Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2013-04

Kept

St. John's Eve (Kochanowski)

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, PD-US-no-renewal, we looked and could not find a renewal. Jeepday (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid we have to delete St. John's Eve (Kochanowski). It's a 1928 translation of a PD work, but the translator only died in 1999 (Author:Marjorie Beatrice Peacock). PS. I see there are some exceptions, can anyone verify it is indeed PD? --Piotrus (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

US published, with a tag stating no renewal. Neither a scan or sources is provided beyond who published, if we take the statements as truth, then it can stay, though it would be worth someone familiar with the US renewal registers to flick through them. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xILDHAAACAAJ but I cannot see it — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No information on the renewal yet, or even the initial registration, but some proof of publication. As mentioned in the notes field, the books is Poems by Jan Kochanowski (December 1928), published by the University of California Press, with a number of translators (of which Ms. Peacock is just one) and edited by George Rapall Noyes. References: OCLC 560162134 and OCLC 459837242; possibly available on Google Books here and here (no previews for me but that is possibly due to the date and my location). It is listed in a University of California Press catalogue here. As further proof, the book appears for sale on second-hand book sites for about $30-$40. I can't find it on the Internet Archive, however. I would guess it is PS-US-no-renewal based on current information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No luck for 'Full View' for any of those URLs linked above (and a handful of others) here in the U.S. It was published by what is today University of California, (Berkley?) back in 1928 as Issue 214 of their Syllabus Series. A quick look didn't show any original or renewal info under that series title - your mileage may vary -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted

At Bukovyna

The following discussion is closed:

delete all works per Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Khesapeake. Jeepday (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. What is the value of such statement (which is present also on other works recently added by the same IP)?

(* @ Copyright – free published replication only for English publications or books;

for Romanian publications or books, only by a written approval from the translator)

translated by M.-M. Khesapeake

I could not find any trace of M.-M. Khesapeake, except here and on Wikipidia as translator of w:Mihai Eminescu, where the same IP started adding content and reference to these translations [see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mihai_Eminescu&direction=next&oldid=530214856]. Should I speculate, I would say this translator is the IP itself.--Mpaa (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just removed that text from Wikipedia since the license A) isn't verifiable (I don't know how that's handled here at Wikisource, but we generally require OTRS at Wikipedia), and B) isn't free enough. Among other things, we can't accept terms which require written approval from the translator. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is the translator. See this talk at enWP.--Mpaa (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, they claim to be the translator which certainly appears to be supported by their insistence on restoring the information. If the standard here is to just AGF and take them at their word (and honestly I don't know what OTRS would get us since there doesn't appear to be an official webpage for them), then wouldn't the appropriate course of action be to just remove their additional claim of copyright since it's more restrictive than the dual-licensing they already agreed to when they saved the page? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Done I've boldly removed their claim to additional restrictions, since they agreed to the Terms of Use and freer licensing at the time they created the pages. If they have a problem with that then I suppose they can always recant their claim to being the translator and then the pages can be deleted as copyright violations. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reverted removal of copyright claim, and added {{copyvio}}. As it is unclear if the IP adding the work was the owner of the copyright or was reflecting an existing copyright, we can not assume that they have the lawful ability to enter the work on Wikisource with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Tagged the related works as well, clearly a lack of understanding of copyright law exists here.

Related works

Also tagged as copyvio

• The Vesper
• What is the Amour
• Aside_the_No-pair_Poplars...
• The Tale of Johnny the Stupid
• Dear little-Sheeple

My apologies if my actions were inappropriate. As the other admin had not tagged the translation as a copyvio, I presumed there was a different standard than I am accustomed to on Wikipedia and as I said above -- if the translations are legitimately free and usable then the additional English-only restrictions are invalid. Regardless, Khesapeake (talk • contribs) has started up a new thread at w:User talk:VernoWhitney#Hi, Mr. Whitney, please allow my publishing, so I'll see if anything comes of that via OTRS or otherwise. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@ VernoWhitney No problem JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note the the conversation at the talk page above includes a link to a previously published work ’The Tale of Johnny the Stupid’ that includes a non-wiki compatible copyright license. Without a completed OTRS ticket the only option is deletion of the works. OTRS can be a long process so currently deletions pending OTRS are deferred for up to 3+ months to allow sufficient time for processing. The works will remain unpublished here through use of {{copyvio}} JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I happened to notice that the copyvio tag had been removed from all of these works, I have restored the tags and protected the pages pending the outcome of these discussions. Jeepday (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User has promptly removed the copyvio tags again and has also removed the discussion from talk page. From this and a few clues here and at VernoWhitney's WP talk page referenced above, I believe what User is trying to do is to change the initial copyright notice and release the English text to the PD. The grammar needs a good going over and some of the word choices indicate dictionary translation to me. These are prime examples of the sorts of translations that are under discussion elsewhere. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Three new works were created on march 8 The Transylvania’s round-dance, Farewell! & Teary-lilies of the valley. They are unlicensed, I have not researched them for potential copyvio status, just listing them here for possible consideration as there is a related conversation at Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Khesapeake. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Restore {{copyvio}} Again, discussion at User talk:Khesapeake about the issues and the process. Jeepday (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of Vatican works

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, no license found supporting CC or PD. Jeepday (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the status of copyright for Vatican works? In particular Second Vatican Council Documents by Paul VI listed under 1965 works. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the source. The Vatican website does not claim copyright on the works there. However, my printed copy does have a copyright notice for the particular translation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They're not terribly clear about it, but at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/docs_lev/en/copyright_en.htm they do certainly seem to claim copyright and moral rights, etc. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not completely versed in it but both w:Vatican City and w:Holy See appear to be sovereign entities which may qualify for appropriate works to be licensed {{PD-EdictGov}}. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And no separation of Church and State. That said, it was issued to cardinals, and bishops throughout the world, not through governmental structure. With indications that the Vatican is claiming their copyright, unless there is clear evidence that it is a govt. edict, I think that we would be pushing that proverbial barrow up that proverbial hill. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that Harryjamespotter1980 has today added {{PD-author-release}} to Second Vatican Council Documents. I've invited him to this discussion to add his perspective. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• As this has become a copyright status challenge of a specific work, rather then a general question I have added {{copyvio}} to the work. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Delete -- Seems fairly clear to me [1] - anything under the "sun" in the Pontiff's "domain" is reserved. They provide notice by universal decree rather than piece-meal per work using a symbol ( © ) or with a statement it seems. Securing a release from the Secretary in charge of such things seems like the only other alternative. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

give me a few days to see if I can clear up once and for all not just the copyright status on the vatican ii documents but all vatican documents `—unsigned comment by Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) .

I am asking for an extension on my search and clarification the announcement of the Pope's impeding resignation has slowed and complicated matters.Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Two week extension granted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Two Canadian works 1949

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, unable to find/offer alternative licensing Jeepday (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Speech at the Opening of the General Election Campaign
• Address on the Entry of Newfoundland into Confederation

Both of these works were 1949 Canadian works, by an author who died in 1973 (40 years past) though they are labelled {{PD-Canada}}. Not sure how we have kept them, even with their historical significance and long term residence. Can anyone see what may be an alternative licensing. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Democratic National Conventions

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, not PD. Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems the same as Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2011-04#2007_Democratic_Debates (#2012 Presidential campaign works is different). Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2010-12#List_of_Countries_Where_Politicians.27_Speeches_are_Copyright-Free had different claims but I don't see them confirmed anywhere. Remember to update Help:Licensing_compatibility#Presumed_licensing. --Nemo 18:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Four works tagged {{copyvio}} pending discussion/decision JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Other

The Poems of Sappho

The following discussion is closed:

Copied to Canadian Wikilivres:The Poems of Sappho with edit history noted and replaced the page with {{Bibliowiki page}}.--Jusjih (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A tricky one that needs some consideration.

The Poems of Sappho

• first published UK 1924 (book review exists in the Times Supplement) List of New Books and Reprints. The Times Literary Supplement (London, England), Thursday, June 05, 1924;
• source claims that it was from a 1925 edition (link on work's talk page)
• author died in 1942 in UK The Times Literary Supplement (London, England), Saturday, April 25, 1942; pg. 216; Issue 2099.

So as I see it

• 1923 through 1977
• Published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad, without compliance with US formalities, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996
  • UK in 1988 introduced 70 years for works still in copyright, author had been dead 46 years
  • NOT ... Published in the US less than 30 days after publication abroad as the US printed edition is 1925

Sums up to copyright is 95 years post publication, hence we delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Move. To Wikilivres. ResScholar (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• In the meantime...a replacement from the Archive (1910) is in order. Keep title, delete present text, replace with this one. --Slgrandson (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Apples to oranges. The mainspace work in question here is a "side-by-side" Greek to English translation presentation. While there are works available both on IA & GooBoo dealing with these poems (& fragments), I could not find anything approaching the current Greek to English presentation given so, imo, replacement is not really an option. And while the phrase "Poems of Sappho" is indeed reused in the titles of other works, I think the proper way for us to recycle the title in this case would be by disambig listing; not by usurping it directly with something else. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed, a completely different work (book review states that), and we will still be able to link to the work if it is move to wikilivres. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quick Question @ Billinghurst... In that book review found in the 1924 Times Literary Suppl., did they give a book title of just
  • The poems of Sappho; or was it
  • The poems of Sappho: with historical & critical notes, translations, and a bibliography?

Not sure if the answer will make a difference or not at the end of the day but I figure it can't hurt to remove all doubt concerning the 'over/under 30 day' portion. I can't find anything in the CCE under either title above or under any of the obvious variants of the author's name... still, the area of citizens residing abroad & copyrights isn't one that I'm all that familiar with considering the time of publication in relation to 1909 statute(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Full title http://ctrlv.in/161060 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I can't argue with that. Looks like Move to Wikilivres if possible. If not -Delete -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is this one (1916) acceptable? It is a very interesting book about how to translate Sappho, with beautiful examples. --Zyephyrus (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  Acceptable to add & host? sure. Acceptable to replace the existing work linked in this section's header? nope. I'm afraid only a pre-1923 edition of the same book would be acceptable for replacement in this case. A move to Wikilivres still seems like the next best solution. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

James Joyce not in the public domain?

The following discussion is closed:

Remains in copyright (we are not currently hosting it) Jeepday (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

At Author:James Joyce, Finnegans Wake seems to be considered to be still under copyright protection in the US.

I know that the US don't apply the rule of shorter term, but don't they have the protection term of life + 70 years?

Is this simply outdated information or is it something different? --Ousia (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming it was published in the US and Joyce (or his estate) renewed the copyright for the final term, the relevant copyright period would be publication + 95 years. In this case, 1939 + 95 = 2034; so I think it will be in the public domain in the US on 1st January 2035. (This system lasted until 1964, FYI, and has changed a bit since too.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It was renewed; R396377.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)