Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2009-05

Kept

The Boer War

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.

Source appears to be the 1959 work, available at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1985516

• Robert Walker Davis
• Reviewed work(s): The Boer War. by Edgar Holt
• Military Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 1959), p. 111 (review consists of 1 page)
• Published by: Society for Military History

I am not finding a PD, rationale. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The book, OCLC:1635534^{all editions} is only listed as being published in London, and Edgar Holt was born in 1900 according to LOC, which means that it is neither w:Edgar Holt nor w:Edgar George Holt which I created because I thought it could be him (if LOC are slightly wrong).

However this text is a review of the book, and the journal Military Affairs is a US periodical, and I cant find renewal records for it. The earliest record of this journal is a registration for 1977. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Society for Military History[1] was the American Military Institute between 1939 and 1990, an important fact to note for copyright searches.

Having searched on the copyright.gov databases, which should include any copyright renewals for this date, I'm not finding any renewals for Military Affairs in this period, or any renewals for David, Robert Walker, or any renewals for this work under the name "[The] Boer War" or "Review: The Boer War". Assuming this was the first publication, and that it was first published in the US (a reasonable assumption, IMO) or that Robert Walker Davis was an American citizen, it should be in the public domain. I have a significant degree of distrust in that answer, however; there are several ways it could be wrong. If I had the original copyright registrations, I could be more certain, but I neither have access to the physical volumes nor any interest in going trawling through them after this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted - PD status was not confirmed and would be subject to proof not found. Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I contend this was not a legitimate deletion as Jay and Prof both looked for evidence of it being copyrighted and found none. This is not proof it is Public Domain, but it is certainly not proof it is copyrighted either - more work and discussion is needed, before this proposal can be fairly closed. In addition, nominators should never delete their own proposals, it may not be intentional bad faith, but it does not give a good public view to new users. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe.} 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kept. There appears to be reasonable indication that this is in the public domain. Jude (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Address to the Reichstag

The following discussion is closed:

Kept billinghurst (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The infobox at the bottom of the article states that the translation is public domain due to lapsed Crown Copyright. However, it was produced by the BBC, which is not a Crown Body. As a work for hire, it should probably be copyrighted until 2011 in the UK and 2036 in the US. --82.69.202.14 14:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Posted {{copyvio}} on article. Jeepday (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't double-checked anything, but if works for hire were date+50, then copyright lapsed in 1991 and would still be PD in the United States. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh.} 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Think this would have been extended to 75 years by the Copyright Act 1976 and then to 95 years by the Sonny Bono Act. Also, it is not entirely clear whether this is a work for hire or not.--78.150.208.11 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd be right if it were an American work, but the Copyright Act 1976 doesn't affect British Works for Hire...not that I'm certain what British law is/was at the time on the subject. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe.} 01:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I would agree that copyright would have expired in 1991. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama's interview on Al Arabiya

The following discussion is closed:

Kept billinghurst (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Barack Obama's interview on Al Arabiya doesn't fall under the release of all governmental documents, does it? This must be copyrighted... --Bleemsz (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly what Obama said was created by a government official in the course of their job, so that's not in copyright. There is some rule about extemporaneous speech that may or may not apply to the rest of the material.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe, in the past, we've allowed WS to "rewrite" the questions into a very brief summary, and then include the full answers. ([question about whether he regrets voting to authorise spending for the Iraq War]) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh.} 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthony-Claret Onwutalobi 's African Convention 2005 Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Kept (no discussion undertaken)

Nigerian speaker at a conference in Malaysia in 2005. Completely outside of my expertise, however, one would think that being 2005 that it is copyright violation. I have pasted {{no licence}} though unsure whether it should be stronger. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Now a statement that it is their speech and is released by them of the copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Washington Crosses the Delaware

The following discussion is closed:

Keep billinghurst (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Text on page is word for word what appears at eyewitnesstohistory.com which quotes a 2004 publication. I can find [2] and [3] though neither has publication dates. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As the author Elisha Bostwick died in 1834, it is public domain in the US even if it is unpublished (see WS:FORM#US unpublished works). The cited webpage and book confirm the authorship. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

The Pears/McGuinness translation of this work is under copyright in the United States [(c) 1961, 1974 Routledge & Kegan Paul All Rights Reserved]. What gives me pause is: Project Gutenberg also has this text see here but does not list a translator--N.B. the Tractatus was not written in English, and is only available in English through translation--which leads me think that PG is also in violation of the copyright. I know the US copyright law changed in 1964, so perhaps the 1961 version is somehow in the public domain (but I seriously doubt this). In any case, if WS keeps this text, a clear licensing tag should be used.Ingram (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also, read through this discussion at LibriVox.Ingram (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that the 1961 Pears & McGuinness translation, published in the US by Humanities Press ever had its copyright renewed. The 1922 Ogden translation is clearly in the public domain. Eclecticology (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's hard to show the exact publication date of the 1961 translation that would be required to show that the copyright wasn't restored by the URAA. Everyone and their brother have been using this translation from PG as public domain, so apparently there's not much risk of getting sued, but dotting the i's and crossing the t's here is more difficult.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've sent an email to the copyright clearance people at PG; hopefully they can tell me exactly how they cleared this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg cleared the Ogden edition, and made the text available under the belief that what had been given them was the Ogden text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright renewal should probably not come into it, since Pears and McGuiness were/are both British (non-US works do not normally need to have been renewed). I would love to see a definitive answer to this question, though. --82.69.202.14 14:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Copyright Office circular on the URAA, page 2, specifies that among other things for the copyright to be restored on a work that lost its copyright in the US due to failure to follow formalities (including renewal) it must not have been published within the US within 30 days of first publication. Thus if the Humanities Press publishing were first, or came within 30 days of the British printing, it would be out of copyright in the US. But that's terribly hard to prove.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be normal practice/worth bothering to email Routledge? I wouldn't want to do anything that might get PG into mild trouble. --82.69.202.14 11:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not; most of the publishing houses both don't know whether or not the fine details of copyright restoration were followed, and if they do, they're not in a mood to tell you to go ahead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like the 30-day thing is the only thing that would make it PD, but that's up to us to prove, and if we can't then we have to remove it (?). The UK and US versions were both published in 1961, but I reckon it's going to be impossible to say more than that. --78.144.189.7 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, This work is there since August 2004 without a proper license information. Are we sure that our text is the translation by David Pears and Brian McGuinness? Yann (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I could poke around in editions on Amazon and Google Books, this edition is identical to the Pears & McGuinness edition. It was posted under the belief that it was PD-1923, but that unfortunately isn't true.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be pretty clear indication that the text is not {{PD-1923}}, as it is identical to the Pears and McGuinness edition. There's also pretty clear evidence (or at least, as clear as it can be in this case), that for the Pears and McGuinness edition to be public domain depends entirely upon the exact publication date, which we don't currently know. So, deleted. Jude (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been to the Mountaintop (Martin Luther King)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

What conditions would be required to be met, in order to bypass possible copyright violations in this case?--[[Goiken]] (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean: Does the speech itself not fall under the en:WS definition of free Texts or is it because of the transcription which was taken from the indicated Link?-[[Goiken]] (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong person. I am no expert, I am just aware that there was no copyright notice added, and that the page for Martin Luther King states that most of the works have copyright. The page for the discussion is Wikisource:Possible copyright violations and I would encourage you to participate and have your say there. Sorry that I cannot be of more help. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also worth a look at Author talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on the copyright of Martin Luther King, however, he died less than 50 years ago, so I would believe that, unless there is a special exemption, this would be a copyright violation. Posted {{copyvio}} on the page. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times (2007-08, 2008-09) although I am not sure it was conclusive. I asked if the list of copyrighted works at Author talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. is complete and exhaustive, and in my opinion, I didn't get a clear answer. Yann (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Life+50 has nothing to do with US law; the key questions here are whether it was registered for copyright and whether it was published without copyright prior to 1978/89. The registration documents are kept on paper at the copyright office, though some government depositories may have a copy of the books, and Copyright Office searching is pretty expensive, and showing that it lacked the copyright basically requires having the appropriate copy in hand, and between 1978-1989, evidence that the fault wasn't corrected. It's pretty hard to show anything here.

As for a complete list of copyrighted works by MLK, even ignoring posthumous publication, it would require quite a search through copyright records that I would be surprised if anyone had done it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: So ho do you suggest we should deal with it? --Goiken (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd delete it, given that we can't show it one way or the other and we have an active and aggressive copyright holder.--71.232.127.37 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC) (i.e. Prosfilaes from a library computer)

I'd keep it, pending any Cease and Desist sent to WMF; why would we kowtow to somebody just because they're aggressive? To quote my userpage, "Never be intimidated by somebody speaking authoritatively, as often as not they are using the illusion of absolute knowledge to cover the shaky basis on which their argument is founded". I say we keep it, and all others that aren't listed as renewed/registered copyrights. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh.} 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this policy on the condition that our sources are really authoritative, and cannot be disputed. The issue is therefore that I am not sure that this list of copyrighted works is authoritative. Yann (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is we don't have a list of registered copyrights. There is no electronic database of registered copyrights prior to 1978; the only way to check to see if a work was registered is by looking through the paper catalogs or having someone do it for you. I wouldn't argue if someone actually did a search through the paper volumes and found no evidence that it was registered, though I don't know if I'd trust it; it could easily have been published in a magazine or book that doesn't list the speech or even MLK in the registration. And given the shakiness of our evidence, I think the fact we have an active copyright holder should mitigate against us, as the fact that many other speeches were filed for copyright should give us pause to think that this one might have been too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we do what is reasonable and practicable with respect to due diligence and against what would be expected. Record what steps we have taken to check, and record these steps on the talk page. A web quick search shows the video and the words available elsewhere. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been no further comment, and feel that there needs to be some resolution of this matter on whether to delete or not. Looking at the provided commentary, my inclination is to delete though feel that there may be further opinion. —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .

Quoting Prosfilaes, "the shakiness of our evidence" has lead me to delete this text. Previous discussion noted that the text should be kept as a manifesto (using {{PD-Manifesto}}), but in my opinion, just because a speech is made in public does not mean that it is free of copyright. Current discussion appears to indicate that there is doubts both ways (whether it is copyright or not), and combined with the fact that there is an active copyright holder, it seems a bad idea to keep it, regardless of how popular or well known a speech it might be. Jude (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Idea of Evil

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted billinghurst (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

PBS transcript. Does PBS = public domain? I doubt it.Ingram (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but I can't imagine that there's any free licensing of the original content. It really needs to be deleted. Jude (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just put {{delete}} on the page in question. Without a licence that demonstrates that it is not in copyright, then it will be delete' -- billinghurst (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Eddie August Schneider

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted by Billinghurst.

This was previously discussed and deleted after the uploader provided no evidence that the content was copyright free. I was about to speedy delete when I noticed that the new text comes with the following disclaimer:

The author is dead, and the copyright passes to me, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).

I'm not entirely sure how US copyright law handles the passing of copyright between relatives, but the uploader has not provided any evidence to suggest that this has indeed taken place, apart from this statement. Given the uploader's past issues with copyright, I thought it would be best to have discussion here about it. Jude (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is property. There are some exceptions in the US regarding the reclaiming of copyright by relatives, but they don't seem to be relevant. This does seem to be a case where we can turn it over to the OTRS team.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed the contributor Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs). I have not seen any copyvios by Norton; many of his contributions have been deleted due to them being multiple texts on a single page, but each has been restored once investigated and appealed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think I remember Richard restored some of the works on his own, and seeing him having done so, I reraised the question of their inclusion status here. At the time I wasn't aware of how the OTRS ticket system worked, so I may have advised Richard one or two of his works shouldn't be included, when he actually could have availed himself of an OTRS release. If so, I regret the error. 07:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC) [mis-signed] ResScholar (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the pages discussed here, one of which was this text. In retrospect, perhaps my wording was harsh, and I do apologise. Jude (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the notice included in the original version of Eddie August Schneider (copied out of the deleted page):

Source: Most likely Gretchen Hahnen (1902-1986) who had married a Gray then married a Black. She died as "Gretchen Black" and had lived in Texas.

Note: A copy has been deposited by Gretchen Hahnen (1902-1986) at: Special Collections, McDermott Library, The University of Texas at Dallas

Note: Used with permission

Jude (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2005 Amman Bombings, Sajida Atrous al-Rishawi confession text

The following discussion is closed:

delete billinghurst (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This text was added in October of 2006 by an anonymous user. Obviously, there's no doubt as to the relevance of the text, though I have the following concerns: The text is in English. I assume any confession would be in Arabic (the language of Jordan) as either written by herself or the police. There's no source information on the text, though from what I can gather, it's identical to this text, hosted on msnbc.

However, that text is hosted with a copyright notice (© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.) from the Associated Press, implying that this is an English translation of the original text produced by the Associated Press. Obviously, as they are claiming copyright on this text, it's unsuitable for Wikisource.

Finally, I'm uncertain as to the copyright status of the original text, and whether or not we'd be able to undertake a community translation of it. Jude (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per Jude's research. Yann (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete English text as per Jude. I would think that original would be akin to a manifesto. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

International Consensus Statement on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted billinghurst (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comes from Wikipedia, and from [4]. Possibly a {{PD-manifesto}} but need more opinions about that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. If it said open letter, or had an indication that it was for open sharing, rather than their joined expression of opinion, then that would sway my thoughts on the applied tag. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a peer-reviewed document dated 2002. Unless there is evidence that it was produced by a specific country as a government work (and is public domain), or it is deliberately released into the public domain, I don't think there's any way we can assume that it's intended to be an 'open letter'. {{PD-Manifesto}} certainly doesn't apply, in my opinion. Jude (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored

Three Stories and Ten Poems

The following discussion is closed:

Restored ResidentScholar 9 April 2009 restored "Three Stories and Ten Poems" ‎ (11 revisions restored: Restored as per March-April 2009 possible copyright violation discussion)

I was looking through the archives of copyright violations and found this work by Ernest Hemingway which I think to be wrongly deleted. It may be true that it was first published in Paris, but American citizens don't have that out; the URAA didn't restore copyright to works by American citizens; to quote the Copyright Office circular "At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible country. An eligible country is a country, other than the United States, [...]".--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Scriptorium for Copyright review. Jeepday (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion indicates France followed the Berne Convention, giving a copyright of 50 years after the author's death for works published in France. Are you disputing this, Prosfilaes? Because if you aren't, then Ernest Hemingway would never NEEDED his copyright to be restored, because it was still in effect starting in 1988 or 1989 when the U.S. joined the convention (or earlier) up to the point the URAA was passed (as long as 50 years after his death in 1961). ResScholar (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1951, the work by Ernest Hemingway needed to be renewed to maintain its copyright in the US. (At the time, every work that wanted copyright in the US had to follow US copyright formalities.) It wasn't renewed. Thus between 1952 and 1996, this book was out of copyright in the US. If it were by a French citizen, given the copyright in France, the copyright in the US would have been restored by the URAA. But Ernest Hemingway was an American citizen, and as per that section quoted above, works of American nationals did not have their copyright restored, no matter where they were published. (Looking at w:Domicile (law) and w:Ernest Hemingway, I would find it hard to make a claim that Hemingway was a domiciliary of France or Canada at the time; the very ambiguity between the two makes it doubtful he'd really "unequivocally abandoned" the US and intended to make Canada or France his "permanent home", with his later actions furthering that doubt. It'd make a lovely court case, though, arguing about the state of mind 80 years ago of someone who has been dead 40 years.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When I talked about the Berne Convention before I was referring to the w:Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works Wikipedia article that was referenced in the previous discussion. It states that in March 1989, the United States accepted the Berne Convention. Doesn't this mean that at that date, the U.S. recognized the droit d'auteur French copyright established for Hemingway's work, based on the work having been published in France? The rule followed on Wikisource has been "Since the work was not properly registered in the U.S., and the country of origin was France (or whatever foreign country) and was not public domain there in 1996, the copyright gets recognized in the year of its creation). Are you saying this rule doesn't apply to U.S. citizens who published in foreign countries?

Also, to show this work applies to this typical case, according to Quadell, the work didn't just fail to be renewed, it wasn't even registered.

By the way, we know the French copyright term now is 70 years pma, but according to the same article on the Berne convention, it was, by that statute, at least 50 years pma since the time the work was published, so we know the copyright was always in effect in France. ResScholar (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1989, the United States accepted the Berne Convention on all works going forward from that date; it wasn't until 1998 that the United States restored copyright to any work that had lost it due to not being filed or renewed as per US copyright law. w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act is the enacting law, and the report I link to above is the Copyright Office circular on the matter, which says that, no, the copyright in a work didn't get restored if all of the authors were American citizens.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on this new information I reluctantly agree that my original decision of delete should be overturned (reluctantly because it blows my perfect record of no reversals). All is not lost, however. I divided up the original text into pages of their own, a practice that can continue with the restored portion (if this is agreeable to all). ResScholar (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nobody did a database search for the renewal of the six poems appearing in the U.S. periodical Poetry. I'll go do that now along with the other poems published in the U.S. and report what I find. ResScholar (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I reported my findings at Three Stories and Ten Poems in the notes section. ResScholar (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Previous discussion
• Mentioned in old Proposed_deletions

FYI, France copyright law is 70 years pma, plus some special cases. Yann (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)