Wikisource talk:Copyright discussions

Proposal

I request that we make it policy, that when we blank a copyvio, we leave the header intact, with the c{{copyvio}} notice below it. Often we click the links to see what "A Statement on the 60th Anniversary of the United Nations" is, and a header would definitely help that - and certainly doesn't represent a violation in its own right. Cheers Sherurcij ^{(talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN)} 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You can just bring up the source of the page (the header is still there in the source text). The pages aren't exactly blanked; it's a CSS trick to make everything on the page disappear but leave all the text intact so that people can evaluate it without having to go to the history.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Header levels

If you change the header level for "Discussions" from level 2 to level 1 and for the other headers from level 3 to level 2, new section edits will produce the correct header level. Now if someone adds a new section with "alt++" he will get a level 2 section and hs to change it to level 3. /82.212.68.183 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the new section link. Level 3 headers are needed to simplify archival. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 18:32:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Resources

Found an additional source of scanned copyright entries or two

• http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003910311

— George Orwell III (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Khrushchev's secret speech - proposal

In my view, Khrushchev's secret speech is one of the most important documents of a XX. century. I think, it should be on wikisource, and it was, but was deleted because of some unclean copyright problems. I want to find its original, russian version and translate to english.

Question 1: the copyright of the original text isn't clean, too. It is an important historical document, but unknown who is its owner. Anybody knows? I really didn't like if some copyright-pharizee admin deleted days of my work with a simple click.

Question 2: my english isn't as good as it should be. A little lectoring will be needed by a fluent editor. Will it be ok?

Thank you,

94.21.30.77 09:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough of the details to address question 1, for question 2 translations on wikisource are a community process, so many editors are likely to make changes to your original work. You need not be perfect to begin the process. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Speeches & manifesto

With the demise of {{PD-manifesto}} we have lost significant license potential for many of the unlicensed works posted to Wikisource. Published works are not a significant issue at this time, but speeches and transcriptions of speeches are problematic housekeeping challenges at Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Pages with no licence. To prevent a flood of posting at WS:CV can the community provide some insight as to what types of speeches and transcripts of speeches might easily fall into a PD license of some type? Jeepday (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. law requires fixation for something to be copyrightable. It has not traditionally protected speech. However, many speeches are written down beforehand, and that would change things -- such as the MLK case over his I Have a Dream speech. Transcripts of impromptu speech I think are fine. Interviews are a more interesting situation... the interviewer may often have written questions, and may have a copyright over the arrangement too (i.e. order of the questions). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So given we need to make some reasonable assumptions... Jeepday (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

1. If a speech is covered by {{PD-USGov}} or other licenses that would take precedence.

2. Any scheduled or planned speech would presumable have a written foundation that would be copyrighted, and without PD support would not be appropriate for WS.

3. An unscheduled or impromptu speech would by it's nature not allow for a written foundation, so would not be covered by US copyright laws, hence would be PD and could be hosted on WS.

Examples

A. John Adams' First State of the Union Address as the work of a sitting president = {{PD-USGov}}

B. Barack Obama's Iraq Speech assumes written foundation of a civilian and copyright so not PD

C.Branch Davidian Negotiation Transcript from April 18 A discussion between an FBI agent and civilian (without an expectation of privacy), for FBI = {{PD-USGov}}, for the civilian = {{impromptu}}, both parts are PD

That's basically the way I see it, yeah. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

PD-impromptu or PD-ineligible

Thoughts on if a template PD-impromptu should be created or if {{PD-ineligible}} is sufficient? If {{PD-ineligible}} is sufficient, then it should probably be fortified with some content defining is use and legal rational. Jeepday (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}} is roughly based in the principle that "facts" cannot be subject to copyright even when some degree of original expression or creativity is used to present them. In other words, a set of facts arranged in some never previously seen manner or order for the first time does not qualify as original creativity or expression on the author's part; therefor, the work is not subject to copyright protections (basically per 17 U.S.C. 102(b) as ruled on in 499 U.S. 340, Fiest v. Rural).

Impromptu anything makes no sense to me here on WS as well as in a legal context - first fixation is still the key. While the example where an interviewer is soliciting on-the-fly responses has some merit for distinction here if the questions were written down prior to their execution, the other notions of impromptu speech or conversation are not so cut and dry thanks to the "need" for a first fixation to take place (see definitions for 'created', 'fixed' & 'transmit' under 17 U.S.C. 101). Without a statement or authority to the contrary, unless the WS contributor adding a work was within earshot of the impromptu speech and transcribed/recorded it at that time it was taking place, he or she (or we?) cannot say copying it from some other source constitutes the same thing (copyright wise) as actually being there to "first" fixate the content themselves in my view - the source being copied would then be, at worst, the first fixation of the content wouldn't it? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-hosting copyright review

A recent comment points out that the header does not specifically include allowing discussion of copyright prior to hosting a work. We do have a history of including these types of discussions with Copyright of 1949 work being a recent example. I propose to update the header to include both per-hosting and specific License discussions. There is not enough volume to warrant a separate venue for the discussions, and both have discussed here previously. Jeepday (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose to rename page "Wikisource:Copyright discussions"

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Done

I am proposing to rename this page to "Wikisource:Copyright discussions" as the current naming seems to deter people from opening general conversations about the matter, and about works. I think that this is seen as confrontational to challenge the status of a work. I think that a more general name, would open up the discussions, while still allowing for suspected copyright violations to be discussed. It would not need a change to the name of the nominating template, though some renaming of the link would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Hesperian 03:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Support. Captain Nemo (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC).

 Support also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Support.— per Billinghurst's rationale. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Support. This seems completely unobjectionable; we are, after all, discussing things here, rather than merely reporting them. BD2412 T 01:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: To not archive into sections, hence a flat archive by year

Hi to all. Historically we have archived into three sections for this page

• Kept
• Deleted
• Other

with each section per year. While this has a level of interest, it is a manual job, and not necessarily that functional, and is an inhibitor to some to do, and harder for automating.

Generally we now use the page wikilink as a heading and the red link or the blue link indicate whether it is here or not. Further we now utilise the {{closed}} template and put sensible closing arguments to explain what has happened. Also other has been used for interwiki, which is actually a delete with other actions, all nefarious.

I wish to have a simple system where we can set and send them to archive, have a bot do it, and do it regularly. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support. (Frankly I had been unaware that this page was not archived in a "yearly" archive....) I don't entirely see what the current non-flat schema brings to the table anyhow. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support--Jusjih (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How strict to enforce URAA

I would like to request comments on how strict to enforce URAA when considering m:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge. Please pick an answer from m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Statement from Wikimedia Foundation. No active enforcement? Soft enforcement? Medium enforcement? Hard enforcement?--Jusjih (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I find the distinctions between the different levels of enforcement confusing, and focusing on weird things. What is the difference between medium and hard enforcement? If we're going to enforce it, there's no reason not to delete the copyrighted version, and I don't see that it's substantially harder.

One of my goals is to keep the English Wikisource from being entangled in the rule of the shorter term. It has no legal relevance for the US, or the WMF. I'd be happier with, say, a rule saying that we keep all works older than 75 years from publication unless we have a renewal; that basically amounts to assuming the URAA doesn't apply to any work that old, without worrying about the rule of the shorter term, and mean we generally didn't have to cut works like File:Radio_Times_-_Christmas_1935_-_William_Temple_a.png was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Neutral. Keeping the current level of hard enforcement is not a heavy burden. Any other level of enforcement is essentially a change to WS:Copyright policy, but if the will is there I will not oppose it, provided that the line remains cut and dry. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Medium enforcement hides historical versions subject to American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term, thus not requiring full history to BiblioWiki if specifying which version copied from in edit summary there. Hard enforcement exports affected versions to be deleted here. m:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge says that waiting for DMCA take-down notice is likely bearable for the Wikimedia Foundation, but I will consider the opinions here. Affected pages with complex formats may make hard enforcement complicated as to templates.--Jusjih (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this is not the correct question to ask. WS is subject to US copyright law, so if a work is copyright in the US, due to the URAA or whatever other reason, we should delete it, and hopefully move it to Bibliowiki. As Beleg Tâl says, our current enforcement is "hard", and changing this would mean changing the copyright policy to ignore URAA. Unlike BT, however, I would oppose such a change. We can't just ignore copyright laws we don't like. Per WS:WIW, WS is a "project to create a growing free content library", and works copyrighted under the URAA are not free. BethNaught (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slowking4: your input in this discussion would be appreciated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

do not know why you are pinging me. minds are made up, and will not change. it not a matter of strictness, but risk assessment. there seems to be confusion that copyright is black and white, when in truth is is shades of gray. for example, we have the case where photos of american sculptures in German public space by Germans, tagged as FoP Germany, are taken down by a DMCA. and the case of FoP Sweden. i.e. your certainty may be misplaced, there may be a very low risk, given the legal gamesmanship, and the judges not sharing your ideology. and there is some risk commons eagerly takes on, such as PD-art, and Imperial War Museum items. i.e. the chances of a "sweat of the brow" claim in europe are not zero. and you have the problem of anonymous works, where you fall back on rubrics, but lack certainty. and for PD-US-not-renewed, you can not prove a negative, but only show a good faith search, so there is always a low risk of a copyright holder coming forth. and you have the case of copyfraud such as "happy birthday" where a zealous music publisher intimidated payments for decades.

URAA on commons had a consensus to not engage in a mass deletion spree, based on the fact that there has not been a DMCA takedown or legal action for such an item. and existing communities such as hebrew wikipedia relied extensively on images from their archives in 1948. we now have the case of an admin who admits that they do not have a consensus to delete the pdf from commons, but will blank here, because "URAA copyvio notice." your strictness regime only extends as far as you can see. you should expect to be widely routed around, either by ignorance (astonishment that the law is so perverse) or guile. an example on commons would be the works of Bonnard, which had a mass deletion 6 months ago, but they missed a lot of works, which had been hosted for years i.e. [1]. and you now have to consider those works by Bonnard after 1923, shown only in Europe. i guess no transcriptions of european art books with images, by your same strictness criteria.

you have to decide what kind of a project you want: is it a purity project, or a pragmatic project? keeping in mind that your purity will not be consistent, as you have no standard of practice. you have no system to triage your copyright workflow, you are deleting based on your attention span. you are randomly throwing up edge cases, not working to minimize your risk. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand how Slowking4 hates URAA, but considering many users' opinions, hard enforcement is generally inevitable, but involved works will be checked case by case.--Jusjih (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So many works affected by URAA have not been moved to BiblioWiki. Please, either someone moves affected works, or let us discuss whether to change the copyright policy to no active enforcement.--Jusjih (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, No. 18-1150

I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. I am most active on en.wikipedia. I just wanted to note this decision and make sure you know about it. In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, No. 18-1150, the US Supreme Court ruled that "Georgia may not copyright its entire official code, which includes both the state's laws and annotations".[2] I think this applies not only to Georgia but to every state in the US, when it comes to their laws. The annotations are very useful information for us to archive but I believe they only apply to Georgia because the interpretive works were done by members of the Georgia government. The decision is here. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: To ensure wider visibility I have moved this thread to Wikisource:Scriptorium#Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, No. 18-1150 (permalink). It would be preferable to keep discussions together there. --Xover (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)