Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2009-01

Kept

The Graveyard by the Sea

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.

I added this translation by Cecil Day-Lewis. I couldn't find any entry in a copyright database. Yann 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And why would there need to be one? It's by an Anglo-Irish author translator (1904-1972) who published his first book of poetry in 1925; I see no real likelihood that it's in the public domain just about anywhere.--Prosfilaes 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright databases can search whether copyright was renewed, a requirement for books published between 1923-1963 that if not met, will result in the book being Public Domain. Also, I believe the author died in 1945, not 1972. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 00:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I was talking about the translator, not the author. Copyright renewal is only the case for certain books; the fact that the translator was Anglo-Irish makes it unlikely that renewal was necessary.--Prosfilaes 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This translation was certainly published in USA. It would be interesting to know how and when. Amazon gives a publication by Martin Secker & Warburg (1945). Yann 21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete This one is clear: even if the copyright on the U.S. translation has been orphaned, the underlying work remains copyrighted under French law. Unless Wikisource follows U.S. copyright law only? In which case the underlying work is pre-1923 PD. Durova (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikisource follows U.S. copyright law only. Yann (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, keep. Durova (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Jude (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Brigade

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

This purports to be from a book published in 1986, and thus protected by copyright. The claim that a directory cannot be copyright has no basis in law. If this is meant as a simple list of participants in the brigade rather than a book extract it is not within our scope. to suggest that all the persons on the list are authors defies imagination. Eclecticology (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. No legal basis has been provided for this list being a copyright violation. It can be moved to the Wikisource namespace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Your legal premise is false; everything is presumed copyright. I do admit that it would be relatively less harmful in Wikisource space. Eclecticology (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • I am not leaning on law when I ask you to provide a more detailed rationale for this being a copyright violation. You are the one who is saying that this page, disclosed in the notes to be a directory/extract, is a copyright violation. You brought it here, so it would be a courtesy to say why you believe it is a copyvio. The page even states that it is not a copyvio, so it seems obvious that you would need to tackle that head on if you wish to list it here. Note that it has already been speedied by Z and I restored it then[1] after waiting for feedback

      Title 17 gives a broad definition, and case law defines the details, as you well know. Copyright is limited constitutionally (US Const 1.8.8) to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" which has led to the threshold of originality. Do you believe that this list is a copyright violation? If so, state your reasoning.

      Please note that I raised the idea of it being moved to the Wikisource namespace 10 months ago; see Talk:Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Is this page any less of a copyright violation if it is in the Wikisource namespace? If so, state your reasoning. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

      Simply being a directory is not enough to free it from copyright protection, and putting a statement to that effect in the header notes does not make it so since anyone could add such a statement as a self-serving tactic. It is claimed to be a part of a 1986 work, and that alone suggests a copyright work. That author chose what contents would be included, and it was presumably that author's original decision to segregate the attendants, nurses, etc. in separate listings at the bottom.

      Yes, there was a discussion about this between you and Zhaladshar, but it's a sad fact of life that many of these private discussions between two Wikisourcerors are not noticed by anyone else until much later. Threshold of originality is not an easy concept, nor is the merger principle which does not allow copyright to prevent the transmission of the information content. Being the only published source may not be sufficient to prevent the use of the list;that was the point of the Feist case, but it does raise the question of whether it was an original compilation where the author used original selection criteria. A complete list might be included, but how are we to know that this list is complete?

      One difference between article space and Wikisource space is our ability to make substantive change to the content. In article space we are saying that this is the work of someone else which (irrespective of the copyright status) needs to have its integrity respected. If I believe that Ernest Hemingway or Errol Flynn (who were both in Spain at the time) should be on the list I cannot add them to the existing list where it is now, but I could add them in Wikisource space. Eclecticology (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

      Your suggestion for why this is less of a copyvio if it is in "Wikisource:" makes sense. We also have other "user created list" in the main namespace, such as NYT, Weird Tales, etc. I dont like them in the "Wikisource" namespace, as that is typically reserved for project pages. I prefer them in the main namespace, and the Portal namespace, so we dont have problems like Wikisource:Copyright and Wikisource:Copyright law being very different types of pages. I have in the past suggested we use a new namespace for these, like "Topic:" or perhaps even "Index:" (after moving the current index pages).

      Oddly enough, a few hours ago, I ran into Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007/02#Relationship of the family of Des Isles with Joan of Arc, which is about a similar type of page that lists people, consisting of "original research". It is much further down the "beyond scope" road, and is making me think about the practicality of keeping Abraham Lincoln Brigade. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

      This seems to be getting us into a much broader discussion than what would be involved in the copyright status of a single page, and probably even broader than the author page question that I have already split off. Even if we develop an "Index:" namespace we would not need to move other pages that begin with the word index without the colon. We would still need to allow for pages whose published title normally begins with the word index. I have myself worked on tables of contents for periodicals in the article namespace, so raising these issues makes me pause to think. Now that the proposal about transcription namespaces has been thrown into the mix we probably need to review the role of namespaces generally to bring their specific uses into focus. Eclecticology (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  So it would be an internal list? Is so, that seems ok. I doubt that duplicating a list for organizational purposes would be a copyright violation since that is not unique. FloNight (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  If it is not unique it should be possible to cite an alternative source for the same list, preferably an earlier one. Eclecticology (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. There will be official records relating to the majority of these people, which will trickle in over time if we encourage it by having these names on our website. We have had a number of new users and anons create author pages, and I know that one of these users came from a historical society in the United States, and they were going to encourage others to participate. Some of the contributions have been good enough to be transwiki'ed to Wikipedia, and other mini biogs listed works by the person, resulting in a typical author page. A few of the author pages dont list works; instead they say "mentioned in Abraham Lincoln Brigade". Those contributions would probably have been deleted on sight at Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  They should be deleted on sight here too. Author pages are for authors, and an absolute minimum for being an author should be that a person has written something, in a reasonably broad sense of that term. That someone was mentioned in a list for a reason other than authorship is no evidence at all, nor is the assumption that he must at some time in his life written a personal letter. To suggest that everyone on that list is an author is wishful thinking, and debases the notion of author pages. Eclecticology (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  We disagree on the scope and purpose of Author pages. I see them as a place to catalog "original works written by or about" a person, which is exactly what the Wikipedia template has said since November 2004. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that Author pages have works about the person as well as works by the person. If I know of works about the person, I include them on the author page. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of how we use author pages was fine here as long as long as it was only incidental to the page nominated for deletion. The discussion thus far on this has shown that a wider discussion is warranted, and I will continue this aspect on Scriptorium. Eclecticology (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would seem to me that to meet the requirements for posting to WS main space it would have to be a perfect copy and paste of the original work, which is a compiling of specific individuals who had never before be categorized together as the sole members of this group. That would make this a derivation work, which would be subject to copyright. The indivial names on the list can not be copyrighted and if used with other references to create a similar list then that would be ok, but not for the WS main space per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Original contributions, Jeepday (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

§ 103—Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

• Simple lists are not copyrightable under U.S. law. Substantial creative input would be necessary to claim copyright. A classic example is the difference between lists of ingredients and recipes. A mere list of ingredients, even with an imperfect transcription, could not be covered by copyright. But a recipe with the same ingredients that includes quantities with preparation and cooking instructions has creative input and would be copyrightable. Regardless of when this list was first published, it is merely a list. It might or might not be within project scope but copyright isn't a problem. Durova (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept. We're discussing whether or not this is a copyright violation. I don't see any evidence that it is. If we're going to discuss whether or not it is appropriate for Wikisource, that should happen at WS:PD. Jude (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Field of Boliauns

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The original, possibly in Gaelic, would no doubt be PD, but there is no indication of where the English came from. Eclecticology (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, Published in 1892 in English, it takes 45 seconds to start a call for deletion, 45 seconds to do a Google search on a random sentence in the text to find publication date.Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 09:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Sofixit! Your precious 45 seconds could be reduced if you didn't spend any of it on needless sarcasm. Eclecticology (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • My precious 45 seconds is better spent reminding other users not to waste my 45 seconds and do the basic footwork themselves. If you invest 45 seconds in the deletion nomination, and I invest ten seconds to fix it, or five seconds to give a shitty vote, that's still more collaboratively wasted time than if the first person to think of nominating it for deletion had simply entered a google search for 45 seconds -- meaning the project would see less wasted effort. Really, my sarcasm saves time. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 06:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm delighted that the article could find a champion to save it, since it appears that the original contributor is no longer active. I promise that I will keep making nominations like this in the future. I still believe in the principle that the needed substantiation for keeping an article is ultimately the contributor's responsibility. Once the contributor is no longer available anyone else can accept responsibility for what needs to be done, as you have done with this article. If no-one wants to accept that responsibility no-one is obliged to do so, and the deletion process will succeed as it should. Your spurious arguments that someone else has wasted your time do not gain my sympathy for you as a victim. You chose to "waste" your time out of your own free will. Eclecticology (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you might misunderstand our deletion policy, we do not delete every text added by an inactive user unless a "champion" arrives to save it. Quite the contrary, we keep every text added unless the nominator can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a violation. If your nominations won't stand up to 45 seconds fact-checking with Google, I suggest you're wasting your (and our) time. If you have concerns with a text, please do the bare minimum of legwork first yourself to see if it needs further attention. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 21:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per Sherurcij. Celtic fairy tales, 1892. p26-29. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Resignation letter of Jogendra Nath Mandal

The following discussion is closed:

Kept Jeepday (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, The author died in 1956. The date of publication is not mentioned. Yann (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What copyright do you think applies? Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to w:Jogendra Nath Mandal,

“

fleeing to Kolkata, he sent his letter of resignation in October 1950

”

. However, based on the content of the letter, I'm guessing PD-manifesto? Jude (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure if the Copyright Act, 1957 applies or if the earlier 1911 version does, assuming 1957 is retro or 1911 is similar enough on this topic. Not sure if this could be considered a government work, but per Wikipedia "Unlike some countries like the US, governmental works (of India) are copyrighted." so government work would not lead to PD, and the copyright is 60 years dependent on publishing. Unless someone is claiming {{PD-GovEdict}} applies (and I can't see how) the only possible PD might be {{PD-manifesto}} as suggested by Jude. Otherwise it does not come into PD until 2016 with {{PD-old-60}} (or 2010 if you can show published in 1950, sent does not equal published). Can or does anyone want to make a case for {{PD-manifesto}} to apply? Jeepday (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess {{PD-manifesto}} should be appropriate. I think it was an open letter, but i couldn't find any source confirming it.Sumanch (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{PD-manifesto}}. Has anyone got any objections to that, or other thoughts relating to its copyright? Jude (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Zimbabwean power-sharing agreement

The following discussion is closed:

Kept Jeepday (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that this fits under {{PD-GovEdict}}, and I cant find the legal justification for {{PD-ZimGovDoc}}. w:Official text copyright indicates this would be PD, as does the 1966 law. There is a 2000 law, but I cant find that. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• It looks to me like Copyright in Publications of the State indicates that {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} is wrong and that copyright falls to the president on all government works for 50 years (we should probably research and adjust the template). On the other hand one of the authors/signors is w:Robert Mugabe the president of the country so I think {{PD-GovEdict}} would apply, according the w:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and w:Official text copyright "The Convention indicates that it shall be left to the discretion of each member country of the Berne Convention to determine the protection to be granted to such official texts in that country", as we know in each member country the copyright of the nation of use apply, in this case the US (servers being in Florida and all). So I think it is PD per {{PD-GovEdict}}. Jeepday (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The tag {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-ZimGovDoc) is only used on two articles this one and Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia), I placed {{PD-GovEdict}} on Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia), as there is no question it applies. I am going to post {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} at Wikisource:Proposed deletions. Jeepday (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung

The following discussion is closed:

Kept Jeepday (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally tagged this as {{Move to wikiquote}}, but looking at it again, it is actually a well published book: w:Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong. And it is a sufficiently complicated case, as it might even come under the Chinese "official text"? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• My reading of the official text template is that this would fall under it, being Government published etc. Giggy (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WS:COPYVIO(2006-11)#Poems by Mao Zedong covers similar territory, and the opinion of the day was delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: Poems by Mao Zedong John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lean to delete: The first publication was in 1964 by PLA Daily. Critically reading Article 5 of Chinese copyright law in original simplified Chinese, I am afraid that the work does not qualify for {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, so I am asking at the Chinese Wikisource Scriptorium. My doomsday scenario is that if not convinced to be PD-PRC-exempt, the Chinese text will be posted at Canadian Wikilivres since 2015 to bypass American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. For the English translation, having unknown translator further warrants its deletion here.--Jusjih (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Inclined to keep. In the historical circumstances these are as close to government edicts as one can expect, given that the "Little Red Book" was required study at the time. This can easily be distinguished from the poems, which would be of a more personal nature. I would also not give much weight to the lack of identified translator; this was published in several languages by the PRC government itself and freely available as a way of promoting itself overseas. Eclecticology (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep if reasonable searches indicate no named translator and probable PRC translation. Otherwise delete. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 10:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Update, I have a 1972 official PRC translation at home -- it has some chinese characters on "the copyright page", I'll try to get it scanned to let one of you translate whether it says anything like "Copyrighted by..." or not. If it doesn't use the word copyright, and just gives publishing details, I say we keep the current one (assuming translation text matches) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mysterious Island

The following discussion is closed:

Kept Jeepday (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A new user has noted that this could be a copyvio, and it looks like it is worth discussing. w:The Mysterious Island agrees that the translation by "I. O. Evans" was published in 1959. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• A random check of the this probably PD work, http://books.google.com/books?id=gosoDqvVDN8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22The+Mysterious+Island%22&as_brr=1&client=firefox-a#PPP1,M1 The Mysterious Island By Jules Verne Published by Plain Label Books, 1900 ISBN 1603035206, 9781603035200 493 pages. Looks like a perfect match. The page listed as the source http://www.online-literature.com/verne/mysteriousisland/ did not list a translator that I found. Seems the question is "Is the version on Wikisource PD and if so who is the translator?" Jeepday (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• If it has an ISBN, it's not 1900. Plain Label Books has a habit of just pouring a PG text into print without any concept of reformatting it for print, and other unsavoury habits. I suspect they could grabbed this one from Project Gutenberg.

• In any case, I think the new user was correct. Look at this bibliography of English translations of Jules Verne, which conveniently provides the starting sentences for all the English translations; the Evans book is the first one to start out “Are we rising again?”. Unfortunately, the rest of the text provided is identical, modulo capitalization and punctuation, in the Kingston translation and the Evans translation, and neither exactly matches our text, and one of the Kingston editions ...

• Okay, we seem to be the same as The Gutenberg text, which the author of the above bibliography has on his website as being the translation by Kingston. As the bibliography proves, they start pretty similarly, which makes them easy to mistake for each other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Hypothesis

The following discussion is closed.

Hello, Text tagged with "Copyright (C) 2000-2008 by Vernon Nemitz (Copyright shared with all who retain the previous line)". I don't think that is sufficient or equivalent to a free license. I might be wrong through, as the contributor Objectivist claims otherwise. Yann (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, that looks like an assignment of copyright rather than a licence. IANAL, but in many countries, shared copyright may only be exercised jointly. If that is indeed the case here, it is not a free work. For example, in order to make commercial use of the work, you'd have to ask all other copyright holders whether you may do so. Probably, you'd have to share your profits with them.--GrafZahl (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not necessarily the case. Without going too deeply into this, (since Nemitz claims to be the sole author) it has been my consistent reading that any one of joint authors can exercise the rights independently. Part of the confusion seems to be with Nemitz's introduction of the novel term "shared copyright." Eclecticology (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Biggest problem, to me, is that it doesn't seem to be within Wikisource's ambit. It doesn't seem to have been formally published anywhere. As for the license, Objectivist says "as the sole author I most certainly know what it means to share a copyright, which is literally the "right to copy", with all who retain the copyright notice", but it's not merely the right to copy; among other things, it's the right to change the words. As long as he's here, I think it much better for him to provide a license that's clear to everyone; CC-Attribution license would probably meet his needs, if he wants to make it a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The apparent previous publication in Infinite Energy is prima facie evidence of publication unless someone intends to challenge the existence of that publication. He is certainly wrong to suggest, as he does on his user talk page, that we are obliged to accept his works, even if they conform perfectly with our policies. We would probably be quite amenable to including such works, but we would not raise that amenability to the level of an obligation.

The concept of "shared copyright" as Nemitz uses it seems to mean that he would share those rights with those who would use his article in the future. The moral right to attribution is essentially already recognized (perhaps imperfectly) in the GFDL, so in that regard his condition is a redundancy. For our puposes we want to represent an author's work as accurately as we can, so we allow no substantive modifications on our site. That requirement does not extend to downstream users, though those users who make modifications are required to credit the original author, and may receive equal credit for their modifications. This could be interpreted as a "shared copyright", but not an exclusive one.

I don't think that our hosting the article is a copyright violation, but I also don't think that we can accept his redundant and confusing condition. If he wants us to host the article that condition must be deleted. Eclecticology (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we dont permit "invariant sections". Also, we require peer review as well as publication in our inclusion criteria; It looks like Infinite Energy meets that criteria as well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure. This looks like full copyright with generous republication terms, and the essential difference between that and copyleft is that republication permission can be revoked. That hasn't been acceptable to other WMF projects where I'm active. Does Wikisource follow a different practice? Durova (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We only accept free content, so we need the copyright holder to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org to verify that they agree to license it under the terms of one of the "free content" licenses described in that policy page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do that. I just didn't know enough about how to indicate the document was being made available. I also did not see a simple way to specify such a thing when I originally posted the document. (After posting some comments about that, my Log-In Account disappeared. Not nice!) Perhaps the unavailability of a simple way to specify document-sharing was because I, the author of the document, did not log into WikiSource under my own name? Anyway, let me here-and-now clearly indicate what the phrase "Copyright shared with all who retain the previous line" was about: I am sharing the right to make copies of the document with anyone who includes the copyright line in the copy. The result is, no matter where a copy of the document ends up, the I-the-author would remain associated with it. I did not want somebody replacing my name with theirs and claiming credit for the Hypothesis. Simple. Perhaps TOO simple, if this much discussion has been a result! (Perhaps some of the problem is that after entering the text with the copyright statement on one line, and the copyright-shared statement on the next line, the two lines got merged onto one line? I will add a line-break!)

I don't know what you mean by saying your log-in account was deleted. User:Objectivist still exists and doesn't appear to be blocked; you were probably just logged out automatically. Your expanded license doesn't fix one of my major complaints; to be hosted on Wikisource, it must not merely be copyable, it must be editable. For example, someone must have the right to dissect it, rearrange the pieces, and add commentary to show why cold fusion is absurd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to log in and got a message saying the account did not exist. This happened AGAIN, after posting my prior message above, and then logging out. On this particular posting occasion, I took a different tack, first pulled up the account-verification email, clicked the link in that email, and THEN tried to log in. That worked. Could this be related to not checking the "Remember me on this computer" checkbox?

Next topic: When I posted the cold-fusion-hypothesis article, at that time I was under the impression that WikiSource was such that Wikipedia could consider to be a reliable place to hold source-reference articles. In other words, if in Wikipedia a link is created to an external reference, and preferably a Web reference, then WikiSource could hold that reference, such that anyone reading the Wikipedia article could follow the link and read the reference article. HOW CAN THAT BE POSSIBLE IF ANY ARTICLE HERE CAN BE HACKED APART BY SOME VESTED INTEREST THAT OPPOSES IT? (For a more blatant sort of "conspiracy" claim, consider the possibility of some opponent of an idea using "possible copyright infringement" as an excuse to prevent the idea from being visible....) What IS the actual purpose of WikiSource, if it is essentially (as implied by Prosfilaes) another battleground of edit-and-undo, like Wikipedia? Would it not make more sense for an opposing viewpoint to have its own article here, for Wikipedia to reference? Or, what if the original text of some controversial article is locked, but appending to it is allowed, so that the original text can be debated without being edited into more-complete-nonsense than any detractor would claim originally existed in it? Is there ANY place in WikiMedia that can do the thing I thought WikiSource was set up to do???

Wikisource exists to preserve texts, but only free ones, in the sense that they can be edited at will. They can't be changed on Wikisource, but we ask that they can be taken from Wikisource and changed off-wiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand that point, but it still means some opponent of an idea can take an original posting, no matter how preserved here at WikiSource, hack it into blatantly-obvious nonsense, and then post it in umpteen places on the Web with the claim that the edited document is the original document, and no-one should be so foolish as to trust the copy at WikiSource. Consider a case that apocryphally happened once with the text of one printed edition of the Bible, in which the "adultery Commandment" had the word "not" removed from it. In a scenario in which that edition had been deliberately widespread and (obviously) argued-about for, say, a hundred million years, who could at that late time be SURE which version of that Commandment was the original, when no traces of any real originals would have survived? So, why does WikiSource embrace ONLY copying policies that would allow such a thing? What's WRONG about allowing postings that can simply/only be copied freely???? I chose WikiSource as a place to post this, over, say, a Google "Knol", simply because I knew the article could pass the "formally published" test in a way that, if referenced by a Wikipedia article, no anti-idea/vested-interest Wikipedia editor could get away with deleting the reference. Having an INDISPUTABLY original text here is valuable. For WikiSource to insist that such a text must be trash-able, even if only outside of WikiSource, is counterproductive, is it not?

Libel laws will stop people from claiming that you wrote what you didn't better than copyright law, which won't stop completely made up text in any case. Wikisource:Copyright policy makes the demand that text be editable, whether you feel it's counterproductive or not, and here is not the place to argue that it should be changed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent). I see where you're coming from. I think that I can also fairly state that anyone regularly associated with Wikisource consistently supports the integrity of the author's text, some even to an extent that others consider excessive in matters of typography. Nevertheless there exists a basic stratum that all of us support. Wikisourcerors are not in a position to pass judgement, for or against, cold fusion, and, by recognizing that, we have fewer NPOV arguments than Wikipedia. With or without your additional statement about copyright, we have no control over the activities of downstream users. To the extent that a text here is licensed rather than public domain the author retains copyright, and if that text becomes a victim of downstream abuse you retain the right to sue the abuser. There is nothing in the licence by which the Wikimedia Foundation acquires the standing to sue on your behalf. Furthermore, your legitimate concern is about the "moral" right of textual integrity, something which is only symbolically recognised in US copyright law; the provisions there mention it but take pains to insure that the violation of moral rights incurs no penalties.

Supplementary provisions with uncertain and often unintended legal interpretations and consequences, such as "shared copyright" only make the landscape of free licences more difficult. We already witness difficulties reconciling GFDL and CC, even though at the root the same result is sought. Eclecticology (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, let me ask if this can be acceptable; I don't see wording like this in the lists of example licences:

"This work is licensed as follows:
 1. It may be freely copied, in whole or in part.
 2. The author of the copied work must be identified.
 3. Any copied parts of the work may be modified freely, provided:
   A. They are clearly marked as being a modification of the original work.
   B. At least one link to the original work is included."

I think that would adequately address my concerns. Perhaps other authors would like this license, too. Whether or not it is too demanding for WikiSource, though....—unsigned comment by Objectivist (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2008.

Please take a look at the "Creative Commons - Attribution" license, which provides basically what you have described, but it is a license which has been created by lawyers and it is "well known", which means the benefits and weaknesses of it have been discussed to death on forums across the Internet. You can read about it on Wikipedia: w:Creative Commons and w:Creative Commons licenses. And, here is the "Legal code" for you to inspect. I think you will find it meets your needs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty good/close to what I wrote above. However, it is not clear if Section 4c requires a link to be provided to the original work. I consider that to be more important than the requirements of 4d, simply because if the work is labeled as modified, and if the original is easily accessible via a link, then anyone encountering a negatively modified version can quickly compare it to the original, thereby discovering the various ways in which the modified version had been negatively distorted. It seems to me that requiring such a link would provide greater protection against such modifications than Section 4d. What liars want their lies exposed so easily? (And, of course, any such liar who fails to include the link can be sued for violating the license!) Well, let me know if I have misinterpreted Section 4c, thanks.

One reason that requiring a link to the original work is unacceptable is that doing so essentially forbids anyone from creating modified works outside of the internet. A pamphlet derived from your work cannot link to the original copy. Neither can abridged spoken recording for the blind, etc. On the other hand a person that does not speak English would not find mere inspection of the orginal work as much protection from a harmful French version as what is given by the CC license.--BirgitteSB 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's why lawyers get paid to word things very carefully. Here we are on the Web and it is easy to think of accessibility in terms of Web hyperlinks. However, technically, such a link is an address or "access pathway", a kind of road to follow to reach a specific thing. If a modified work published in a pamphlet included a description of the publication information of the original work, then that also is a kind of link. Yes, such would not be a way to rapidly access the original work, but it is better than nothing (and even a printed-on-paper Web hyperlink/address, of, say, the WikiSource copy of the work, is better than nothing). My point is, the person who encounters a modified work should be given sufficient information to access the original "published" version of the work, somehow. (Example: "This work is a modification of a painting known as "The Mona Lisa", by Leonardo da Vinci. The original is located at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France.") Then it is up to that person to choose to investigate the original or not (including not clicking on a Web hyperlink). In the case of a mistranslated work, access to the original version EVENTUALLY means access to a reasonably accurate translation. So, is there no License out there that can meet my preferences in this matter? Thanks in advance! Objectivist (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It all comes down to a question of enforcement. Whatever licensing you or we may designate, it's still only as strong as your willingness to go to court against anyone who violates the terms of that licence. Disney's power of pap does not derive from putting copyright notices on their productions, but from their willingness to be complete jerks when they take someone to court for violating their rights. "Sharing" the rights does not impose any obligation to enforce. Eclecticology (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many many licenses, with lots of minor variations; FAL might be what you want, as it requires:

“

You have the right to distribute copies of this work; whether modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with or without any charge, provided that you: specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals, including yours if you have modified the work, specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent).

”

However, I dont think the Wikisource community has agreed to accept documents contributed under FAL. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikisource community has never really formally agreed to accept documents under any specific license. We generally only ask for agreement to delete things. Is there any reason to argue that FAL fails WS:COPY?--BirgitteSB 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Well, there's one simple way to find out. The FAL looks OK to me. I'll send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org mentioning that license, and see what happens. Thank you, all! Objectivist (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons seems to use this license without controversy, so I imagine you are in good shape.--BirgitteSB 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, except I sent the email several days ago and the article still is flagged as a possible copyright violator. When will it be fixed? (after which, of course, this section of this page can be deleted)??? Thanks! (by Objectivist, although not logged in)

It should be taken care by an OTRS volunteer shortly. Then we will just have see if anyone comes along and objects to the FAL in principle. I think it should be fine, but it is the first time I am aware of anyone using that license here so there is always an uncertainty with something unfamiliar.--BirgitteSB 03:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW it will stay marked as under discussion for copyright violation a bit longer. That tag will be removed when this discussion is closed. It will probably be open a few more days to see if anyone raises further objections.--BirgitteSB 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've confirmed that this work is licensed under the FAL, which is a free license. While the FAL does meet the definition of a free-content license, I do not know whether that is acceptable for text, nor whether Wikisource can accept it. For example, there may be compatibility issues. Thanks – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Any free license, including FAL, is fine for me, so I think that this case can be closed. Yann (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that this is primary research. As such, there may be scope issues. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain that in more detail? The published article is a "hypothesis", defined in the article as being "just a guess, an attempt to create an explanation for certain observations." A number of known facts are described in the article, and then are assembled into the hypothetical explanation. This cannot be worse than, in any "hard science" science-fiction novel, the attempt to create a plausible explanation for how some fantastical device is supposed to work (say a disintegrator ray).

Mike is not familiar with the scope of Wikisource and his concerns are unfounded. There is no question that the document is within the scope of Wikisource.--BirgitteSB 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[de-indenting] Thank you. Now it's almost two weeks later, and the article is still flagged as problematic. How long is "a few more days" around here?

Principia Discordia

The following discussion is closed:

kept Jeepday (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides this being utter blithering nonsense, there is nothing here to indicate that the author has complied with any kind of normal licensing process. It even seems that the contributor tried to blank it at one time, but that was reversed. Eclecticology (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Utter blithering nonsense is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I don't know what you mean by "any kind of normal licensing process"--since when has any of the licenses acceptable to Wikisource been part of the normal licensing process?--but (a) I think it's fairly clear that the authors intended to put it into the public domain and (b) as it was in fact first published in the United States prior to 1989 without a proper copyright notice, it has fallen into the public domain whether or not the authors so intended it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the 17th century The Farce of Sodom, or The Quintessence of Debauchery Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCrae} 14:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep, it was published four times before 1971 without copyright registration or notice, so easily falls into the {{PD-US-no-notice}} bucket. LOC still doesnt have a registration of this work! Interestingly, Kerry Thornley has one post-1978 registration, for The Anarch cookbook : a friendly guide to vampire politics OCLC:173318901^{all editions} ISBN 1565040481. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised if that is the law, as as far as I know copyright is deemed to lie with the writers by default, whether they formally say so or not (?) We can't assume they meant it to be in the public domain in any other sense than that every author wants their work to be widely read.Sticky Parkin (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The law at the time was publish and distribute without a copyright notice, was a formal release to public domain. Jeepday (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought is Your Enemy

The following discussion is closed:

kept Jeepday (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved from Wikisource:Proposed deletions since the clear purpose is to challenge the current copyright status of the designated works.

Appears to be copyvio - notice the publisher info at the top. It may be prudent to doublecheck the other pages listed at Author:U. G. Krishnamurti as well. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Mystique of Enlightenment
• Courage to Stand Alone
• Mind is a myth
• No Way Out
• Thought is Your Enemy
• The Sage and the Housewife
• Stopped in Our Tracks: Stories of U.G. in India
• The Natural State
• Science and U.G.

Adding these as well, I do not see any confirmation or verification where these were released to public domain, they appear to be copyvio. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That was already discussed here: Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2008-09#Author:U._G._Krishnamurti. Yann (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That does not seem to be sufficient for free-use purposes. It would be best to delete these until confirmation can be obtained somehow from the publisher of the works. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The link given by Yann also contains a further link to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007-04#Works of Author:U. G. Krishnamurti. Since this matter has already been discussed and the material kept twice the pre-emptive deletion often applied in possible copyvio situations would not be appropriate. We need to appreciate that the unusual circumstances of Krishnamurti's works will repeatedly give rise to such challenges, and a pre-emptive deletion whenever a new challenge is launched would not respect previous discussions. I don't believe that I participated in either previous discussion on this, but I concur with the results. Eclecticology (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Krishnamurti's statement: My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody. - does not seem sufficient for WMF purposes of free-use. Would this type of material be allowed on Wikimedia Commons? His statement is non-specific and several questions are not answered and not explicit enough. For example: What does he mean when he says "My teaching" ? All of his books and anything he ever wrote? Or just courses? Lectures? Writings to students? This is not clear. See Commons:Email templates and the type of release language given there, and how different it is and more explicit. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not bring new information regarding the copyright status of Krishnamurti's works since the last discussion. Yann (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think the points I raise were discussed in depth in prior discussions. Cirt (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Has anyone actually brought this by review with a copyright attorney who is familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License and the requirements for WMF projects, free-use, etc.? Cirt (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  You're free to bring this to your favorite copyright attorney if you feel that it is the right thing to do. Maybe the rest of us realize that at times we just have to make common sense decisions based on the information available to us. This does not require us to go to extremes to be absolutely sure that we can't use something. I would take the above quote from Krishnamurti at its face value. What it would take to override the current interpretation of "all" is some evidence that Krishnamurti himself or his legal successors have taken steps to establish a contrary opinion. Speculation by persons without legal standing are of no consequence. Eclecticology (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I know it's not really a "poll", but I agree that this is an issue which resurfaces every month and it's getting tiring seeing it - especially because we need to keep harrassing newbies/outsiders to "confirm" and jump through hoops for us -- and they do all this effort to help US confirm things fit OUR standards, and then two months later we're back doing the same thing it seems. Without any evidence something is copyrighted, I assume it is free to use. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's wrong; it's like assuming it's okay to shoot someone unless there's evidence it isn't. The presumption in the law goes the other way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the law. Unless there is evidence that my putting "$45,000" on my tax forms is illegal, it is assumed to be legal. Anything copyrighted will have a trail proving thus; but one cannot prove a negative very easily, if at all. Hence, it works to state that things are assumed to be Public Domain unless they fit into criteria X, Y or Z, or clear evidence is shown that it is a special case. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 09:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at section 34.1 of the Copyright Act of Canada. In tax law, it is not illegal to claim $45,000 in non-existent income, and pay tax on that money; there is no law against foolishness. It is, however, illegal to claim deductions for $45,000 in expenses that you never had. Eclecticology (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is exactly my point. The laws us what is not legal. That which is not listed by the law, is assumed to be legal. In short, "assuming it's okay to shoot someone unless there's evidence it isn't" = right, "The presumption in the law goes the other way" = wrong. It is alright to shoot someone, as long as it is not in contradiction to any of the illegal reasons/ways to shoot someone. The presumption in the law is that any action is legal, unless defined as illegal. It does not presume illegality. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, in most copyright laws, the burden of the proof is in the accusation. What standards do we apply here is another issue, but actually we go further than that in most cases: we require that the uploader brings a proof that the work is free. Yann (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I respect the above comments given, and if current consensus is that these writings and this particular permission given by this deceased author is appropriate for inclusion in this project, I do not object. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• I would not be concerned about this. The author's statement appearing to divest himself of copyright in his "teachings" is certainly broad enough that any court would find that a reasonable person would be led by those words to understand that all literary works made by the author to that point have been dedicated to the public domain. BD2412 T 06:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Summer Dreams

The following discussion is closed:

kept Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough to bluntly state that the magazine is in the business of publishing PD material. I looked at Savant, and there is nothing there that says anything of the sort; there is not even a link to the magazine's website (if it has one). Such PD claims should be traceable. Eclecticology (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's contact information for Savant magazine's owner. Probably best to hunt him down and ask him. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly a valid point and, even though I know this is the case, I removed the offending statement about publishing only public domain works. However, I have a copy of the work in question in front of me and there is no copyright. The inclusion criteria for Published in the US have the entry, 1978-1 March 1989, whereby works with no notice or subsequent registration are in the public domain. However there is no Copyright tag that matches this criteria, which is why I chose the tag I did. My mistake...so what tag would reflect this criteria? The tag PD-US-no-notice would have been my choice except that it reflects dates before 1977, which leaves this work out. Thanks Meksikatsi (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there no copyright notice on the article itself, or the entire magazine? Or do I misunderstand what type of publication it is? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The poem is one of 12 in a book of poetry by the same author and there is no copyright notice. There are several books of poetry of this type by different authors all of which were published by Savant at different dates and none have copyright notices. I had intended to enter all of the poems in each volume and connect them once they were entered. Savant published works were meant to be part of the public domain but I cannot verify this by document...yet. The magazine Savant published was Apercus or something like that but these books of poetry were separate published works. There are also some treatises and other papers but they are all too long to enter and I don't know how to digitized them. Meksikatsi (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A "no-notice" tag would be more appropriate than one which makes a positive claim that the work has been put into the public domain. The absence of a tag dealing with the 1978-89 period appears to be an oversight. Eclecticology (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "no-notice-post-1977" tag created to fix oversight and applied to article for peer review. Meksikatsi (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Kept in part/Deleted in part

Author:Keith Olbermann

The following discussion is closed:

kept in part, Links to copyvio have been removed Jeepday (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything on that page is taken from Olbermann's show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann. There is no evidence that his commentary is public domain or available under a licence compatible with Wikisource. There's a list of Keith Olbermann's special comments on enwiki, and a quick check of one of them shows that it says "© 2008 MSNBC Interactive" at the bottom of the page.--Shanel (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• All deleted. Clear violation speedied. Eclecticology (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Do we want this Author page? We could link to the transcripts provided by the copyright holder? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  The author page itself is not a copyvio, and this person clearly wrote things, even if it's not likely we will be able to include much of his work in our lifetimes. The argument for keeping this one is stronger than for some of the early popes. It all comes down to the extent to which we want to be a bibliographical resource. Bibliography is a wonderful endeavour, but if all we have is bibliography, with little or no texts of the works listed there, we could be undermining our primary purpose and value with what is little more than an extensive want-list. Eclecticology (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What about all the youtube links? Are they appropriate? These, for example. And there are others in a bunch of the Obama speeches, too; example. And there are a large number of msnbc links. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The MSNBC links are fine, as they are the copyright holder. OTOH, Youtube links are likely to be copyright violations. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So it would be reasonable to cut the the youtube links wo/viewing them? I've no bandwidth for that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think we should spend a lot of time analyzing most YouTube links for copyright status, there is no benefit from keeping those that duplicate a legitimate link. Eclecticology (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just cut the youtube links from the Olbermann page; there are still 40 extant youtube links —a fair number of them recent additions to Obama texts; tbd. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted

Pacem in Terris

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Issued in 1963 by Pope John XXIII, many other Encyclicals on the Vatican website say they are © Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The latin wikisource believes it is copyright until 2034 which is 70 years after the death of the pope. Afraid I don't know much about copyright so brought it here. Suicidalhamster 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Papal statements were not originally copyrighted until the last five years, when the Vatican announced a policy shift. As I recall, they hit a stumbling block on the retroactivity of their policy, and I don't recall how it worked out in the end. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: William Lyon Mackenzie King} 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/23/catholicism.religion http://www.zenit.org/article-13176?l=english And finally http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_en.html which appears to be the decree itself. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to say that the Vatican doesn't own the copyright for the past 50 years of papal documents, and can't therefore begin to enforce/transfer it. Jude (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, being asked to look a bit further into this, I found mention that they seem to consider Papal works from 1978 onward copyrighted, which is enough to push me to a Keep. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer} 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced myself... They're just saying that policies have remained unchanged since 1978, not that things weren't copyrighted before then. I've yet to find an actual copy of the 1978 policy, however. Jude (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with Jude's interpretation. Leaning to delete. Giggy (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not a fan of retroactive legal alterations that place formerly public domain works under copyright, it appears that the Vatican has the right to do so. Regretfully leaning toward delete. Durova (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. I've split discussion of Rerum Novarum into another subheading. Jude (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Desiderata

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Hello, This new work from 1927 has a copyright renewal: [2]. Yann (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is legal to go to Wikilivres, but it does seem ineligible here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied there, can be deleted here. Yann (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's a classic example of something that everyone believes to be PD, but isn't. Eclecticology (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• D Concur w/Eclecticology. KillerChihuahua (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted but I just entered "1927+95=2024" in the deleting reason. It should be copyrighted until 2022.--Jusjih (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

USPS News Release: Eid Stamp Reissued

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just want to double-check if press releases from the United States Postal Service are public domain. Technically the USPS is an agency of the United States federal government and so its productions are those of the federal government, and yet it retains copyright over stamps produced post-1978. There may be an issue because it is also an "independent agency of the United States government". Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to w:United States Postal Service#Copyright and reproduction, quoting [3] (206.02b), "Works of the U.S. Postal Service, as now constituted, are not considered U.S. Government works" and are protected by copyright. Angr 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Request speedy deletion. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Angr 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Restored, at least temporarily. Three hours is not adequate time for discussion of this important topic. (I've been chastised myself for deleting articles after a full week.) I was unable to find anything in the Copyright Act to substantiate the position that it is not a government work. What is the legal status of the 1984 compendium that was cited above? Eclecticology (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well if you are going to restore the page, might as well please restore the talk page as well, at least until this is sorted. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed and done. (I hadn't known there was one before.) I just noticed that the news bulletin linked from the talk page did not itself have a copyright notice. Eclecticology (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for this confusion. :( Cirt (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• This really requires a more serious look at the question of press releases. In this case the page did not have a copyright notice, and though I recognize that a notice does not determine copyright status in either direction, some attention needs to be given to the purpose of press releases. Eclecticology (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The 120 days of Sodom

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted Jeepday (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user has confirmed on the talk page that this is a translation by Austryn Wainhouse, and the "date of the copyright is 1966" which would be these editions. However "Pieralessandro Casavini" is an alias of Wainhouse, and there are pre-1964 editions, with no renewals. My guess is that Wainhouse only used "Pieralessandro Casavini" for w:Olympia Press in Paris, and I suspect that this item wasnt published in the U.S. because I cant find these earlier editions in the LOC catalog. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We may be coming down to the definition of published. They probably didn't openly publish it in the US or register it for copyright, which could have made them open to obscenity prosecution. What they did was probably legally publishing, but it would take some serious investigation to establish that copies were sold to a broad enough audience to count as published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted, no indication of PD status, Jeepday (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Letters of the Seer

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted Jeepday (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent translation. See [4]. Yann (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The email address kyliea@internet-australia.com no longer works. I have sent a message to "Kylie Hobbs on facebook in case that is the same person. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

InterNACHI page is not a copyvio I have explicit permission from the author to use it and post it. It should not be deleted.

To the IP editor: the problem is that Wikisource operates under a license that isn't compatible with traditional single-purpose 'republished by permission' rationales. If you're in direct contact with the author, suggest you ask for a relicense under Creative Commons CC-by or CC-by-sa. Durova (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that CC-BY or CC-BY-SA were compatible with the terms of the GFDL, or accepted on Wikisource for text. Jude (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

They're sufficiently compatible for images, video, and sound. If that's any different for text, I'm not aware of it. There wouldn't appear to be any inherent reason for such an exception. Durova (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

De Anima (Aristotle)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This was created as On the Soul, and it was discussed at WS:S(2008-08)#Copyright question. There I said it should be speedy deleted, but here we are. ;-) According to the DJVU on archive.org, which is probably also a copyvio, I quoted in the previous discussion that Vol. 3 was first published in 1931, and the title page of De Anima between pages 401b and 402a repeats "1931". Quoting more of the preface.

“

I have to thank Mr. George Brown, Lecturer in Logic in the University of Glasgow, for kindly reading the proof-sheets of the De Anima, as he did those of the Physics.

”

Others suggested that it was first published in 1908, but mostly based on bibliographic records of other works in this volume which are listed at Works of Aristotle. The preface to this volume explains that the various components were written at different times, and it is probable that some where printed prior to the complete volume, however I doubt that Smiths work was. In Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 25 (Jan., 1932), pp. 99[5][6], a G. C. Field reviews "The Works of Aristotle: De Anima by Aristotle; J. A. Smith" saying

“

it is the final volume of the Oxford Translations of Aristotle which were begun nearly a quarter of a century ago.

”

and

“

Those who know the long and profound study that Professor Smith has devoted to this particular work will rejoice that at least this much of its results has been given to the world. They will hope that we may yet see the definitive edition of the work from the same hand.

”

The review seems to clearly come from the point of view of someone recently given the opportunity to review the work, and reads as if announcing the work to those yet unaware of it.

An earlier edition is not found in this Bibliography, and I cant find any reference to an earlier version by Smith.

However, this and others of The Works of Aristotle were republished in the United States as The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941), which is also on archive.org. That work doesnt appear under "Richard McKeon" in the Stanford copyright renewal database, however if we consider the texts within it to not need renewal due to the URAA, Internet Archive is hosting yet another a copyright violation :). On the Soul appears on pp. 535-603 of that work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Review of WS:S(2008-08)#Copyright question, Leaves several points of copyright status in question, While the work might be PD it also might not be, I am erring on the side of caution and deleting. If the published work can be shown to be Public Domain the body of work on WS can be restored.Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The dotCommunist Manifesto

The following discussion is closed:

deleted Jeepday (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the beginning of this video, the copyright owner of the speech (or maybe the reconding) is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the license is CC-by-nc-sa of unspecified version. Should this transcription be removed? --Hdh (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• We generally do not accept "nc" licences. Eclecticology (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Exported the edit history of the page and its talk page to Canadian Wikilivres: where non-commercial license is accepted. The page may be deleted here.--Jusjih (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Liber Pennae Praenumbra

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh.} 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know this work is not GFDL or open source, or it wasn't in the past. It was uploaded by an IP. Sticky Parkin (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete The following is a communication received and scribed by a magician working in the Cincinnati area. Unclear copyright status and possibly also not within WS inclusion policy. Yann (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a published work by Nema [7], if that' all the article says, it doesn't even credit her as it should under the GFDL or something. Sticky Parkin (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete I won't argue inclusion policy, but it seems to be copyrighted, and if the argument is "The following is a communication received and scribed by a magician working in the Cincinnati area. The writing of it was not achieved by individual effort." and thus the scribe doesn't have copyright, well, there have been a couple court cases that dealt with that issue, and the judges were very quick to avoid anything that would force them to decide on issues of metaphysics and quickly decided that there was enough for a copyright. See w:Copyright on religious works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete unless adequate evidence of free copyright status is provided. Eclecticology (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Speech of martin luther king jr.

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Angr 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King's speech from 40 years ago. An American friend indicated to me that he believed it was CopyVio, so I bring it here. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, it is copyrighted. See w:I Have a Dream#Copyright dispute. Deleted accordingly. Angr 20:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nom.--Jusjih (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The source site provides non-commercial permission not good with GFDL. Unless the translation license can be otherwise proven, I would like to suggest deleting it.--Jusjih (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The "UN...English Translation 1993" leads me to believe it was translated by the United Nations, and the frequency with which this translation appears in a search of Google Books as being reproduced in print further suggests that it is a public translation, not one by the University. (I don't see any claim by the University it is their own translation?) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock} 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If able to prove it a UN translation (better with web source) and qualified for {{PD-UN}}, then I am willing to withdraw this.--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The original can be found in Official Document System of the United Nations (ODS) by searching for UN Doc symbol "A/CONF.157/PC/62/ADD.18"; the original is in English, French, and Arabic. It meets {{PD-UN}}.

It was also printed in Human rights : a compilation of international instruments. Volume 2, Regional instruments. (New York, UN: 1997) ISBN 92-1-154124-7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this discussion. Thanks for the UN hints. However, the preamble looks very different. Would any expert please proofread with the UN copy and then tag {{PD-UN}}?--Jusjih (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Germany's High Seas Fleet in the World War/Chapter 1

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by myself as nom--Jusjih (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks identical to http://richthofen.com/scheer/scheer01.htm as possible translation copyvio without GFDL-compatible license.--Jusjih (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

HARUMPH, last time I leave a cute thank-you on your usertalk, you submit one of my texts for deletion! Egads! Anyways, Scheer published the book in English, not German, in 1920. So very clear case of PD-1923. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎.} 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Google has it, and as you can see[8], it certainly seems like the same text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, while withdrawing this, I am adding the Google Book Search to the top of this page. Providing sources of external links proving PD is much more helpful to prevent similar alarms.--Jusjih (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)