User:Sanbeg/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-10
|
Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law)
Since the Internet Archive is the first institution to exploit this feature of America's arcane and backwards copyright law, I suggest we be the second: Section 108h of the U.S. Code allows libraries to scan and make available materials published 1923 to 1941 if they are not being actively sold. One immediate objection I see is that it would introduce overhead on our part to determine if a work is actively being sold. On the contrary, I would suggest that this is no different than a DMCA request: assume that a work is not (most aren't), use basic common sense for due diligence, and then let someone else complain if he thinks we are hosting something we shouldn't be. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wikisource does far more than just scan works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated! not too hard to determine if in print. do a alibris / amazon / worldcat. and a search for non-renewal is not too hard. and internet archive is doing the search and hosting. however, this community would never agree to such a librarian standard of practice. in 2 years we will start counting up anyway. do you have any orphans before 1941 of interest? Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment the proposal is changing the underlying predication of Wikisource in that we would be moving to a non-commercial type license, something akin to PD-1941-NC. These works would be unable to be taken from our site and reproduced as all our existing works can be. How would you differentiate between those works that can and those that cannot be commercialised? — billinghurst sDrewth
- As a follow-up, I am not opposed to the exploration of this matter, I just think that it needs a reasoned proposal, not a "dump and run". If it is going to be a dump and run, then I propose that it is moved to the bottom of this page. @Koavf: if you are going to put together something which we can explore and look through nuanced argument, then I look forward to your proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Not sure what you mean--I left this here for feedback. I don't know what more you want. I could respond to every person the moment he posts but I wanted to elicit some discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Koavf: But you left it in the "Proposals" section. If you just wanted feedback and a discussion, then this isn't a Proposal but a discussion topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: Because it would mean a pretty fundamental change to our approach to works here. It isn't just an idle chat about issues tangentially related to Wikisource but a way to refactor some of what we do and which would require some broad consensus, re-writing policy pages, etc. If other users think it's a non-starter (and clearly, several do), then the community is rejecting my proposed changes and it's just food for thought. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I think you've missed what first billinghurst meant, and my response to your question said. You made a "suggestion" or "comment", whereas a "proposal" is usually a more formal sort of presentation than what you posted. So billinghurst was pointing out that it didn't seem appropriate to post in the Proposals section (and I agree) because it's more a passing thought or idea than a formal proposal. So what you asked "not sure what you mean", I was trying to help answer that question. Yes, your "suggestion" involves a fundamental change, but that doesn't make it a "proposal". A proposal would be a formal well thought out and fully reasoned presentation for the community, rather than a passing thought about a big change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: Because it would mean a pretty fundamental change to our approach to works here. It isn't just an idle chat about issues tangentially related to Wikisource but a way to refactor some of what we do and which would require some broad consensus, re-writing policy pages, etc. If other users think it's a non-starter (and clearly, several do), then the community is rejecting my proposed changes and it's just food for thought. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Koavf: But you left it in the "Proposals" section. If you just wanted feedback and a discussion, then this isn't a Proposal but a discussion topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Not sure what you mean--I left this here for feedback. I don't know what more you want. I could respond to every person the moment he posts but I wanted to elicit some discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- As a follow-up, I am not opposed to the exploration of this matter, I just think that it needs a reasoned proposal, not a "dump and run". If it is going to be a dump and run, then I propose that it is moved to the bottom of this page. @Koavf: if you are going to put together something which we can explore and look through nuanced argument, then I look forward to your proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Proposed license is NOT compatible with 'free' licensing terms which permit commerical use. Any works uploaded would have to be locally hosted in any event, as the above would be a non-starter on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is an interesting approach, though I am not sure that it is a reasoned approach. Some thoughts to consider:
- We host works that are not copyright in the US, yet some of these are still copyright in their home country, and we have both text and image as they cannot be at Commons.
- We do not host some works as they have copyright in the US, even though they are out of copyright in their home country.
- WMF has a broad scope to copyright and licensing and how they see that it applies and give latitude to how wikis can apply. It is a range, and up and down the range different conditions apply.
- We license all of our works with the conditions that apply to their hosting, and their re-use. It is our rule about not allowing "non-commercial" or not having "fair use", it is not WMF's.
- There are ways that we could differentiate non-commercial works from commercial works if we chose a different approach.
- So how about a reasoned and logical debate, not an emotional one, or one that hinges on a dogma. Wikisource should develop, and that development should be in line with the scope of the WMF and its development. We should not be frozen in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it is WMF's rule about not allowing non-commercial. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above." And any emphasis on a logical debate is deceptive; the question is about deciding what our ultimate goals are, and logic can't advance that question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- actually WMF does allow non-commercial works per "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status." maybe we could have a proposal for pre-1941 works not in print?
- thank-you for being honest about the appeal to emotion, rather than appeal to reasom. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- The page describes how EDPs should be used as:
- "3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ... Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
- 4. ... They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content."
- Yes, your appeal that we should maximize the volume of works we can work on is no more an appeal to reason than my appeal to staying with free works. Rationally we can speak of the value of a small set of works that we may be forced to take down if they come back in print, versus the huge universe of pre-1923 work that is untouchable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- you can call a fair use of the "orphan work out of print before 1941" an ideology if you want, but it is an ideology shared by the hathi trust and internet archive. they will do the work of selection, and we could support them. these are low risk items, that we can make available to the public, as a part of the sum of all knowledge. - they are partners i can collaborate with, unlike the FSF. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- A couple of examples of works that could fit within the EDP doctine, and I do preface that it is a little opening and possibly one that would take too much explaining to make it useful and sustainable.
- works that are out of copyright in their home country, and that are out of print;
- compiled works that are not copyrighted for parent work, though may contain work that is within copyright within US; traditionally we have blanked those components in our transcription, be they chapters or images.
- As a question, does anyone know why there is an 1941 cutoff? I haven't seen mention of why the 75 years is pertinent. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because, books published upto 1941, with 95 years' copyright, are within last 20 years of their copyright; and thus covered under 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- a lot of the works will be US home country, but out of print, and orphaned, so we do not know who the copyright holder is (although hathi trust found some subsequently) see also w:Orphan works in the United States
- are you agreeing to a fair use of the lesser term? the Canadians and Chinese would be happy to agree with you.
- compilations are rare compared to the orphan ocean. we can also do a copyright search for non-renewal, but this is not "untouchable", the rules are too complicated for bright lines, but we can show our work as a standard of practice. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 00:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because, books published upto 1941, with 95 years' copyright, are within last 20 years of their copyright; and thus covered under 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at the EDP, the only WS project I could find with a more-or-less clear stance is the French Wikisource, which allows both local uploads (like most except Japanese and Dutch) and, unusually, non-free content (which is discouraged, but some content is fair-use in French law; see this and this if you read French). Perhaps someone with a good command of French could research how they operate regarding these matters for ideas? Inatan (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- A couple of examples of works that could fit within the EDP doctine, and I do preface that it is a little opening and possibly one that would take too much explaining to make it useful and sustainable.
- you can call a fair use of the "orphan work out of print before 1941" an ideology if you want, but it is an ideology shared by the hathi trust and internet archive. they will do the work of selection, and we could support them. these are low risk items, that we can make available to the public, as a part of the sum of all knowledge. - they are partners i can collaborate with, unlike the FSF. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- The page describes how EDPs should be used as:
- Actually, it is WMF's rule about not allowing non-commercial. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above." And any emphasis on a logical debate is deceptive; the question is about deciding what our ultimate goals are, and logic can't advance that question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is an interesting approach, though I am not sure that it is a reasoned approach. Some thoughts to consider:
┌───────────────────────┘
Other than these "Last 20" books, I would like to draw attention to another class of books, already mentioned by @Billinghurst:, which are PD-home country but not PD-URAA. Such books are now allowed in Commons. Internet Archive has a good number, especially after the large-scale addition of DLI books. In case of Indian works, two types are now allowed here (exc. Govt woks & CC): Books published before 1923 and books by authors who died before 1941. If we allow PD-home country, then books of authors who died in 1941-1956 can be allowed, which is a huge number of books. For countries that are 70 pma (like UK), books by authors who died before 1947 can be allowed. This will considerably enrich the English Wikisource (e.g., by having the post-1923 works of Rabindranath Tagore and the books of hunting by Jim Corbett, among others). These are already allowed in Commons, so we may also consider. Hrishikes (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Support conditionally when considering m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Orphan works for non-American works only. 
Oppose this for orphan American works.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)- Support Of course, I support any extension of our scope. Yann (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per ShakespeareFan00. Perhaps this proposal would be more appropriate over at Wikilivres. NMaia (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @NMaia: Wikilivres is in Canada. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment wikilivres is no more; it is now https://biblio.wiki/wiki/Main_Page - it could be appropriate here, but you choose to wall yourself off from the decisions of hathi trust, and commons. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral; looks like a lot of bother and confusion for a handful of obscure works, but if people want to establish a clear policy or EDP that works with our existing policies and frameworks then go for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)- Comment you should expect a periodic questioning of why no EDP, as naive people see work that very well could be done, but is not, for a lack of it. i am not confused. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- If we pass this proposal, I would like to rewrite Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and possibly rename it. Chinese Wikisource is about to accept similar proposal.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- We should delete Not-PD-US-URAA; it's not in use anywhere, and it's not relevant. Even if we accept this proposal, it's still not relevant; this applies to books published more than 75 years ago that have living authors as much as those with long dead authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- i agree, we should delete not-pd-us-uraa - that is a commons drama, that no one cares about here enough to upload a work. chinese wikisource is going for "works of the lesser term" contrary to the "take it to wikilivres" above. but why there should be an ideological opposition to an EDP for a few works is interesting. does not add value. partnering with IA and hathi adds value. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Chinese Wikisource is considering this proposal here, so Template:Bibliowiki page now corresponds to zh:template:Not-PD-US-old. Undeleting Not-PD-US-URAA is provisional while considering m:Legal/Wikimedia_Server_Location_and_Free_Knowledge. Depending on whether this proposal goes, I may propose merging relevant contents of Not-PD-US-URAA into Template:Bibliowiki page, possibly renaming Template:Bibliowiki.--Jusjih (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- As I understand from an ongoing discussion by experts at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group, we cannot consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law), for hosting the "Last 20" books. Internet Archive has official recognition as a library under US law in the state of California. That's why they can go ahead with this provision of 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Wikisource has no such recognition; so we cannot do it. People participating in that Facebook discussion were commenting on this discussion of ours, that Wikisource is not getting the "nuance" of the matter. Hrishikes (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- "library status" is a loophole in the code, to host the pdf’s. we can still claim fair use of orphan works out of print, regardless of theories of who we are. if it is an orphan there is no one to claim copyright. i often lament the lack of nuance of what passes for consensus, in many forums.Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 03:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- As I understand from an ongoing discussion by experts at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group, we cannot consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law), for hosting the "Last 20" books. Internet Archive has official recognition as a library under US law in the state of California. That's why they can go ahead with this provision of 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Wikisource has no such recognition; so we cannot do it. People participating in that Facebook discussion were commenting on this discussion of ours, that Wikisource is not getting the "nuance" of the matter. Hrishikes (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Chinese Wikisource is considering this proposal here, so Template:Bibliowiki page now corresponds to zh:template:Not-PD-US-old. Undeleting Not-PD-US-URAA is provisional while considering m:Legal/Wikimedia_Server_Location_and_Free_Knowledge. Depending on whether this proposal goes, I may propose merging relevant contents of Not-PD-US-URAA into Template:Bibliowiki page, possibly renaming Template:Bibliowiki.--Jusjih (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- i agree, we should delete not-pd-us-uraa - that is a commons drama, that no one cares about here enough to upload a work. chinese wikisource is going for "works of the lesser term" contrary to the "take it to wikilivres" above. but why there should be an ideological opposition to an EDP for a few works is interesting. does not add value. partnering with IA and hathi adds value. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- We should delete Not-PD-US-URAA; it's not in use anywhere, and it's not relevant. Even if we accept this proposal, it's still not relevant; this applies to books published more than 75 years ago that have living authors as much as those with long dead authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- If we pass this proposal, I would like to rewrite Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and possibly rename it. Chinese Wikisource is about to accept similar proposal.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then are we considering m:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge to conditionally tolerate works affected by the m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term? I am ready to forget the "Last 20" books not affected by the US non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
