 1 Keep - speedy resolved (by people billinghurst (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Spens, William (1882-1962) (DNB00) and Perowne, Edward Henry (1826-1906) (DNB00) may be copies of current ODNB in-copyright articles (the word count for the Spens article is about right). That is, these seem to be copy-paste versions from the subscription-only Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, erroneously posted here. I can't read the ODNB since I'm not a subscriber, but both articles have death dates too late to be in the pre-1900 DNB as the suffixes would imply. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Spens is a clear candidate for deletion. DNB did not include articles until the subject was dead. Perowne appeared in the 1912 supplement, and is a candidate for inclusion in DNB12, but not in the present form. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perowne fixed and moved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)