Jump to content

Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2007-01

Add links
From Wikisource

Kept

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath

The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath was published in Beyond the Wall of Sleep in 1943. The copyright on it seems to have been renewed:

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Derleth renewed the rights to "Beyond the Walls of Sleep in 1971 -- file number at the copyright info place is: 1971-1-1560.tif -- that's Jan-June 1971 copyright renewals, page 1560. 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC) —unsigned comment by 24.176.0.225 (talk) .

The file it mentions is from [1].

--Benn Newman (AMDG) 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. The copyright on w:H. P. Lovecraft's works appears to be controversial. In any case, p. 1560 from [2] has an entry
DERLETH, AUGUST
Beyond the Wall of Sleep. See
LOVECRAFT, HOWARD PHILLIPS
But then p. 1585 has
LOVECRAFT, HOWARD PHILLIPS
Beyond the Wall of Sleep. Collected
by August Derleth & Donald Wandrei.
NM: compilation. © 22Nov43;
A177408. August Derleth & Donald
Wandrei (A); 6Apr71; R504228.
The interesting thing here is "NM: compilation", which I take to mean that the copyright is limited to "New Material: compilation". I.e. Derleth and Wandrei have a copyright on the compilation (the book as a whole: the selection, arrangement, and presentation of the stories), but not on the text of the stories themselves.
BTW, that entry also comes up if you search at Rutgers for "wall of sleep", but under the author name "Lovelace, Maud Hart". This is an error in the Rutgers Database, Maud Hart Lovelace's renewal for "An errand for Miss Fanning" is the entry following the one for "Beyond the Wall of Sleep". Which explains why one should always check searches at Rutgers against the TIFFs at UPenn. Lupo 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you check at the U.S. Copyright Office for post-1978 copyright registrations and renewals, you'll find several others where Derleth only holds a copyright to the introduction and the compilation, e.g. RE-492-443, RE-561-735, RE-561-736, RE-585-301. (There may be more.) Lupo 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would someone renew the introductions and the like and not renew the work itself? --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would Desilu Studios register all but five of the w:I Love Lucy episodes? Because copyright law was fubar before wikis came along, perhaps - and confusing as hell? His loss, our gain.Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
To answer Benn Newman's question: because he never had the copyright to the stories in the first place, maybe? Note that the "NM: compilation" is given for the 1943 original registration of the copyright, not for the renewal. The renewal is on whatever the original copyright covered. Take a look at w:H. P. Lovecraft: the Derleth/Wandrei copyright claims appear to be shaky. Lupo 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to know where the story was first published (which we are unlikely to find out from the Derleth and Wandrei mob). I dont't go for the copyright renewal which is quoted here, but I would like a little more info before I could happily say that it is PD. Physchim62 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought we all knew already where it was first published: according to The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, the Derleth/Wandrei (Arkham House) 1943 publication was the first publication. Lupo 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
About "happily saying that it was PD": that's actually a policy decision. While we do know more or less what we're doing, we may miss something in our searches for copyright renewals. (See also the "Pirates of Venus" case below.) I wonder whether the WMF would consider our efforts to determine the copyright status of such presumably non-renewed works sufficient. But then, any negative is hard to prove conclusively... Lupo 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept, copyright was renewed for the collection rather than the text. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

Latest comment: 17 years ago59 comments10 people in discussion

The Three Musketeers

Alas, the translator of this particular translation is Eleanor Hochman, who is seemingly still alive and translating/writing books.[3]. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If this particular version is copyrighted, as it seems to be, then we´ve no choice but to Delete. Unfortunate but it shows the necessity of getting source & translator info at the start. Shouldn´t be too hard to find a usable translation we can replace it with I´d think.User:AllanHainey
Shall we delete all of its subpages for now?--Jusjih 14:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Pirates of Venus

Published in 1934 by an author who died in 1950. I'm not aware of any applicable public domain criteria or other license. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment doesn't appear to have been renewed, going from Rutgers. Physchim62 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Strange thing, though, that all the other books from the Venus series have been renewed according to your link. How reliable is this source in general? If it was reliable, this would be a very convenient way to check whether the "no renewal" criterion is fulfilled.--GrafZahl 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You're in general supposed to cross-check against the TIFF-scans mentioned below. The work was originally copyrighted in 1932, when it was serialized in Argosy.[4]. The U.S. Copyright Office has a copyright registration TX-343-937 for a 1979 edition, which is explicitly limited to "new material: cover art" and that states "prev. reg.: 1932". (Search at [5], select "Title" and enter "pirates of venus".) I have not found any copyright renewal in the years 1959, 1960 (and for good measure 1961, 1962, 1963) in an inspection of the relevant TIF-scans of pre-1978 copyright renewals (see [6]). Is it possible that this one slipped through? Lupo 10:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your search efforts. Hmm, Reg. No. TX-5-453-803 shows a 2001 version without any explicit limits. However, it's registered as "nondramatic textual work or computer program", so it might only apply to the fore and afterwords. Otherwise it doesn't seem to have been renewed. I participated in their survey on digitising the copyright records. Hopefully, those pre-1978 issues can be cleared up with a single search in the near future.--GrafZahl 09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can be copied to http://wikilivres.info Yann 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist articles

  • Why Civilization?: This appears to have been taken from this site. I can find no information that this work has been licensed or released into the public domain.

The information provided on the site declares that the source of the article's publication is "Disorderly Conduct #6".85.138.152.125 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Various {{PD-US-no-notice}} works

All deleted. Non-enforcement only works with trademarks. No user has successfully shown that these works are in the public domain. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clementine Churchill death threat

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Clementine Churchill death threat was apparently written in England and is marked with {{PD-US-no-notice}}. It does not seem to have been legally published in the London Evening News (it was without the copyright holders permission) and there is no information as to how it was published (if at all) in the United States. -Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There is no indication that the newspapers publishing the letter were breaking the law, and the opinions of the courts trump any opinions of your personal armchair legal theories. It was published, ergo, it fits. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Please do not refer to others' arguments as 'armchair theory'. Newmanbe has validly pointed out that it was never legally published (as defined by United States Code title 17, chapter 1, section 101), therefore no copyright notice was required. Whether publishing someone else's work without their consent constitutes 'legally published' is questionable so far as I know, but Wikisource is not the place to test legal theories. Your conclusion that the work must be in the public domain simply because someone else has used it is not necessarily correct; it is possible to publish the text as fair dealing, thus neatly circumventing the whole question of copyright. Since there is no precedent setting such works into the public domain, since Wikisource allows neither fair dealing nor fair use, and since none of us want Wikisource to dabble in 'armchair theory', we must assume copyright. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless he has legal precedent to back up his claims, it is armchair theory. Also, even if the papers published it under fair dealing or fair use beliefs, they did so legally - and thus it was legally published. So no, it doesn't "neatly circumvent the question the copyright", since it is tangential - nobody is suggesting these works should be hosted on WS because of "fair use", but because they were written without copyright notice, and published without copyright notice, prior to 1976 - thusit is presumed to be PD (just like a work published pre-1923), unless there is precedent suggesting otherwise Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use or fair dealing lets the publisher ignore copyright; it does not create a new copyright. It was never itself legally published, despite being quoted under fair dealing in a work that was legally published. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you yourself quote "the opinions of the courts", yet you have yet to cite a single case. If this work was legally published, it was in the United Kingdom, not in the U.S., so the template is atrociously placed. This is not the first time that you have misplaced a {{PD-US-no-notice}} template on an non-U.S. work: please refrain from doing it again. Delete. Physchim62 13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are works out there that have no legal precedent, welcome to the sadness of reality. We're forced to rely on the "common sense" belief that if we today have a copy of the Titanic's final telegram to shore, then it is likely because it was published in a newspaper at the time - can't prove it without having newspaper records of every newspaper published since the Titanic sank, of course - c'est la vie. There are things which are not ever published, such as Albert Fish's final statement, Charles Whitman's diary, those cannot be found, as they are lost to time and archive filings...but things like death threats sent to JFK are publicly available, implying they were released and published...presumably before 1976, and without copyright notice. If you know differently, by all means, say so. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are works that have no legal precedent allowing hosting under GFDL terms. I do not think this is a sad reality, though; we can simply exclude them until they fall into the public domain. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the issue is that the template is wrongly placed, in the case of Clementine Churchill, since you indicate that it was published in the UK, not the US - pre-1976 without copyright notice. Do you happen to know the copyright status of such works? We should focus on making more specific templates perhaps, than deleting things that are miscategorized. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
From the template: "legally published within the United States" (emp. in original) --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Albert Fish letter

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

I have found no publication information on Albert Fish letter or a reason why {{PD-US-no-notice}} applies. It is a private letter and there is no permission for publication given in the letter itself. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Leopold and Loeb ransom note and images

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Leopold and Loeb ransom note is currently marked with {{PD-US-no-notice}}. No publication or source information is given and I have found no permission for publication. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet despite the author not giving consent for publication (based on the fact it furthered their crime), it was published - which is what matters. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, please place any general discussion about publication under Clementine Churchill death threat above. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
One important question in these U.S. works is where they were purportedly published: if it was in a newspaper, then the template is inaccurate, as the work would have been covered by the copyright notice in the newspaper (see 17 U.S.C. old § 20). In any case, these works should be deleted as unsourced and anonymous, as per Wikisource inclusion policy (very clear on this point). Delete Physchim62 13:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson death threat and image

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

No publication information, no permission for publication. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet despite the author not giving consent for publication (based on the fact it furthered their crime), it was published - which is what matters. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, please place any general discussion about publication under Clementine Churchill death threat above. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

John F Kennedy death threat and images

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

No publication information, no permission for publication. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet despite the author not giving consent for publication (based on the fact it furthered their crime), it was published - which is what matters. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, please place any general discussion about publication under Clementine Churchill death threat above. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Herman Talmadge death threat and image

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

No publication information, no permission for publication. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet despite the author not giving consent for publication (based on the fact it furthered their crime), it was published - which is what matters. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, please place any general discussion about publication under Clementine Churchill death threat above. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The UK's Crown Copyright extends for fifty years after publication, but we are currently hosting a number of works that violate this. I would rather see a policy written that allows the inclusion of such texts, but they certainly don't fit within the doctrine of libre or "Free as in beer" or whatever else I'm hearing Wikisource preach...so let's either rethink our policies, delete everything that isn't "libre", or actually limit our modern texts to the (relatively tiny) amount of US Fed'l works, Polish Fed'l works, and works written by an activist who included an explicit release.

Here are the works protected by Crown Copyright, that I can find with fifteen minutes' work. Note that almost none of them have any "asserted compatible copyright templates". Note that it's likely, judging from our categorizatoin, that similar purges are overdue for African, Australian, Asian, Austraian, Canadian, Chilean, Chinese, French, German, Indian, Irish, Israeli, Italian, Scottish, and Soviet speeches. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete all along with Template:Legislation-UKGov, excepting any we find a compatible license template for. Crown copyright is not compatible, according to "British and Canadian laws" (Scriptorium) and w:Crown copyright#United_Kingdom. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. Some of these are under private copyright rather than Crown copyright, but they should all go. Physchim62 08:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all along with Template:Legislation-UKGov unless proven otherwise to be acceptable here.--Jusjih 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all along with the template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Five Blind Men and an Elephant and accompianing page Author:Reverend Loveshade

This version is from around 1995 no reason given why it should be PD but it has an old PD template on it. --BirgitteSB 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2007-01&oldid=14661079"