Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2010-05

Kept

On Sense and Reference

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy keep A note has been added to Talk:On Sense and Reference that indicates that the version that WS hosts may be copyright violation. Also on the same page they offer their translation to be hosted on site. billinghurst sDrewth 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked out the public domain notice Ingram came up with. The Philosophical Review didn't renew its copyright (if it had one) at least, and the opposition reasoning against the claim is mistaken and the person making it has said as much. I don't think I'm going to search for this particular author/translator in the renewals if the book's claim is that it's PD. I put a PD-US-no-renewal tag on it which would have been the default tag. And if this party wants to offer a different translation, more power to them, but they don't have to replace the one that's there. That's why I'm giving this a speedy keep. ResScholar (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

La Marseillaise

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, using the same verse (1) from the now-credited original public domain version it was derived from. This work has needed the name of its English translator for many years now. I found a translation of three verses in a 1917 public domain document. What do say we start from scratch and use those verses, because I don't know where to begin to find the provenance of the text that's there. Does anybody else know? Does anyone care at this point? ResScholar (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's from Wikipedia; early articles in 2003 have a different translation, but this matches a June 2007 article; the history is probably somewhere between there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the story. Both the 2003 version and the 2007 version came from earlier "improvements" by Wikipedia users to the December 2001 version contributed by an anonymous user. This user posted this version (without attribution) with the www.marseillaise.org website as the ultimate source. The name of the author is Iain Patterson and he was an amateur Francophone. His story about how he came to be the first English translator of La Marseillaise on the world wide web is found here.

This is User:Pmsyyz's contribution. I think he should decide whether he wants to get a release from the author or not, unless someone wants to save him the trouble. ResScholar (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I left Pmsyyz a note on his user page. He shows up to contibute at Wikisource at about monthly intervals. ResScholar (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But the translation on marseillaise.org is nothing like ours. Even if it originated from that version, I think we're well beyond a derivative work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If by "nothing like" you mean "very similar to", I agree with you completely. I think that even if he has no copyright claim, he deserves a long overdue attribution. ResScholar (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's toss it. There's no clear provenance no matter what we do, and it's certainly not irreplaceable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pmsyyz replied, and, while suggesting we use the Library of Congress version on Wikipedia, he doesn't appear interested in pursuing the matter with Iain Patterson. The only problem is, the Library of Congress version was apparently on a "featured work" page and would have been taken down a long time ago, so we can't confirm it's PD status. I'm going to sit this out for a bit. When I get back I will either contact Iain Patterson, if someone else hasn't already, or add the 1917 version. ResScholar (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote to Iain Patterson and gave him a brief description of the various licenses and where to find out more about them. He answered this morning stating that he has released the work into the public domain. If there are no other comments about the display of this work, I think we can close this discussion as keep presently. ResScholar (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

The Bear or The Empty Perambulator or The Pathos of Ignorance

The following discussion is closed:

Exported all 8 pages to Canadian Wikilivres as 1936 death means that even his posthumous works are already in the public domain in Canada.--Jusjih (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The only place that I can find this poem via Google or Google Books is in the 1997 The poems of A.E. Housman. Given that Housman published two books of poetry in his life, we have both of them, and it's not to be found in either, unless a publication date can be found pre-1923, I think we're safe in assuming this was a first publication post-1923, presumably British, and thus out of copyright. It's good for Wikilivres, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding More Poems, Additional Poems and Notebook Fragments, since Wikipedia indicates they all were published posthumously.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding White is the wold, and ghostly, Breathe, my lute, beneath my fingers, I knew a Cappadocian, O billows bounding far, since User:Darnedfrenchman‎ identifies them as posthumous poetry, and if they were first published in 1936-1978, they'd have 95 years from publication, and in 1978-2002, they'll be in copyright until 2048. Anything of Housman's first published after 2002 is in the public domain, but it looks like that 1997 book covers everything here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If it can be on the internet elsewhere, why can't it be on wikisource? --Darnedfrenchman (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone else breaks the law means we should? In this case it's more complex, because it's not legal in the US but legal in other parts of the world. But since the servers and the Wikimedia Foundation are both in the US, we have to follow US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just don't like copyright laws for things this old, but that doesn't matter does it. I just don't think anyone is losing money off of them being here, since the amount of people who buy books by Housman and the amount of people who look for works by Housman on Wikisource are probably both very low. And as long as no one is making money, does it matter? --Darnedfrenchman (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the job of copyright law is to define when too old for copyright is. For one, whether or not you're making money doesn't matter; Project Gutenberg has gotten C&Ds for stuff like "The Mysterious Affair at Styles". Secondly, there's an issue of clean hands; if we ever do have to deal with an irate copyright holder, especially in court, the defense that we've taken copyright seriously whatever mistakes may have been made; it draws the line between Wikisource and something like the Pirate Bay. Finally, personally, I do try and take the law seriously, especially when acting as a member of a group like this. I could rant across philosophy, psychology and political science, and you could dismiss it as a personal quirk of mine, but it really does matter to at least one of us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the Wikisource and Wikipedia is that knowledge is free, ideas are free, so even though we go to lengths to meet legal standards its existence goes directly against the ownership of 'words.' Also this is the free library, anyone in the world can walk into a library, read a book, and leave without owing the author a dime, the same idea applies here. So as long as Wikisource doesn't profit and copyright information is prominently displayed, shouldn't it follow that any written work can be placed on wikisource just as they may be placed in a library. --164.107.202.238 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The big difference between Wikisource and a physical book library is this: in a physical book library, when you have a book, I can't get it; and when I have a book, you can't get it. A single book is being shared around, but no duplicate copy is being made. When a book goes onto Wikisource, on the other hand, the Wikimedia servers will willingly serve it to thousands of simultaneous requesters. It is making copies, and copyright law applies. Hesperian 03:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, and I think a fair number of others on here do, too. But reality is ruled by existing copyright law. The site has to follow the law until the law is changed to say something different. The law does not permit unfettered reproduction of any copyrighted work based solely on how much money is(n't) being made by the reproducer. At least that's true in the U.S., and that's where the servers are. --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the book I got it from to see if its still copyrighted, and if it is I'll remove the pages. It probably is copyrighted even though it was never published by the author. --Darnedfrenchman (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Very few books actually explicitly say they're in the public domain. There's no need for a copyright notice under the Berne Convention, so there's no real way to tell besides publication dates. In this case, anything by Housman first published between 1923 and 2002 is under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case, no need for you to remove the pages; as an non-administrator, all you could do is blank them anyway. Someone will hopefully move them to Canada and then the closing administrator will delete the pages as their wisdom sees fit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When were these works published? If published posthumously we have to consider Copyright_Act_of_Canada#7._Term_of_copyright_in_posthumous_works to see whether Canadian Wikilivres may take them. Perhaps "R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 7; 1993, c. 44, s. 58; 1997, c. 24, s. 6." at the end of the section means that it became effective in 1985?--Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Revolutionary Haste

The following discussion is closed:

delete, no argument made for keeping — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a cut&paste work from this site.

These translations were done by Davide Turcato <turk@cs.sfu.ca> in 1999.

We need M. Turcato's permission to host his translations._Ingram (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Marxists.org seems to host it, and they traditionally only host PD works, or translate themselves and release the copyright. But in this case I don't see an immediate translator name. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 18:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment though tending to delete' There is no evidence from where it was cut and paste, however, I would agree that it is the work of the translator, as identified. It might be worth someone emailing the translator and seeing if they have released their work to the public domain. Though on the second url there is commentary of an editor's notes being used in a publication making it problematic. billinghurst (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the Wikisource/Wikimedia policy on Twin Books v. Disney? Because this seems to fall under that ruling. This is another case where I swear I could remember seeing a special PD tag for this situation. I don't agree that the translator can claim copyright, at least not in the U.S., because there was no creative input. But I do agree that the editor's notes mentioned by billinghurst complicate things. —LarryGilbert (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it was a machine translation, there was certainly creative input. Translations have always been held to be separately copyrightable derivative works of their originals. Angr 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found this thread. One person (Quadell) said that we could probably safely ignore the Twin Books ruling. No one else has argued against ignoring it. —LarryGilbert (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A Liberal Democrat Foreign Policy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Untagged work that is a poltical election speech. Would not seem to fall within our ability to redistribute. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete billinghurst (talk)
• Delete because the original source text no longer exists, and none of the reproductions I could find via Google indicate or imply any free-use license. —LarryGilbert (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Works along a similar line

1. Ken Clarke's Conference Leadership Speech 2005

The Defective Spectacles

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nepali author Author:B.P. Koirala with the work reputedly written in 1965 billinghurst (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, replaced with PD version — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This file is at Commons, however, I thought that I would first discuss the matter here. The book says Page:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations.djvu/4 says copyright 1922…1940. As they are other people's quotes, one would presume that those aspects cannot be covered by any copyright. Hence the copyright would be presentation, and/or any extra components. I am not fully around the work itself, so I am wondering on others aspect of this work that has been sourced from archive.org where it is stated as being a 1922 work. billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete; Archive.org is notoriously careless. The individual quotes may not be copyrighted, but the selection of quotes is. The 1927 version was renewed R143633 and the 1940 edition was renewed R427509.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy? billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is in fact the 1940 version, yes, speedy. However, I've been using what Google Books identifies as a 1922 version to overcome errors in the scan, and I've seen no difference in the quotes or pagination so far. BD2412 T 01:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Retypesetting a large book is expensive; I know for the EB, every time they had to expand or add an article, they looked for something nearby to cut, to reduce the amount of stuff that had to be retypeset. I suspect it's the same here; doing a page-by-page comparison should reveal some new material, but it will have been cut in carefully such that the pages didn't get moved.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we should take the safer route and delete. BD2412 T 04:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Delete I just uploaded the 1922 version to Index:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations (1922).djvu, which is largely similar. Very little of this work is done, so it is easy to switch now. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this is also better formatted. Still, I don't know why we don't just steal Bartleby's, which has the 1922 Hoyt's split out by topic (which is the sensible division) and which is already basically spellchecked. Actually, I don't know why we don't just scrape everything Bartleby's has, since it is all in the public domain, and they have provided no novel arrangement or addition. BD2412 T 03:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is? It didn't used to be, but I see they no longer host the American Heritage Dictionary. Were they hosting it (and other copyrighted stuff) without permission and got in trouble? Or did they just make the editorial decision to go all-PD rather than hosting copyrighted stuff by permission? Angr 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Henry C. Karlson III's letter to Barack Obama

The following discussion is closed:

delete — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

= Open letter, but no copyright release. I would suspect the intended license on this, if they thought it out, would be something like CC-by-nd, and not usable here. As an added complexity, apparently one of the people listed as a signer later objected and is not on many of the lists around the web and persists in removing himself from our copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I say delete. The same could probably go for everything under Author:Barack_Obama/Letters#Received (except for those from Mr. McCain, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid). --LarryGilbert (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LG here. We know the copyright rests with the author, not the recipient, that should be properly applied to the works on the identified page. billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, delete it. More than one supposed contributor wants off this list. Unsigned comment by 67.186.34.122

Deleted. Open letter does not automatically annul copyright, and not seen to be a record of US Government. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Other

Categories

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; re-originated with redirects to public-domain versions This Aristotelian text of old provenance to Wikisource, edited by many users, appears to be a copyvio. It was first published in some form in 1926 according to WorldCat, never registered in the U.S., and unless the then 45-year-old translator, Author:E. M. Edghill, died before it was published, of which there's no notice in the 1928 version, was not in the public domain in Great Britain in January 1996. ResScholar (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This work was previously nominated by John Vandenberg and discussed here: Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2007-11. Not having a complete grasp of URAA and U.K. copyright notice-law, I argued that the Aristotle works weren't copyrighted in the U.K., because they didn't have a copyright notice. That's probably wrong, and it doesn't make any difference to the laws of U.S. restoration status of works foreign to the U.S.

On the other hand, this text is also at Project Gutenberg, which argues for its public domain status.

My researches in that earlier discussion turned up a 1927 work called Aristotle Selections which contained parts of the Oxford Aristotle edition that contained Categories, so it was probably published before the [1928] Oxford edition in the U.K. or after an independent (and possibly different) 1926 U.K. version.

Let's assume for the moment it was first published in the U.S. If true, it was not renewed and is out of copyright here. But the problem is, I don't think Categories was published in its entirely in Aristotle Selections. In the on-line Questia version, of which part is hidden from non-subscribers, the first page of the Table of Contents only lists the parts: some of 2, 3, 4 and some of 5 out of the 15 parts. ResScholar (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010, [bracketed part added 8 February, 2010] (UTC)

On the third hand, Aristotle Selections had its copyright renewed by the general editor, W. D. Ross. Can this editor copyright the translated selections on behalf of each of the translators? ResScholar (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a replacement for this work written in the 19th century by a fellow named Owen. I only looked at the first sentence, but E. M. Edghill seems to have a better grasp of the meaning of that sentence. I'd like to replace it anyway to be on the safe side, but in the meantime let's keep Edghill's, since the well-publicized Project Gutenberg has it, and we can plead an ad hominem argument based on the favorable reputation of PG's copyright staff if anyone questions our judgment. ResScholar (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On a more community-based addressing of this problem in this rather long (and growing) soliloquy, this seems to be a case for {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} which was developed from a Scriptorium discussion to gradually remove works like this one. So if anyone has a request to remove this work any later or sooner than I suggested, or a disagreement of the application of this template, I'm all ears. ResScholar (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhetoric (Aristotle)

If this work was published in 1924, it has the same problem. It was not in the public domain in Britain in 1996 because the translator lived till 1929. I'm putting a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template on it as well. ResScholar (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• delete and the 1988 UK that sets the term at 70 years would seem to include this work under copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)