Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2014-01

Kept

Catholic Encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed:

keep, the work is public domain. Jeepday (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The text of the Catholic Encyclopedia given in Wikisource is not taken directly from the original publication, of over a century ago, but from the still recent transcription by New Advent, a transcription covered by "copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight" (see statement here). This is shown by errors in the New Advent transcription that appear also in the Wikisource text. An example is "Laughmenses" in the article on Primate. The original text, as shown in this scan, is "Lugdunenses". Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Talk:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) there has been more than one upload from various sources. Fortunately we do have scans (starting at Index:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu), which will be used to replace the second text that is currently in the Mainspace. Unfortunately very little work has been done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a transcription that someone has attached a copyright notice to. There's no reason to think it has any validity; a simple copy of a work doesn't give you a copyright, even if you make some mistakes in the process.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The Kevin Knight statement verges on "copyfraud". Of course some aspects of the New Advent site may be covered by copyright, but material that is public domain in the USA is not. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvador Allende's Last Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Restore, note that a techinical error is inhibiting the actual recreation, posted at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard for tech assitance. Jeepday (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This page Salvador_Allende's_Last_Speech was deleted, but according to legislation here, there's no copyright violations in this case.

"Artículo 71 D. [...] Las conferencias, discursos políticos, alegatos judiciales y otras obras del mismo carácter que hayan sido pronunciadas en público, podrán ser utilizadas libremente y sin pago de remuneración, con fines de información, quedando reservado a su autor el derecho de publicarlas en colección separada."

—unsigned comment by Celiaudi (talk) .

Google translation

"Article 71 D [...] conferences, political speeches, legal pleadings and other works of the same character which have been delivered in public, may be used freely and without payment of remuneration, for information, being reserved to their author's right to publish them in separate collection. "

• Previous discussion was not a strong argument. Jeepday (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

restore It would seem that the assessment of the speech should be that it would not be covered by copyright. The version that we had seems to be a Wikisource-generated translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Restore as well, assuming this is correct (which I do, unless any opposing information is presented). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthologies

Index:Armistice Day.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, see Index talk:Armistice Day.djvu for resolution. Jeepday (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

ResidentScholar informed me about a renewal on portions of this work (see Scriptorium). The relevant pages have been blanked, being pages 220-7 in the Djvu, but a revision deletion would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

because of the above the entire work needs reconfirmation that the items in it are free from individual renewals.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The author of Armistice Day has kindly (for us) produced an acknowledgement section where he acknowledges his use of material copyrighted in his day. So just the items listed there need to be reconfirmed. ResScholar (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Found another 2 possible renewals ( In respect of Nora Archibald Smith, and a story featured in "Harper's", the pages concerned blanked. I am now withdrawing from this work with a view that unless someone's willing to do the confirmatry legwork, It should be deleted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent to last message I've checked through the acknowledgements and a few other items, and blanked some further pages,

This now needs someone uninvolved to take a look. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

OK , To show Good faith, I'm withdrawing this nomination, pending an uninvolved party tackling a review of the contested items. (Subsquent to last message I've been able to confirm a few more items have pre 1923 publications (see edit comments).

But sadly I've found one item, a New York Herald Tribune which was renewed - See comment in the relevant page.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal Understanding the status for a longer anthology is confusing. Could we see a best practice case set up with a neat table of document sections, attributions and the associated copyright status? It would be a good way of cooperating as a team on a burn-down list of sections that need copyright confirming. --Fæ (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I drew up a table based on the acknowledgments section of the text which can be tweaked as necessary. There is a space for copyright status comments, etc. Might be easier this way to go line by line with status documentation for all to see the progress/rationale for deletion of any text. As of right now, many pages have already been deleted and marked as problematic with no such documentation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note I've been resinstating some pages in good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the work/research you have been doing. It hasn't gone unnoticed. Let me know what I can do at my end, keeping in mind I am 'copyright challenged'; but I can re-validate, look things up on Google, etc. I just don't know where to get my hands dirty at this point with the work where it stands. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you could look through my edit comments on the works and transfer the logic to your table. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that there are at some items that are 'blanked'/'flagged the don't appear in the acknowledgements being

1 story, and 2 dramatic works (It would be helpful at least to know the dates of them). "The Unseen Host" is explicity listed as a 1917 copyright in the text itself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Further disscussion on this should take place on the talk page for the work, and this disscussion can be closed unless any major issues are found. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Index:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, pre-1923 PD. Jeepday (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Canadian poetry anthology published in 1918, but no further information given as to the status of individual works. Given that these are likely British, Canadian or Commonwealth works, Life+50 at the very least would apply, and as the death dates aren't known, difficult to determine. Not much effort made on this and so unless someone's willing to check each individual author, this should be deleted as having a very unclear status. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. doesn't apply the "rule of the shorter term" to its copyright decisions, so the scans can be safely moved as pre-1923s to Wikisource page-space rather than Commons; however persons from Life+ countries should not edit sections of the work not known to be copyright-free in their respective countries. And we should place a warning notice to that effect. ResScholar (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if my efforts on this could thus be reset.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't that you added value to the work by transcribing it, it's that you had to read it in order to do it. You can claim fair use as far as your personal liability goes, but as a standard practice, Wikisource doesn't (or shouldn't) allow persons to continue adding value through the claim of fair use. The license templates at Wikisource, whether present on every work or not, are supposed to remind you to check your country's copyright laws and act accordingly, whether you are reading or transcribing. ResScholar (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted my contributions on this work. (including those made by Sfan00_IMG). If someone is willing to provide a list of authors confirmed as acceptable... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point. Let me give you an example.

In a class I was taking we had an assigned reading for a Sherlock Holmes story where we were supposed to report in what manner one of the characters in the story, who was a medical researcher, violated the professional code of ethics. The story was copyrighted 1924, but I downloaded it from Adelaide University in Australia to the U.S., even though the work is still copyrighted in the U.S. I made "fair use" of this chapter of the Sherlock Holmes book by downloading it, using it for an educational purpose by writing my report, then deleting it, never taking possession of the work again.

But Adelaide University says "YOU are responsible for meeting the copyright standards in your country." That's an official stand that they respect the copyright law of other countries (even though they don't do much about it.)

Likewise, even though you may have not clearly known about your life+70 copyright responsibilities at Wikisource, you can say "I was a volunteer, I was doing the proofreading for the sake of educating others, so in that regard it was 'fair use' on my part. But now I know that Wikisource in their copyright policy also discourages contributions even derived from 'fair use' activities but is willing to accept that I performed the proofreading erroneously, but in good faith, and since it is not copyrighted in the U.S. where the server is located, there is no need to delete it.

"I may have incurred a benefit from the works beyond 'fair use' because of my extended ignorance of the full extent of life+70, but as a demonstration of continued good faith, I will not return to reading the works copyrighted in my country that I proofread or access them in any way (including by deleting copies I may have downloaded to my computer) unless I either: 1. actually purchase the work or legally borrow it from another source or 2. coincidentally happen to find a different 'fair use' (though of course not a different form of proofreading on Wikisource) for the work in my educational endeavors." ResScholar (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted, but please don't question my reasoning further, I won't be making further contributions on the work concerned,

and would appreciate someone that is able to find the relevant dates for the works included (Given that it's poetry from 1914-1918 era it's pre 1923 as far as the US is concerned. The issue is when specfic authors died.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In terms of trying to track down the actual status in parallel, I can't find actually find any information for a number of the poets concerned. (And this is using multiple sources.). The scans themselves are already local, as opposed to being on Commons (This is something I checked.).

The original work is copyright 1918 (Place of Publication Toronto.) This means it's pre 1923 as far as US use is concerned, and means all the poems in it can reasonably be stated to be published on or before 1918, (even if this work is the first publication for many of the poems). However, because your raised concerns on another work, some checks were started with a view to providing confirmation the anthologised works would be free in (Life+) countries, and this is unfortunately where a number of problems arise.

Unless someone's willing to actually confirm the authorship dates for these poems as pre 1918, I'm inclined to request deletion on the basis of a lack of confirmation in respect of the US status of the works anthologised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You want to request deletion of your own proofreading pages? Or request deletion of a work unless we check each anthologized selection when the copyright on it clearly states 1918? ResScholar (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for picking me up on that. I'm only requesting deletion of my own efforts. I think we can close this threas as the work itself has been demonstrated to not have issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn on the basis of some checks made into the authorship of the works.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Index:Our American Holidays - Christmas.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, pre 1923, PD. Jeepday (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

US Work from 1949. Whilst it is claimed that the anthology has no renewal, ResidentScholar has noted (on thier talk page) in response to a query from myself noted that there are some works in here for authors whose works cannot (without further evidence) be confirmed as free from copyright claims. This work should be removed unless each indivdual work included can be proven to be free from restrictions.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a 1907 edition of this work at Project Gutenberg which may be of help in rapidly removing some of the pre-1923 works from the onus of U.S. copyright claims. ResScholar (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I presume pages can be removed, if necessary, without removing the entire work, like you started to do on the Armistice Day work; I just don't know the best way to do that and would appreciate suggestions. ResScholar (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Done':' The names of the passages are identical to those of the Copyrighted 1907 Gutenberg version. Unfortunately, like many license-templated works here on Wikisource, the work does not have life+70 or life+50 information up front (one has to go to each author's page for the information), but that is understandable given the difficulty of the task. ResScholar (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Clarif. 02:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lamar Alma Mater

The following discussion is closed:

kept as PD-US no renewal

This work has no record of licence. It was copied from a school website, and there is no evidence presented on whether a search has been undertaken or not. A search shows that the author has copyrighted another work [1] and without evidence of us checking for this copyright there has to be doubts that the work is not in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This type of thing would be virtually certain to be published without notice (think of all the copies handed out to students, etc.) It would also have been needed to be renewed, and as a 1951 work, the renewals would have been at earliest 1978 which are online at copyright.gov, and a search there does not come up with any Gilbert Smart records. Lamar University has a few registrations (in case this was a work for hire), but I see no renewals of anything from around that date. I'd say keep as PD-US-not_renewed at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted

Out-of-copyright translation of a Soviet work

The following discussion is closed:

Copyright until 2056, while parts of the work may be PD now, they would be out of scope per Wikisource:WWI#Excerpts. Jeepday (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a book entitled Those Americans: A Travelogue that contains a 1962 English translation of accounts of travels in the United States that were first published in the Soviet Union. The copyright of the American translation was not renewed and appears to be in the public domain. The copyright page reads as follows:

---

First published in The Soviet Writer, Moscow, 1960

English translation and Introduction © Henry Regnery Company, 1962

Manufactured in the United States of America
library of congress catalog card number 62-19385

---

The original translators, to my understanding, did not need permission for their translation at the time because of the absence of treaties governing works of Soviet origin. The Russian original went out of copyright in the Soviet Union, but may have come back into copyright in the Russian Federation.

Before I go to the trouble of transcribing this work, I would like advice on whether it qualifies for inclusion by Wikisource standards. Is the translation under copyright in the United States and elsewhere in the world because it is based on a work currently under copyright in the Russian Federation (if indeed it is)? If so, when does it enter the public domain? —Ivanhoe (talk), 30 May 2013

I think I found an answer, but if you know for sure please help me confirm my understanding. The work is not in the public domain in Russia because the copyright term on Soviet works is 70 years, and, for U.S. purposes, because the work was under Russian copyright in 1996. It will therefore enter the public domain in Russia in 2030, and probably in the United States, too. However, the prefatory and introductory materials are currently in the public domain because they were written exclusively for the American edition, whose copyright was not renewed. Does anyone disagree or have further insights into works of Soviet origin? —Ivanhoe (talk), 30 May 2013

Works first published in 1923-1978 get 95 years of copyright from publication in the US, so 2056. It's life + 70 years in Russia; the Library of Congress doesn't have a death date for Mikhaĭlov, N. N. (Nikolaĭ Nikolaevich), just a birth date of 1905, and there are no dates for Kosenko, Z. V. (Zinaida Vasilʹevna), so one of the two could still be living giving a PD date in Russia as 2083 or later. Fortunately, that doesn't matter for us; I guess it might in 2056.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The prefatory and introductory materials are almost certainly PD, but wouldn't generally be acceptable on Wikisource. I don't see any real value in uploading them here, but if you have an argument for, you're free to make it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, While it may have been the intent of the author to release into the public domain, it was not done a clearly defined manor. Should further information or clear release be found, open a new discusion. Jeepday (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Two works by Richard Stallman:

• Free Software and Beyond: Human Rights in the Use of Software and Other Published Works
• Free Software Song

Neither has a licence template (not does his author page) and I have been unable to track down an original so far. Stallman is the founder of the GNU project, so this I expect it is licensed in some way (probably under a GNU licence) but we have no proof of that at the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

accroding to http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html "Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation claim no copyright on this song." -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That page linked does list "This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License". The "NoDerivs" would not be compatible with WS "Share-Alike License". Additionally not claiming copyright is different then releasing copyright. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the copyright of that page is an issue, since our page only reproduces the lyrics, which aren't copyrighted, and not any of the copyrighted material. The page also hosts a LilyPond score, which only lists the "not copyrighted" licensing, without any other copyrighted content. I agree that the wording is a bit odd, though; it seems to me that in spirit it's public domain, although I'm not sure how that reconciles with language that we can use. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify as there is occasional a misunderstanding. During copyright discussion here we grant copyright exists at the moment the work is created. Not actively seeking copyright or disavowing copyright, does not make it un-copyrighted for WS. There are two options;

1. The copyright owner, releases the work in compatible license i.e. CC-BY-SA
2. The copyright has legally expired and the work is now public domain

I agree that I don’t see how a reconcilable copyright release can be obtained with the information available. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely "[we] claim no copyright on this song" is the same as "[we] release this song to the public domain," something which we would certainly accept here? Clearly that is the intention of RMS and the FSF. - Htonl (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright need not be claimed on works first published in the US after 2002. "not claiming copyright" is not listed on Works Registered or First Published in the U.S. as a viable release. There have been multiple arguments overtime here, that have argued that the author(s) did not intend copyright, but nevertheless it was automatically created (current US law), the only option is intentional release, or passage of time. Had the work been published between 1923 through 1977, then it would be public domain, at that time copyright need to be claimed to exist. Currently it needs to be clearly released, and to the best of my knowledge there is no indication the language used "Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation claim no copyright on this song" is legally compatible with CC-BY-SA. Suggested CopyVio deletion is not a question of intent, it a question of doing our best to meet the requirements of law. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The page you link is about copyright expiration by the passing of time, and says nothing about works releast to PD by the author. As I stated, the statement on that page reads to me as an intentional release of copyright. - Htonl (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that to me as well, but our belief on the intent of the author is not the threshold. The threshold is the legal accuracy of copyright status. There is every reason to believe that w:Richard Stallman should be fully aware of copyright release requirements, the person is still living, and if he really wanted it to be PD or CC there would be a legally recognized release on the web page. A similar work that we would expect to have been CC was deleted I personally believed that the authors intent was not apply copyright to the work, but it needed to be deleted, because we did not have a reasonable legal belief that it was CC or PD. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a passing related thought, on why it is legality not intent that defines inclusion for copyright. Obviously most of the PD work we publish, was not intend by the author to be public domain, but through passage of time, or failure of some legal process, the work has become public domain regardless of the wishes of the author and/or their heirs.Jeepday (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact RMS and/or the FSF? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Rivers of Blood

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, no evidence of copyright release. Jeepday (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how exactly work the copyright on speeches in USA so I ask you : is Rivers of Blood copyrighted or not ? (since I Have a Dream have been deleted, I'm guessing it's protected).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Delete British copyright would apply, per the URAA, which is Life+70. Enoch Powell died in 1998, so the speech will remain under copyright until 1 January 2069. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

US copyright would apply per the URAA, provided the work was in copyright in the UK in 1996. So to figure out when it is out of copyright you have to figure out when it was first published; if that's considered 1968, then it would be 2064.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete no waiver of copyright, no position given for why the work is out of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation discovered after 8 years ! It was a public speech, intended to have the largest audience. I think it is censorship of unpleasant facts (Powell prevision is now reality) under invocation of copyright laws. So I see the text has been deleted in french, also after years of display. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most people here probably don't care either way about the speech itself. The intended audience is irrelevant; they don't own the speech just because they heard it. Powell's estate owns the speech and it would be illegal to continue hosting it without their permission. Sometimes it does take a few years for people to notice things like this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can get release from copyright, then that would be fantastic. In lieu of permission being granted, the length of stay is irrelevant once the copyright status is pointed out to us. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Watan hamara Azad Kashmir

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This work is alleged as an (un)official anthem of a disputed territory, and written in the 1960s in India. No author, no source. I don't see how the work is not covered by copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to WP, the author died in 1982. Source might be the article itself. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete. Pakistani copyright is Life+50, so this won't be in the public domain until 2033 (if I've done the sum correctly). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It won't PD in the US until 95 years from publication, so at least 2055.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Deleted: as per above. Yann (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Redfern Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, no evidence of release. Jeepday (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Speech given in 1993 by the then prime minister of Australia, which was delivered in a public place, not covered by parliamentary copyright. No evidence that the speech has been released into the public domain. Author and speaker still alive. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The transcript and audio of the speech are freely available on the National Archives of Australia website at http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/DetailsReports/ItemDetail.aspx?Barcode=5006022 The copyright notice on the website indicates that material not provided by third parties is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence.

That the NAA has a copy of the speech in an electronic format does not affect the copyright of the original work. NAA cannot remove copyright on a work by having that licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to Caucus4Priorities

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, currently still under copyright. Jeepday (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Election campaign speech by Barack Obama (originally undated but appears to be from 2007). As this was before he was President, and not acting in an official capacity anyway, it is not covered by PD-USGov. I can't find any release or licensing, so this is presumably still under copyright. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete - One of those works still protected by Obama's campaign/web site. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep - He was a Senator at the time. - Presidentman (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  The U.S. copyright law is pretty clear here:

  a.) No “work of the United States Government” can be copyrighted; and

  b.) A “work of the United States Government” is defined as any work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties.

  Obama meets the [Federal] officer or employee stipulation but campaigning for President of the United States clearly falls outside of the realm of an U.S. Senator's official duties (Fwiw... works like this will most likely become PD anyway after he leaves office and his Presidential Library is established). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary of Australian Biography/Gould, John

The following discussion is closed.

A single page from a work that was published in Australia in 1949 and would still be under copyright. Apart from the fact that we have only a component with no text, and not much hope of getting the remainder of the work. I am not sure how Gutenberg came to the decision that it was not under copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: PG Australia says the author is Percival Serle (1871-1951). According to Wikipedia:Copyright law of Australia#Copyright term, the copyright term at the time was Life+50 until 2004, so this may have entered the public domain in 2002. I would still delete as an extract but it might have just scraped through the copyright window. (Addition: unless it was also published in the US, in which case it would come under the URAA.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's PD in Australia but was not in 1996, so its U.S. copyright would have been restored to 95 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 Delete (I still keep having problems with the URAA) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Philosophy of Schopenhauer

The following discussion is closed:

Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:The Philosophy of Schopenhauer that cannot import.--Jusjih (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Published first in the US in 1928 with copyright statement, registered A1609, renewed in 1956 R162113. Prosody (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete - Verified Prosody's findings. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete - Renewed in 1956 meant it had an extra 47 years given to it for its second term taking it up to 2003, which means it was still copyrighted when Mickey Mouse Protection Act was enacted, and it willl be copyright until 1 Jan 2024 if I am not too rusty at this stuff. p.s. w:Copyright renewal is a useless rambling mess that we should fix up as it is currently misleading. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Right Ho, Jeeves

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, 1934 publication with renewal. Jeepday (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The only source which I can find saying that this work was published in 1922 is Project Gutenberg. All other sources (including Wikipedia and Goodreads) state the publishing date as 1934. The sources which do give the date as 1922 are supported only by PG. There is also a comment on the talk page saying that the publication date is 1934. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that correct date is 1934. The American title Brinkley Manor was renewed in V1699P171 according to the US Copyright Office. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Tallow Candle

The following discussion is closed:

delete as modern copyright of translation take from public source

This work is a translation of a Hans Christian Anderson work, though there is no detail surrounding the translation, neither it was undertaken, nor source. I have asked the contributor to assist with this discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The en-wiki article on the Anderson work contains a link, and points here, which is presumably the source. The copyright is claimed by the newspaper "Politiken", the publisher there. As the original was just discovered in 2012, there's no way the translation is PD. Almost certainly delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Other

Tecumseh's Speech, of August 11, 1810, To Governer William Harrison

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced with public domain text, original text revdel'd. Prosody (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, this is an extract of the 1990 fictionalized account of Tecumseh's life, Panther in the Sky by James Alexander Thorn. Wikiquote cites it directly, other web sites and (frighteningly) books do not, but at any rate there do not seem to be any books prior to the publication of Panther in the Sky which contain this text. Prosody (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean by 'frighteningly'. Copies include

• http://www.hist.umn.edu/hist1301/documents/tecumpseh.html as part of Hist 1301W: Authority and Rebellion in America to 1865, taught at University of Minnesota by Prof. Tracey Deutsch and Prof. Lisa Norling, which includes it from ...
• Major Problems in American History, v. 1: to 1877 ed. Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman and Jon Gjerde (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002), pp. 203–205.
• The Montana Council for History and Civics Education
• History Teaching Institute at The Ohio State University
• A church study, by Grace Chapel

I'd like to think we'd assume the history professors and book editors are right about this text.

I note that on w:Tecumseh is a quote which is largely the same as this text ("Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the clouds, and the Great Sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?"). The source for that quote is Turner III, Frederick (1973). "Poetry and Oratory". The Portable North American Indian Reader. Penguin Books. pp. 245–246. ISBN 0-14-015077-3. There are many other sources for that short segment, and larger chunks (University of Oklahoma Press). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Earliest I can find that quote is from History of the Indian Tribes of North America volume 3 (1838). Other portions of the text can be found in The History of Kentucky volume 2 (1824). I still have the strong impression that this is a modern composite made for the fictionalized account mentioned above, composed of a bunch of later composites and reformulations. Prosody (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (clarified 02:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Excellent finds. I am starting to think that this translation might be new, or at least rare, but it is quite close to other translations and not fictionalised by James Alexander Thorn. Here is a 1912 edition of the translated speech. Here are excerpts of a slightly different translation. Unless a better translation comes to light, I propose we replace the text with the 1912 edition and revdel the current text to be safe. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Prosody (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the replacement, need an admin to do the revdel. Prosody (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of 1949 work

The following discussion is closed:

Copyright exists; US copyright expires 95 years after UK publication date, which is 2043. Not currently hosted on WS. Jeepday (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Wikisource:Scriptorium#Copyright_of_1949_workJeepday (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The End Of An Age And Other Essays by William Ralph Inge. It's on Archive.org, but there's no mention of its copyright status.--Frglz (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

no sign of renewal at Copyright office [2] Slowking4 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw... in the Preface, the author states the essays within are partly reprints from earlier (U.K.?) periodicals -- I'm guessing that means searching the essay titles would be a better guide here. Nevertheless, the compilation (for the U.S. in 1949 for the first time) doesn't have the needed copyright notice, etc. affixed in the book or under each work so, if the essays themselves weren't registered in the U.S. prior to that 1949 book's U.S. appearance, it would seem to be PD at least in the U.S. due to that lack of registration compliance -- don't know about it's status in the U.K. & elsewhere though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It states, "First Published in the USA in 1949". Also, to my knowledge even a "compilation copyright" is still a copyright. Nice book though! —Maury (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That's right but it doesn't matter in this case because there was no (PCW) renewal even if the compilation work was properly registered in the first place back in 1949. We're looking to nail down any registration &/or renewals for the individual essays known to have been published first in (U.K. only?) periodicals by the (A) author just to be sure. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have two questions. When these situations come up and we cannot solve the situation why cannot we go ahead and then if someone complains then we can remove the text with appropriate apologies and an explanation? What is done on this or other wiki areas when that happens? Surely this cannot be the first time a situation of this kind has arisen. —Maury (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's "solved" as far as I'm concerned - it's PD in the U.S. because it was never registered (properly) -- the lack of any renewal by any of the relevent parties associated with the publication supports that notion regardless. Hunting down any of the titles previously published goes beyond what was called for here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

and to answer your questions - 1.) because we strive to ascertain &/or accomplish what the others cannot or will not; usually by being proactive rather than reactive as was the case here, and; 2.) Don't know nor care about what other wikis "do" (or "don't do"). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

1. "Solved", okay and I thank you for answering that. —Maury (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

2.) "because we strive.." I totally agree since I strive to do the same thing. I assume all here do. —Maury (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

2.(b) "Don't know" - I always figure that you are very, very smart so I figured you already knew the answer. My mistake. —Maury (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

2.(c) "Don't know or care..." Ah, c'mon George, all of the wiki areas serve a good purpose. I did chuckle on that part though because I feel the same way except for wikipedia. Again, I do thank you for your answers. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To inquire about the copyright at archive.org, there are two choices:

• Log into the community texts forum and post a message.
• Email to "info at archive dot org" and point out the issue. This is my preferred way because I always get a knowledgeable reply. It usually takes 24-36 hours.

In either case, it's usually a very helpful staff member by the name of Jeff Kaplan who replies.— Ineuw talk 07:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Texts by British authors who died after 1925 are exempt from the registration, notice and renewal requirements, thanks to w:URAA, as long as the texts were first published in the UK (and not published in the US within the following 30 days). The author, w:William Inge (priest), died in 1954. If the previous publications were in the UK, this would make the texts copyrighted in the US, unless they were published before 1923. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• The entire work was published in the UK a year earlier, in 1948[3]. As this work will have been copyright in the UK in 1996, URAA means its US copyright expires 95 years after publication date, which is 2043. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)