Wikisource

Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2008-09

< Wikisource:Copyright discussions‎ | Archives

Deleted edit

Sahih Muslim translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui edit

Deleted. Yann 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Consists of 43 pages: 1-The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman) through 43-The Book of Commentary (Kitab Al-Tafsir). See Mohammed 2010's contributions for all 43. I cannot determine when this translation was published. It appears to have been copied from this site, which says "The collection may absolutely NOT be copied or used for commercial gain.". According to this page, one edition of the translation was published in 1976. I cannot determine the birth and death dates of the translator, but the tense of his Wikipedia article implies he is still living. Psychless 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

leaning towards delete, false copyright prohibitions are common ("I typed this, nobody is allowed to copy it!"), but if that is indeed the translator than it does at first glance seem like a modern translation. I'm intrigued though by the statement "We are indebted to Mr. Aslam Abdullah for donating the first half of the collection. We are also indebted to the DEED-IIU group at the University of Malaysia for completing the collection" which makes it sound like this is an older text/manuscript/book/whatever. But this lecture is apparently by the same "noted Sunni scholar" Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui and is very clearly modern. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 01:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have emailed the MSA department at USC, asking them about the copyright status of the work and the translator. I'll give them a while to respond, but in the meantime I'm going to blank the work. If they do not respond and no further information comes forward, I would favor deletion. Psychless 22:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I received this:
Due to the high volume of SPAM. We can't really answer your emails personally in a timely manner.
Please check other sites for your questions :(
Thanks
Some useful links:
http://www.al-islam.com
http://islamqa.com
http://halfdate.com
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA
Therefore, I am leaning towards Delete. Psychless 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This work was previously deleted at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007-04#Sahih_Muslim. All 43 chapters are linked to at Sahih Muslim. 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Noli Me Tangere edit

The translation by León Ma. Guerrero appears to have in fact been published in 1961. I can't find anything in the renewal databases above, but then I haven't a clue what I'm doing with those. Prosody 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...the lead certainly needs to be rewritten by someone a little less enthusiastic :P Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 10:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on the introduction :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it as PD-1923 due to this note; more fool me. The 1905 publication year could still be right, as the translator died in 1935, according to Wikipedia, but that would probably mean it was published in the Philippines, which means we have a new set of copyright laws to investigate: w:List of countries' copyright length says 50 pma; w:Philippine copyright law says nothing on the topic. An anon user changed his year of death to 1982.
It does appear to have been published in the US in 1961, and doesnt appear in the renewal databases under Guerrero, so that edition is PD-US-no-renewal. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have two different persons here. I don't know which one is the author through. Yann 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we have a PD English translation on Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6737 Yann 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] gives us some details of a Leon Ma. Guerrero that might match the bibliography given, which is much too late to be the León María Guerrero Wikipedia gives. If it was first published in the US (or within 30 days), then a claim of non-renewal could be made; I think it would be a lot of work to show that to a degree of reasonable certainty, instead of merely the balance of probability.--Prosfilaes 17:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Library of Congress lists The first filipino published in 1963, with Guerrero's dates as 1915-1982. Since this book is a biography of Rizal, it is consistent with the present work being considered. There were also earlier translations of Noli me tangere that are clearly in the public domain. Unless the contributor can provide more enlightenment this version can probably be deleted. The 1905 translation in PG was done by Derbyshire. Eclecticology 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:42:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

THE PRIMARY CLASSICAL LANGUAGE OF THE WORLD edit

Published in 1966 by w:Devaneya Pavanar (1902–1981). It was transwikied from Wikibooks, and the contributor never registered in Wikisource, and didn't edit Wikibooks since March 2007. See alo w:The Primary Classical Language of the World and http://openlibrary.org/b/OL22986M Yann 08:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imported it because of this:
“ The literary works and books of [...] Devaneyappavanar [... and others] have been nationalised and compensation amount has been given to their legal heirs. (Tamil Nadu Government, 2003) ”
I am not sure of the details of how the Indian law allows the w:Tamil Nadu govt to do this, nor precisely what it means to the copyright of the work.
Here is the full quote from this page
“ NATIONALISATION OF BOOKS
The literary works and books of Bharathiyar, Silambu Selvar Ma. Po. Sivagnam (a book on `éLjiy¥ nghçš jäHf«' only) Kavignar Pattukottai Kalyanasundaram, Pavendar Bharathidasan, Perarignar Anna, Mozhignayiru Devaneyappavanar, Maramalai Adigalar, Thiru. Vi. Ka., Kalki, V.Swaminatha Sharma have been nationalised and compensation amount has been given to their legal heirs.
In connection with the Golden Jubilee year of National Independence, books of many Tamil National Authors have been nationalised and compensation sanctioned to the legal heirs of each family. The works of Mylai Seeni.Venkatasamy, Thiru. Samy. Chidambaranar, Kavignar Mudiyarasan and Thiru. K. Appadurai have been nationalised.
 ”
John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if it's possible to nationalise tangible property, it should also be possible for intangible property such as copyrights. I have no idea either about the constitutional relationship of state and federal governments in India. For the moment, if we assume that the state of Tamil Nadu has the right to nationalise in this way it would become the owner of the copyrights. We would then still require that that government has made a clear declaration that it has put the material into the public domain or has granted a free licence. Eclecticology 13:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there is no PD or free license release, it will be in the PD in 2027 (60 years after publication) instead of 2042 (60 years pma). Yann 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we can draw that conclusion, though it is moot until 2027. In the absence of other legal provisions my first impression would be that the state is taking over the rights of the heirs for the same period of time that they would otherwise have existed. Eclecticology 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming there is no "national works are PD" clause, then I'm afraid I agree with the others that most likely copyright is simply transferred to the state, not removed. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:35:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ship of Fools edit

The text is copyright 1999 by the author. Whether it was intended for distribution is irrelevant, in my opinion, without an explicit statement that it's been freely released or licensed. In fact, the only explicit statement is that the text is copyrighted. WODUP 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by Author:Theodore Kaczynski. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we did delete the work of w:Seung-Hui Cho last year. There’s no “murderer exception” in the copyright statute that I’m aware of, although I’m inclined to agree that the Unabomber is unlikely to sue us. Tarmstro99 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
w:Ship of Fools (story) doesnt mention the publication history, however the bio of the author mentions it was (re?)published in an anarchist magazine w:Green Anarchy. A NYT piece agrees with our header (it was to be published in an Off! (student) magazine), gives the name of the editor at the time, and says that a "Context Books" was handling a memoir called Truth Versus Lies, so that might mean someone cares about the copyright, however http://contextbooks.com is no longer a functioning website. I wonder if we can get in contact with him; I hear prisons have email; he could email permissions@wikimedia.org, and I am sure the email would be extremely verifiable. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stay as far away from this individual as possible. This was a triple murderer who was spared the death penalty only because he was thought to be too mentally imbalanced to understand the full nature of his actions. 216.165.199.50 06:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found his mailing address a while back, I'll send him a snailmail petition for his writings to be formally released. I'm pretty sure he's mentioned somewhere in his writings that he's anti-copyright anyways, but I'll get it formally confirmed in writing and send a scan of his snailmail response along to WMF's ticket service when it arrives. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Cookbooks 06:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens maybe I'll solicit victim impact statements from his victims and their family members testifying to this creep's complete lack of human sympathy or compassion, so they can be prominently included on this "author" page. Be sure to know it will be the last time we "collaborate" on a project barring the next time you choose to reward an individual whose only claim to notability is the fatal and widespread application of his criminal skills. Sociopaths like Kaczynski all belong in a tie for dead last, a view I thought everyone shared, among whom to include, much less solicit, for their so-called intellectual or artistic works. ResScholar 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100 years from now, people will want to read the writings of one of the most notoriously clever, crafty, elusive and criminally insane people to have caused the FBI significant grief. We are a library / archive. We do not have to enjoy the work, or its author, in order to recognise the need to preserve it. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. We have works by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, so why not this guy. I didn't know about this guy before, but I just read the WP article (well documented BTW) and I find his writings more interesting than many others, even if I don't agree. Yann 10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not lose track of the issue. If “100 years from now, people will want to read” the Unabomber’s writings, they can, because the writings will be out of copyright (assuming Kaczyncki dies within the next 30 years and there are no further retroactive extensions of the copyright term). The question isn’t the work’s historical significance or the newsworthiness of its author. The question is whether Ship of Fools is presently free content under WS:COPY. The work bears an express copyright notice, it was created after 1/1/1978, and its author is still alive. Tarmstro99 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preserving specimens of thinking by an author who has had a large impact on society after their death is a far cry from making unsolicited invitations to, in effect, market their productions and thus benefit them while they are still living. As I said, Kaczyncki's cries for attention and significance deserves to be put in the back of line behind the multitude of living and deceased authors who earned their significance, even if they came to wholly erroneous conclusions, by respecting the great conversation that marks Western Civilization, which at a bare minimum includes respecting the lives of the members of the society on which it is based. ResScholar 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you point a bit clearer now - asking him for a release could make him feel better about himself, but the cold reality is that I dont care how happy or unhappy he feels about himself - because he is living in his own universe at this stage, and he is god in his universe anyway.
Also, securing a release now for these works means that nobody is making money from publishing his works after his death. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent & edit conflict - this was in reply to Tarmstro99) In addition to collecting PD works, we are also in the business of promoting the early release of works by copyright holders, under free licenses. Because if we dont, countless pieces of work will end up in some archive that is physically inaccessible, in "box of letters" fashion, and inevitable some of those archives will accidentally go up in flames and nobody will know what was lost.

I was being a bit flippant when I suggested we could inquire about a free license for these works, but there are some interesting issues here. Would a free license permission from Kaczynski be considered useful in a court of law? Does he retain control over his own works even though he has been given no chance of parole, and thus no chance to benefit from the control. Even if he does retain control of his works, would his insanity prevent a release from being worth a pinch of salt.

If we want more works relating to this man, the court documents stand out as likely to be the most useful, but at this time we are dealing with Ship of Fools, and the contributions by 85.138.162.183 (talk • contribs), and I hope we can explore options which might lead to the work being retained. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your feeling about w:Son of Sam laws? And if you agree with the principle behind them isn't this really allowing Kaczynski to accumulate the profit of intellectual respectability? What if Kaczynski dies after releasing his works with a GNU license? Won't that deprive his victims of the rights to his works and any hope of recovering the $15 million in damages the court says he owes them? 216.165.199.50 04:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tough questions. To summarise: Yes, I'm in favour of the principle, and I think a release into the public domain goes a long way to satisfy the principle. I'm interested in the idea that a release of his copyrights deprives the victims.
The way I see it, the principle is to prevent the criminal from benefiting from their crime, and in a more general sense, to prevent the social injustice of the criminals being rich while the victims continue to suffer. In my opinion, a release into the public domain is a way to achieve this principle; the work becomes worthless to the author.
I cant see how any additional intellectual respectability is gained by it being freely released - if anything, as there are less people who have invested in the work (book publishers are not trying to make money from it; readers don't need to pay for it) so there is less reason to have an inflated opinion of its intellectual value.
A release into the public domain (or a free license) will probably result in no money that can be claimed to repay the $15 million. If it is a good enough story, book publishers will still print it and make some (less) profit from it, but a portion of the profit isnt going to the author, so there is less reason for the victims to claim that they deserve a cut of the profit.
In my opinion the treatment of criminals should be intended to undo the affect of the crime where possible (i.e. hospital bills), correct the criminal behaviour, and deny the person freedoms. The balance of those three goals goes to the core of a modern culture.
I can see why there is justification for wanting to use the criminals assets, existing and future, to undo the crime. Is there a reasonable basis in USA case law to say that a criminal is not able to give away existing "assets" that could be used to repay their debt? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Wrote the letter this afternoon, it'll be in this week's mail, which means we still have a dearth of turnaround time ahead of us. I'll scan any responses I get, and OTRS them if appropriate. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: William Lyon Mackenzie King 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you received any update yet?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:10:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mein Kampf edit

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


Yann 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eclecticology mentions that this translation is still copyrighted ([2]). Checking for copyright records, I have found these English translations: by Alvin Johnson, Helmut L. Ripperger & others., by Ralph Manheim, by E. T. S. Dugdale, and edited by Houghton Mifflin, no translator mentioned. The article in Wikipedia has quite a detailed listed of translations. This translation is only available from PG Australia, and previous discussion is here: oldwikisource:Wikisource:Copyvio archives/Mein Kampf. Yann 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion seems conclusive. Definitely delete. Psychless 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion suggests it would fit on Wikilivres? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that is correct. It is in the public domain in Canada, so it should be moved to Wikilivres. Psychless 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been removed from scribd "at the request of copyright agent E. Rutherford". John Vandenberg (chat) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the African a God? edit

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


This work was published in w:Gold Coast (British colony) (now Ghana) and written by Isaac Theophilus Akunna Wallace-Johnson (1895–May 10, 1965).

From a brief investigation, Ghana was using 25pma at the time of his death.[3]

The current law, Art. 12, Copyright Act, 2005 brought it up to 70pma and says

“ Retroactive protection

78. The provisions of this Act applies to works, performances and sound recordings which were made prior to the date of the coming into effect of this Act, if the term of protection had not expired under the Copyright Law, 1985, (P.N.D.C.L. 110) or under the legislation of the country of origin of the works, performances or sound recordings that are to be protected under an international treaty to which the Republic is party.

”

In 1985, only 20 years would have elapsed, making this retrospectively protected, unless I have something wrong. John Vandenberg 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current law of Ghana, it says that "Copyright subsists during the life of the copyright holder and 50 years after his death...In the case of published works, copyright subsists for a period of 50 years from the date of first publication." which suggests that the death+50 is only for unpublished works to protect the person's privacy - while published works are date+50, which would mean this work expired in 1986, by current law. If I'm misreading that, then ignore me. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The doesnt look anything like Copyright Act of 2005 PDF that I am looking at. John Vandenberg 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Buggered if I know, I just googled around and found the reference. shrugs. Is this the 1985 law then, which you didn't link? If so, then in 1985 the law made his work (which was only five years from PD) date+50 (ie, 1986, actually reducing its copyright term) - and in 1986 his work entered the public domain through the 1985 act. Which means the work had "expired under the Copyright Law, 1985" by the time the 2005 act was made law. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WIPO provides an outline of the 1985 law, which says 50pma, but I cant find an original. I suspect the document you point to is about audio recordings. John Vandenberg 05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this was published in w:African Morning Post, it could be PD. The 2005 law says

“ Employed authors

7. In the absence of any contract to the contrary, the economic right of a work shall vest in an employer or a person who commissions the work where the employed or commissioned author has created the work in the course of the employment or commission.

....

Duration of copyright in bodies corporate

13. Where the copyright in a work is owned by a public corporation or other body corporate, the term of protection shall be seventy years from the date on which the work was either made or first published, whichever date is the later.

”

It was published in 1936, which means it is public domain if it is considered copyright to "African Morning Post". John Vandenberg 05:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to know, and currently don’t (unless I’m misunderstanding the foregoing), are: (1) what was the duration of copyright in Ghana at the time this work was published in 1936; (2) had that period expired at the time of the subsequent legislation (1985 and 2005); and (3) if not (i.e., the copyright was still in force), did the legislation retroactively extend existing copyright terms or was it prospective only? Knowing the rule now in effect under the 2005 Act for corporate works (publication+70) tells us little unless that was also the rule in 1936, which we don’t presently know. I don’t know of any reference sources on the history of Ghanaian copyright law; anyone have any hints on where we might look? Tarmstro99 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it matters whether the copyright lapsed into the public domain at some point before 1985. Since it was restored to 50 pma in 1985, on January 1, 1996 the copyright was still in force and will be until 2016. So it's treated as if it's under U.S. copyright law, that is until 2030.

To consider the copyright to belong to the African Morning Post is contrary to the sense of the punishment Wallace-Johnson received under the laws of his country. If the copyright belonged the Post then they would have been fined, not him. ResScholar 08:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the 1985 act isn't retroactive to works that had fallen into the PD by then. As a result, Tarmstro99's query about the laws of 1936 appear to be a glimmer of hope. As far as I can see, it was the UK Copyright Act of 1911 that applied. Wikipedia doesnt have an article on that (yet), and I dont think we have the source (yet). John Vandenberg (chat) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a newspaper reporter writes a scandalous piece, he can be charged himself with libel/incitement/whatever - rather than the newspaper. I see no evidence that the Post would not have been the copyright holder since he was writing for them at the time. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The key date is 1965 not 1936. If the rule was life+25 at the time of the author's death that time was not over in 1985 when the law was apparently changed to life+50, and that longer period had not yet expired in 2005 when it was further extended. The conviction for sedition is based on an entirely different part of the law; owning the copyright has no relevance to the conviction. (Was copyright even mentioned in the text of that court ruling?) The employment clause does not apply unless you can establish that the author was in fact an employee of the newspaper. If he was submitting freelance articles or letters to the editor, or even if it was in fact a part of an entrapment scheme, he was not an employee. Eclecticology 07:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split Cherry Tree edit

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

A bit more information is needed to determine the copyright status of this work: no publication date is mentioned, but as Jesse Stuart, the author is born in 1906, it was most probably published after 1922. No renewal record either. Was it part of a short stories collection? Yann 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jude (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man of Allah edit

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


The latter is a poem taken from the former, which was written in 1933 - and has passed Archive.org's vetting procedure. I quickly checked Google for the author's death date, but couldn't find it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. What is Archive.org's vetting procedure for our information? What is it published in USA? Regards, Yann 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The w:Internet Archive is based in Presidio, California (United States), and it scans only books which are determined to be Public Domain. While it may be redundant, I'll point out that the Digital Library of India also puts his full-text works online. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are plenty of scanned books which are NOT in the public domain: [5] published in 1962 by Louis Fischer (sic not Louis Fisher) (1896—1970). Yann 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the publishing date in 1962, it's possible that the work you pointed to didn't have it's copyright license renewed and therefore falls under PD. - Mtmelendez 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we cannot merely trust Internet Archive, but must "trust, but verify". We need to know why it is thought to be in the Public Domain and put a license template on it.--BirgitteSB 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Even the website's note says Possible copyright status. - Mtmelendez 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards deletion

The archive.org edition is printed in Bombay, without any year of publication to be seen. Inside the back cover is a Univeristy of Toronoto Library Card, and their catalog says 1933 is the year of publication.

McGill University Library has two copies, "193?" and "19--?". Oddly, the name on one of them is "Jairazbhoy, Cassamally", author of "The Suicide of Turkey" and others, and Vice-President of the Moslem League according to [6]. This link may be correct, as the Turkish Military Library contains a copy of "Fear Allah and take your own part", and at the back of the book hosted by archive.org (and listed on Author:Qassim Ali Jairazbhoy) we see this author has also published a book called "Turkey and India".

Digital Library of India claims it was published in 1891, however that digital record does not have any pagescans that I can find, and I cant find an online catalog of the Indian library which holds it. They also [claim that Fear Allah and Take Your own Part was published in 1909, however pagescans of it show a 1931 Preface, and all WorldCat entries agree with 1931, so I dont put much faith in the record keeping of Digital Library of India.

Sher has extracted a map from the archive.org book, commons:Image:Map of South-West Asia (MoA).png, and it is clearly tagged incorrectly, and should be nominated for deletion if this cant be sorted out. But there is some joy in it; it uses the name "Constantinople", which is a pretty strange thing for a map maker to be doing in 1933 when Istanbul was the only acceptable name after 1923, and in 1930 the Turkish postal system refused to deliver to that city. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Constantinople is still in use in general by Greeks (I am uninterested in politics - just illustrating a point). Although such a referance to the city is rare today, it happens from time to time. Sometimes such a referance is intentional for political purposes. In 1933 in the absence of the Internet a map maker might have made this kind of an error rather easily. This wouldn't be the first such error. -- Cat chi? 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and for PD its Authors life + 70 years in Turkey as well. Works by TR gov employees in general are also PD but I am not 100% sure where the legal background for this exists. However a lawsuit over copyright by the government is unheard of. -- Cat chi? 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than assuming the DLoI is lying, I'd say that it points towards Qassim writing the work in 1891; and the English translation being printed in 1933. You'll note the UT version hosted on Archive.org is in fact signed by the author in 1934 and "presented" to the University; so I suppose he was clearly alive (and still living in India) at that point. On the other hand, it also demonstrates that he speaks English fluently, so it's possible English is the original publication language of the text. I also see a book entitled "Muhammad" written by him (no pub. date), which seems to be ISBN 81-87570-14-8, the only book he wrote with an ISBN. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 20:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the content on the map I see two things that clearly identify me the era the map is odd. Take a look at Syria. In the absence of Israel you can easily conclude this is a map of an era that is pre 1948. If you pay a close attention to the Caucasus, you'll see that the borders are quite odd. Pay close attention to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. These are the borders of these countries before they became TSFSR. These countries only existed briefly between 1918 and 1920 (till 1921 in the case of Georgia). This map was definitely drawn after 1918. This could technically put it to pre 1923. I however believe the map was drawn by a historian much later. From the print quality I'd conclude its quite pre-1957. Of course what matters is the authors date of death for copyright not the date of the print. Unless the work was created before 1923 (thats 2 - 3 years after the formation of the TSFSR - I'd say this is quite unlikely although not impossible) or author died before 1938 (thats 17 - 18 years after the formation of the TSFSR), I'd say it is quite copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 04:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he did die some time in the before 1938, but after 1933 - this is why India would recognise his works as Public Domain, as would countries that accept the Rule of the Shorter Term. However, the United States would only accept this work as being public domain if he died prior to 1936; which is the tricky part for us, as I understand it - narrowing down his death. Since we have photographs of a 1933 copy of the book, obviously "pre-1948" or "pre-1957" isn't particularly useful; but I agree it seems like the book is Public Domain in every country (including home country) except the United States. If nothing else, it belongs transwikied to Livres. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 04:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as not PD in the United States. I can undelete a copy if someone wants to transwiki. Giggy (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Ibis edit

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

My initial checks on this have left me confused. It appears to be {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, but it was given a renewal after the28 years had elapsed. See User talk:RazzleBeast for details. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:RazzleBeast in any way related to the Crunchberry Beast? If so I may throw his contribution a sympathy vote. ResScholar 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, Atlantic Monthly was renewed from v. 154 (1934) onwards. The first renewal is here. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jude (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States of Lyncherdom edit

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Oops, maybe all my work today is down the drain on The United States of Lyncherdom. I thought I'd run it by the experts. The essay was written by Author:Mark Twain (d. 1910) in 1901, but not published until 1923.[7] I had thought it was published in Europe, and elsewhere (overseas), when in fact it was published in a book entitled Europe and Elsewhere in New York. The copyright was renewed in 1950.[8] I guess this is Mickey Moused, right? At least for ten or so more years? -- Kendrick7 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is further complicated, as the author's full version wasn't published until 2000, according to the Time article, so the full version would be PD? Or, weirdly, only the parts that weren't published in 1923.... -- Kendrick7 03:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weirder yet, Twain himself supported +50 copyright.[9] Brain hurts.... -- Kendrick7 03:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version published in 2000 via Terry Oggel seems to be definitive. I'll have to see what sort of copyright notice it carries, which will require a visit to the stacks. -- Kendrick7 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twains opinions on a reasonable duration dont hold much weight in the matter; his rights went to his estate, and they renewed the copyrights. Circular 15 talks about posthomous works, and leads me to think that this renewal was appropriate, but IIRC in situations like this the registration and/or renewal should not be taken to mean that the claim is correct. If the renewal is appropriate, then it trumps the 70pma.
The 2000 edition throws this into a weird situation, as that edition would be considered unpublished, and according to this it might be PD but for the fact that an edition was published in 1923. If the two editions bear any resemblence, I dont think the 2000 edition helps us at all. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I want to see what if any note of this Oggel took, but it'll take me a few weeks to get around to this. I'll have to see with my own eyes how much rewriting and redaction was done by Twain's biographer in the 1923 version. -- Kendrick7 21:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that he has been dead for 98 years and we are still discussing this, but the version published in 1923 is copyright until 1923+95=2018 and the one published in 2000 until 2047. Zginder

I see no reason why this isn't copyrighted. It's insane, but unfortunate. Surprisingly, if it had not been published in 1923, according to Sherurcij's research on another Twain topic, it would be Life+70. I guess we'll just have to wait until 2018. :( Deleted. Jude (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Mohammed_2010 contributions edit

The following discussion is closed:

delete

In addition to the above, there are quite a lot of pages without an author, a translator and a source. It seems that at least some of these come from [10] which displays Copyright © 2004 - 2008 SearchTruth.com. All rights reserved. Yann 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sahih Bukhari was translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan. According to this search [11], it's a modern translation and only hosted on this website with permission, presumably. This is an obvious copyvio, so I deleted the associated pages. Psychless 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sunan Abi Da'ud (Sunan Abu-Dawud [12]), Al-Muwatta ([13]), and Forty Hadith Qudsi ([14]) have been deleted as obvious copyvios. The only one I'm not sure about is Nahj al-Balagha. I'd like some other input, but I am leaning towards delete (see w:Nahj_al-Balagha#Some_translations_of_Nahj_al-Balagha_in_European_languages. Psychless 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based mostly on some research on archive.org: I cannot find anything by Ali ibn Abi Talib there, except for some scans of old Arabic text. Likewise, the anonymous IP who created the article in the first place did not provide any further information about the translation it was taken from. I say delete also. Jude (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Psychless 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of an Unborn Child edit

The following discussion is closed.

w:Diary of an Unborn Child was written anonymously in 1980, and is consequently copyrighted; if not by Watchtower, than by its anonymous author. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea how their journals work, but I imagine that they employ people to write for them, so the copyright would thus be owned by Watchtower. Finally, from what I've seen elsewhere on the internet, they're pretty defensive when it comes to copyright and are not scared about suing. A definite delete. Jude (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. "Awake!" is covered by copyright number CSN0009183. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Authorship on Application: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., employer for hire.
Issues Registered: 	v. 61, no. 3, 8Feb80. Created 1980; Pub. 1980-01-08; Reg. 1980-01-30; TX0000405707
	v. 61, no. 4, 22Feb80. Created 1980; Pub. 1980-01-18; Reg. 1980-01-30; TX0000405708
	v. 61, no. 5, 8Mar80. Created 1980; Pub. 1980-02-06; Reg. 1980-03-21; TX0000443110
	v. 61, no. 6, 22Mar80. Created 1980; Pub. 1980-02-20; Reg. 1980-03-21; TX0000443108
	v. 61, no. 7, 8Apr80. Created 1980; Pub. 1980-03-06; Reg. 1980-04-07; TX0000490054
	v. 61, no. 8, 22Apr80. Created 1980; Pub. 1980-03-25; Reg. 1980-04-07; TX0000490055

Puff the Magic Dragon edit

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Original uploader of lyrics to the 1963 song "Puff the Magic Dragon" asserts its copyright was not renewed. This is easy to check at the US Copyright Office, which indicates it was renewed in 1991:

Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000520132 / 1991-01-28
Renewal registration for: EP0000173578 / 1963-03-22
Title: Puff (the magic dragon) w & m Peter Yarrow, Leonard Lipton.
Copyright Claimant: Peter Yarrow, Leonard Lipton (A)
Variant title: Puff (the magic dragon)
Names: Yarrow, Peter
Lipton, Leonard

Notice that both words and music are covered by this renewal. (A number of variations of the song are also covered. Do an author search for "Lipton Leonard".) Pretty straightforward. Still under copyright until 2058 (which I agree is excessive to the point of ridiculousness, but such is life). --Fastfission (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It looks like a pretty clear case of being under copyright. Jude (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eradicating Macedonians - Greek document from 1982 edit

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted


This is a document produced by the Greek goverment in 1982. It is not par tof public law and was not meant for release so I don't see any possibility of getting a copyright release from them.--BirgitteSB 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted. It would not look good for Wikisource to be hosting works marked "TOP SECRET" by the govt., and there is no indication that it's PD or likely to be released as such. Also deleted the image. Giggy (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II's Address to the United States Congress edit

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


These would definately be prepared remarks and under crown copyright.--BirgitteSB 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems inconceivable she would make comments without prior conception, I'm going to have to agree. Delete. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Delete. Stratford490 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Giggy (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Religion of the Brahmo Samaj edit

Ronosen (talk • contribs) insists that The Religion of the Brahmo Samaj by Hem Chandra Sarkar is a copyright violation, and as there is no wikipedia bio, or birth/death dates I cant be 100% certain, so I bring it here for others to comment on. Out text claims it was written in 1911, and this indicates that is possible.

Justification for this request has been added to Talk:The Religion of the Brahmo Samaj. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Worldcat search turned up OCLC 41074381, which shows a 2nd edition of this work published in 1911, although it is not widely available. Without comparing the text posted here to that earlier version, of course, we cannot be certain that what is being posted is actually the PD version. Tarmstro99 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a copy that was published in 1931 at the Internet Archive [15]. Not sure if it is the same version or not. --Mattwj2002 13:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some comparisons with John's source and they didn't appear to be the same thing. Not sure if that helps at all. giggy (:O) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ An emergency meeting of editorial board was convened to authorise the nominees to take requisite action against websites (including legal measures) to protect all copyright and intellectual property of Brahmo Samaj and Brahmo religion. ”
From the Brahmo Samaj "official website for all Brahmo religionists". Also interesting is Ronosen (talk • contribs)'s comment in the log for Talk:The Religion of the Brahmo Samaj Ronosen (Talk | contribs | block) (182 bytes) (Effectively deleting this article. The author DebanjanRay is a known vandal and work is copyrighted). There appears to be a dispute between this use and the user who uploaded the text.
Finally, seeing as the text is also incomplete, as well as there being no obvious proof of public domain, I think we should delete, or move to WS:DEL. Jude (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at IA's microfilm version of the 1931 edition, I don't see any copyright notice anywhere in the book. As a work published between 1923–1963 without copyright notice, it has fallen into the public domain regardless of any later edition. Since we don't know which edition we have, we should delete our edition and replace it with this known-PD edition. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:43:12, 06 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we may keep it, but if we don't, I think that it can be hosted in Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for replacing with a known PD version to clear any question of Copyvio. 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, to be replaced by a PD version. Jude (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Qur'an edit

After some discussion on IRC, it appears that this translation, by w:Abdullah Yusuf Ali is the same as w:The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, which was published in 1934, meaning that PD-1921 does not apply. As the author died in 1953, from my (albeit rusty) knowledge of copyright laws and Public Domain, this wouldn't be.

There are also countless other translations (w:List of translations of the Qur'an#English) that would be in the Public Domain. Perhaps this could be replaced? Jude (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“ Hafiz Abdullah Yusuf Ali (14 April 1872 - 10 December 1953) was a South Asian Islamic scholar who translated the Qur'an into English. [...] Yusuf Ali's best-known work is his book The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, begun in 1934 and published in 1938 by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers Lahore in India (later Pakistan). ”
“ Project Gutenberg, abbreviated as PG, is a volunteer effort to digitize, archive and distribute cultural works. Founded in 1971 by Michael S. Hart, it is the oldest digital library. ”

I seriously doubt Abdullah Yusuf Ali's work is PD. There is no way he could have given PG the necesary rights 18 years before it was founded. -- Cat chi? 04:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of the three translations in Project Gutenberg. w:The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary says it was first published in 1934, and that he was Indian, which means Indian copyright law and URAA apply. Worldcat has entries for works by that name with a year of 1920.OCLC:174875824all editions John Vandenberg (chat) 05:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that record is for the work by the same name by w:Maulana Muhammad Ali.[16] --John Vandenberg (chat) 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, that 1920 edition written by a different person is very similar to the third edition in the PG etext.
2:9
“ He it is who created for you all that is in the earth and He directed Himself to the heaven, so He made them complete seven heavens, and He knows all things. ”

—Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1920

“ He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth, and He directed Himself to the heaven, so He made them complete seven heavens, and He knows all things. ”

—Project Gutenberg "S", which is Mohammad Habib Shakir

16:8
“ And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament; and He creates what you dont know. ”

—Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1920

“ And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament; and He creates what you do not know. ”

—Project Gutenberg "S", which is Mohammad Habib Shakir

The PDF is 80Mb; we should be able to down-sample to under 20Mb. It contains a lot of nice explanatory text. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this translation is very valuable and should be contained in Wikisource. The translation was published in Pakistan and has therefore a copyright of 50 years after death of the author. Therefore the translation is in the public domain. Please consider keeping the translation as it is one of the few reliable and is cited on most Qur'an sites.--Diaa abdelmoneim 07:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that PG doesn't care about URAA restoration, or thinks that USA follows the rule of shorter term. And this translation (Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)) needs at least a license. I added three authors pages for translators. In case these translations cannot be published here, they could be hosted on Wikilivres, as all died more than 50 years ago. Yann 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This work doesnt appear to meet the criteria of "restored" because it was not PD in India/Pakistan until 2004 (1953+50+1). The PG etext was published in 2005.
The rule of shorter term is possibly being disregarded.
I suspect that this PG etext wasnt carefully checked, as it definitely wouldnt pass through their current system, which requires pagescans be uploaded to be checked for copyright concerns. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many ways to translate religious texts from one language to another. It isn't surprising to run into exact translations by different people. The rule of shorter term does not apply to the United States. -- Cat chi? 12:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the exact opposite opinion. This gives me suspicion that the translator is not the one mentioned here. And this is confirmed by WP: w:Mohammed Habib Shakir#English translation controversy. Yann (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Replace with a public domain version (we already have at least one). Jude (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Muhammed's last sermon, Prophet Muhammad's Final Sermon edit

Right. Here we have what appear to be two translations of a 'sermon' by Author:Muhammad. One has been transwiki'd from Wikipedia, and the other appears to have been sourced from IslamiCity (specifically here). Neither have a license. According to Talk:Transwiki:Muhammed's last sermon, it's a "fraud", though John found some sources for it. The islamicity website displays a copyright warning on the site, though the text they use is displayed on a lot of different sites.

Anyone got any ideas who the translator might be, and what the license/copyright status is? Jude (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jude (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brayall v. Dart Industries edit

Copy pasted from several comments here. States "This letter is a matter of public record.", but I see no indication that he who posted it is the copyright owner and is thus able to release this copyright. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jude (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet of Doom edit

Deleted.John Vandenberg (chat) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Hello, This text is copied from http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ [17] signed Craig Winn, November 2003. Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Through Those Ten Stations edit

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted


Through Those Ten Stations is authored by Lil Bahadur Chhetri (1930—), and I found this entry trawling through Eclecticology's edits, and found a few removals of {{no license}}; this one looked very strange.

It looks like the text comes from here, which is the first issue of a periodical "penhimalaya" (they have a new Joomla website here). It was translated by "Dinesh Kumar Poudel". They have email addresses listed on their website, but the author's copyright also needs to be take into account. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Giggy (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eridu Genesis edit

My first look for references found this link http://www.piney.com/EriduGen.html which states The following excerpt is taken from "The Harps That Once...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation" by Thorkild Jacobsen. Yale University Press, Publishers; Copyright 1987. It is related here for educational purposes only." This would seem to be a copyrighted work. Jeepday 02:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:17:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kept edit

The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi/Volume II edit

Concering and related Index:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi/Volume II

Source scans have been removed from Commons as copyvio Sfan00 IMG 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons, as I understand it, has a more severe inclusion standard than Wikisource has opted to use. Not sure how it works in this instance, but deletion from Commons does not always mean deletion from other projects. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 00:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This volume covers texts from 1896-1897, thus PD in USA and South Africa (50 years pma) where Gandhi was living when he wrote these. All Gandhi's writings will be PD in India on 1st January 2009. Yann 06:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there may be questions about compilation copyrights for the scanned images, this does not apply to the actual texts contained on those pages. Eclecticology 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Jude (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author:U. G. Krishnamurti edit

I am looking at the recently loaded Thought is Your Enemy by Author:U. G. Krishnamurti, as best as I can tell the source is http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/ which contains the phrase "All the works below are placed in their entirety and can be freely downloaded.". Additionally the author page has {{PD-release}}, But I am not seeing clear release to the public domain. Correct me if I am mistaken but I beleive that without clear release the copyright is implied and so Thought is Your Enemy needs to be removed. Please also consider the opening quote at The Mystique of Enlightenment My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody. —U.G. Signed Jeepday 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was already discussed here, and your citation makes it pretty clear to me: it is in the public domain. Regards, Yann 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the old discussion at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007-04#Works of Author:U. G. Krishnamurti the result was keep "the works that carry the explicit waiver of copyright", I am not seeing an explicit waiver on Thought is Your Enemy (it may be there and I am not seeing it). So the old decision would be to delete this work. Jeepday 22:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I thought that the copyright waiver applies to all his works. Yann 22:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a quote from "Mind is a myth", and does not directly relate to "thought is your enemy" which is the work in question. - You know that there is something different about U.G. Krishnamurti when you read the disclaimer on the first page of his book, "Mind is a Myth":
My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.'
Per W:Wikipedia:Copyright problems#What's copyrighted? "Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source."
I have done a lot of work at W:Wikipedia:Copyright problems and unless the release is unquestionable I have always deleted the content from Wikipedia and have not (to my knowledge) been reversed on any such deletions. The question we have here; is there an unquestionable release for the body of work in Thought is Your Enemy? So far the answer is no. Jeepday 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work is edited by Frank Noronha, who can easily by reached by mail. Yann 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not sure if the editor can release the copyright of the work of a dead author (see W:Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#You cannot donate what someone else owns), the method for releasing copyright so is discussed at W:WP:IOWN Jeepday 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is rather to explain to which works apply the copyright waiver. The editor is the most competent to do that. Yann 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "explicit waiver of copyright" is there. It's right at the top. I believe it's the third paragraph. Check for the original here: http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/ugkrishnamurti-net/enemy0.htm83.132.128.199 11:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. I think the work should be free of Wikisource protection. There are several other websites that carry the material in its entirety, with the author's all-encompassing release prominently displayed. —unsigned comment by 24.105.155.141 (talk) .
  • As I have noted before that quote is not used in Thought is Your Enemy, and per wikipolicy and other arguments above, there is no release of copyright on the work on the published work Thought is Your Enemy, as such it is improper to post it on Wikisource. I have made my argument here, as have a few others (some IP's with little other history) and it will be up to someone else to review the arguments and close the case. Jeepday 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please look for it again. It is there! It's the third paragraph. You have missed it. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thought_is_Your_Enemy
  • Actually I do see it posted on web pages, by people who are not the author, what I don't see is the release in the published version Krishnamurti, U.G. (2002). Thought Is Your Enemy: Conversations With Ug. Smriti Books. pp. 148 pages. ISBN:8187967110. . There is nothing else to add, we wait to see if a Wikisource admin will accept the release given in other works as applying to this work as well, or if the work will be removed from Wikisource. Jeepday 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got this from here, like all the other books in wikisource: http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/ This is a published version. Everything is there, from the front cover to the back cover. You can find this book with the waiver in this link: http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/ugkrishnamurti-net/enemy0.htm

Your version is the one with the missing pages. Some of those missing pages are between the index and the first chapter.83.132.128.199 12:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarificatiuon, isn't this book in the exact same situation, as far as free copyright goes, than all the other UG's book on wikisource? 83.132.128.199 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if the final argument used to post all the other UG's books on wikisource still stands:

Although a dedication to the public domain may not be recognized in some jurisdictions, most (or at least the United States) do recognize waivers or transfers of rights. In the case at hand, the author (presumably the copyright holder) waives all rights, which is equivalent to releasing the works under a license that waives all rights. Such licenses (including Creative Commons licenses) have never been tried in court, so such a release is no less uncertain than the entirety of our freely licensed content. This is the reason {{PD-release}} on Commons states the release in two ways (as this author has): "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

As such, I've kept all the works that carry the explicit waiver of copyright (The Mystique of Enlightenment[1], Courage to Stand Alone[2], Mind is a myth[3], and No Way Out[4]). I deleted The Natural State, no copy of which I could find with the copyright waiver. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:35:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thnak you. 83.132.128.199 13:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Natural State" also carries the waiver: Copyright Page. You may need to scroll down, it is at the bottom of the page.
Thank you. 83.132.128.199 18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, I stand corrected. I missed the release on the fly leaf of the book (searched and found it). The release is there, the book also lists a copyright for the design and presentation. Google lists it as a Copyrighted work. I leave the decision as to Wikisource usability to others. Jeepday

The copyright design applies to the SMRITI BOOKS publication. The one being used in wikisource is from the SOWMYA PUBLISHERS

Anyway, aside from that, I don't understand what is the problem. The author released all his copyrights. The waiver in the top of the book seems to indicate that he has remained true to his word and that he has not made any sort of deal with the publisher, as I've read here of such possibility being a problem in terms of copyright. The fact that google lists it as Copyright work seems to be beside the point. How can the wishes of the author be enslaved to such beurocratic nonsense.

We should be cautious about copyrights, but the wishes of those who release it must be respected too. 83.132.128.199 12:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the only page currently in question is Thought is Your Enemy. The author appears to have released all of his works into the public domain. Kept. Jude (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from the Earth edit

I hate to bring this up, but the copyright information given on Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth is almost certainly incorrect. The piece was not published during Mark Twain's lifetime; in point of fact it was never finished. It was first published in 1962 as part of a collection entitled Letters from the Earth, edited by Bernard Devoto. The Stanford Copyright Renewal Database gives the original registration date as 21 September 1962, and the renewal date as 28 December 1990. It looks to me as if this should still be in copyright--or am I missing something? Sbh 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending when it was written, the letters themselves could now be PD - though the actual layout as presented in 1962 (introduction, footnotes, chapter names, appendix, that sort of thing) would still be copyrighted.Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 01:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's what I know about Letters from the Earth. Mark Twain wrote the manuscripts the piece is based on some time during the last decade of his life--say 1900 to 1910. (The 1909 date given in various internet sources may well be correct as the date of composition--I don't know that however, and I don't have my books available to check it.) There are two manuscripts in question; Paine (Twain's biographer) said that they were related but not part of the same piece; Bernard Devoto said they were clearly part of the same piece and published them as such in 1962. (This was a double posthumous publication, by the way, as both Twain and Devoto had died by the time the volume came out.) Devoto however suppressed the final sentence or so of the first manuscript to conceal its unfinished state, thus giving the impression that the two were actually parts of the same piece. It wasn't until the publication of the Iowa Center for Textual Studies edition (in the volume What is Man) that this bit of editorial manipulation was revealed.
The Wikisource Letters from the Earth appears to be Devoto's version; the conclusion to "Satan's Letter" is suppressed and the letters from the second MS are numbered consecutively. (In the Iowa Textual Studies edition the unfinished state of "Satan's Letter" is not suppressed, and the letters are either unnumbered or numbered irregularly--I forget which.) The Devoto version was first published in 1962 (and this was the first publication for the work in any form); the Iowa Center for Textual Studies version was published in 1973. The copyright is held by the Mark Twain Foundation.
Quoting from the Mark Twain Project website: "In 1962, the University of California contracted with the copyright holder for the exclusive right to publish all then-unpublished writings of Mark Twain. ... Although the copyright on all such materials is held by the Mark Twain Foundation, the University of California controls the subsidiary rights to them for the duration of their copyright (through 2047)."
Now I just spent a fair amount of time wandering about the internet trying to get the hang of US copyright law as it applies to posthumous publications, and I'm totally confused. (And I also hate copyright laws as written with a vengeance; unfortunately that doesn't make them go away.) But what does seem clear is that (1) Letters from the Earth is a copyrightable work; (2) the entity that owned the rights to Mark Twain's unpublished work (The Mark Twain Foundation) did in fact copyright the work in 1962; (3) it renewed the copyright in 1990; and so (4) it should fall under the category of works published between 1923 and 1963 with notice and renewal (Help:Copyright and Wikisource), which should mean that the work is still in copyright. As near as I can tell from 17 U.S.C. § 304 the copyright should be in effect either 95 years from the original copyright date or 67 years from the renewal; either way that adds up to 2057.
I hope I'm missing something here, but I don't see any room for maneuver. While it seems absurd that a text written a century ago and first published a half-century ago could be in copyright, it appears to me that it is.Sbh 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all this info. I copied this text to Wikilivres. Yann 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date.

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case would the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

The 2047 quote seems to be a misreading of this passage, which if interpreted as the University of California does, would mean that the last half-sentence is read autonomously, and would mean that if Author:Augustine wrote a work that was published ten years after his death, it would still be copyrighted until 2047. The sentence must be read in context to the entire paragraph, in which case it is referring to unpublished works first published between 1978 and 2002 - a role neither Augustine nor Twain's work fall within.
Technically though, it could be argued that the sentence "in no case would the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002" (category being "unpublished before 1978) would mean that an old letter written by Saint Augustine would be copyrighted. Welcome to the beauty of US Copyright Law, nothing makes sense. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is too late in the evening for me to grapple with US copyright law, so instead I will quote WS:FORM#Unpublished.5Ba.5D_works:
"Unpublished works .. by an individual author: public domain for authors who died before 1938 (70pma)."[19]
On that basis, the letters are PD, and the edition of the book they appeared in is copyrighted. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the three "NOTE"s at the bottom have to be deleted, since they are the editor's. However, the text itself can then be kept. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 00:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Sherurcij's research, it falls under Life+70, and is public domain like the rest of Twain's published works, so let's mark it as kept and archive this. Jude (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castro Hlongwane, Caravans, Cats, Geese, Foot & Mouth and Statistics: HIV/Aids and the Struggle for the Humanisation of the African edit

This is almost a {{PD-manifesto}}, but I wouldn't want to make that call on my own. It was anonymously distributed, but presumed to be authored by the current President of South Africa, and a recent biography says he admitted as much privately. John Vandenberg 10:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it seems South African copyright law requires that ...in order to establish copyright in a work, the Act requires that it must be proved by way of admissible evidence (i.e. not hearsay) that the author or maker of the work is a citizen or permanent resident of South Africa... - so I'm not sure if this would qualify. On the other hand, SA is a Berne signatory, so I'm not sure how the exemption would work. I think it would be PD in South Africa (since the author is not legally proven), but copyrighted in any other Berne signatory states (which would pay attention only to the Berne guidelines, not individual local law). So it could potentially be hosted under a "PD in its home country" tag - but not in a "PD in the United States" tag...or at least that's my armchair legalese. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the one who posted the article on Wikisource. I only posted it up because it 1) it's posted in full to a number of websites without any copyright license (or a name), particularly those that are concerned with AIDS/HIV and the debate over reappraisal and 2) because this is a document of paramount importance in the South African debate over reappraisal, since it reflects the already-apparent feelings of the former president of the ANC, and provides a look into the sentiment that guided Mbeki's health policy throughout his tenure as head of state. I'm not saying that the document should be immediately removed from copyvio investigation (I support any look into the copyright status of this document, since I wasn't initially able to find one myself), but I just want to state that I posted this document completely without the intention to bring Wikisource into judicial contempt in any given geopolitical jurisdiction. Thanks. --Toussaint 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (formerly --70.185.188.35 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep or move to WS:DEL This work was produced in order to influence the events of a certain political congress without revealing the source of that influence. According to Wikipedia, this was a notable event at a notable congress. It seems there is an implied consent in releasing a work anonymously in such a public way, that it is being released into the public domain. But being included in Wikisource may give the work a certain stature of reliability it might not otherwise have, so until its original source or sources of publication can documented, that stature shouldn't be granted. So either such proof of having reached the original source should be presented, or the arguments for or against the finality of the document should be weighed at WS:DEL. ResScholar 10:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. If somebody wants to nominate it for deletion, please feel free. Jude (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. L. King's speeches edit

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The consensus to delete is unclear. I have checked the author talk page.


--Jusjih 02:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I thought that M. L. King's speeches were copyrighted, but I have found I've Been To The Mountaintop, edited on August 2006, and Keep Moving From This Mountain, added today. What's the status of these? Yann 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short stories of Clark Ashton Smith edit

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

Hello, We have 10 short stories of Clark Ashton Smith published between 1924 and 1938 without a license. No record found. Yann 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have these properly documented; they were put up at a time when we were not so diligent about such things. Very few of Smith's works had their copyright renewed, and I can find no renewals for any of the stories that he put in Weird Tales. The magazine itself went defunct in 1954, and I have found no general renewal for any of it. On a balance of probabilities I think it should be OK to keep these. Eclecticology 04:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Worlds, registered in 1944 and renewed (Renewal: R526900), contained short stories such as The Empire of the Necromancers, and Out of Space and Time, registered in 1942 and renewed (Renewal: R483265) contains The Double Shadow, but those renewal comes to late to keep those from slipping into the PD.

(Renewal: R351783) covers revisions to Nero and other poems, so we might need to check which edition we have.

I cant find any other renewals. I think that means that anything published before 1941 is safe, and anything first published in 1945 or later is also safe. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the only Clark Ashton Smith works that we can't have are those 41-44, of which we do not have any (that I can see). Therefore, kept. Jude (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiccan Rede edit

A poem, first published in the U.S. in 1974. Jkelly 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...Authorship seems to be disputed, so "legally speaking, there is no likely risk to WMF in hosting the text", but even speaking pedantically, w:Lady Gwen Thompson says her grandmother w:Adriana Porter (d. 1946) wrote it, not her. Her grandmother was a Canadian (born in Nova Scotia - no idea about where she actually first 'wrote' the work, could be a minor complication) - and thus Canadian law releases the text 50 years pma, so this text has been Public Domain in its homecountry since December 31st 2006. 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
1946+50 = 1996, not 2006. Eclecticology 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason I never pursued a degree in math ;) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Presumably it is still copyright in the USA. (I have a degree in maths!) Poetlister 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. If there is no assignment of copyright, the author of each work in a collective work retains copyright in their own work. If she was Canadian, a different set of rules do come into play, even though it was published in the U.S. (see here). As far as I can see, it all comes down to whether the Green Egg magazine issue #69 (1975) was published in accordance with the formalities. It is possible to search the 1975 copyright registration/renewal scans in order to know for sure. John Vandenberg 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a rather unique case. Gwen Thompson, the person who published the poem, claimed when it was published that it came 'through' her grandmother, who died in 1946. Many other commentators believe that some or all of it was written by Gwen Thompson herself, though some lines can be traced to Doreen Valiente, who also did not claim to have written them. Thompson said that "our own particular form of the Wiccan Rede is that which was passed on to her heirs by Adriana Porter". It's difficult to understand how anyone can claim copyright over a text which they themselves have claimed to have been passed down through many generations and which manifestly contains lines taken from other sources that also claimed to have inherited them. Thompson essentially presented it as inherited folk culture. All the alleged "authors" either denied athorship or attributed to someone long dead for whom there is zero evidence of authorship. This is documented in the book by The Rede of the Wiccae by Mathiesen & Theitic (2005). Paul B 11:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sort of problem comes up infrequently, but often enough, in copyright: what do you do with an author who denies authorship, but instead attributes the work to some supernatural source. Google the phrase “factual estoppel” (in quotes) and you will find some of the leading cases. Sometimes the courts say: if an author’s denial of authorship is objectively unreasonable, then readers can’t take the author at his/her word—they must presume, contrary to the author’s own statements, that the author is the real author and therefore holds the copyright. (Thus, for example, Shirley MacLaine can hold a copyright in her stories about her past lives even though she contends that they are 100% true and factual, and factual matter can’t be copyrighted, because her statement that “this is a work of fact, not fiction” is objectively unreasonable.) Here’s how one court put it in Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, rejecting the argument that the author, Helen Schucman, couldn’t claim copyright infringement because she had said Jesus was the true author (pp. 36–37):
        “These significant distinctions mitigate against a finding of estoppel based on Plaintiffs' representations that the Course was authored by Jesus. As a matter of law, it is irrelevant for copyright purposes whether Jesus wrote the Course. There is no question, of course, that if Schucman had been a "scribe" for Thetford (for example), she would lack the requisite originality for copyright protection. But she was not a scribe for any human creator. She was a scribe for a voice she heard in her own mind. While she identified this voice as "Jesus," and Plaintiffs, Defendants, and countless other people have apparently chosen to believe this, beliefs are not substitutes for facts. They cannot be verified in a court of law according to the rules of evidence. See Garman, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21932, at *7 (with regard to issue of originality, held that there was "no legal relevance to the assertions by both parties that the information was provided by spiritual guides") (citing Urantia II, 210 U.S.P.Q. 217 ("legally … the source of the [author's] inspiration is irrelevant.")).
        “Thus, the defense of lack of originality fails on two independent grounds: the Course is an original literary work of Schucman, and even if it were not, it would still be an original compilation of facts.”
      • The upshot of all that, I think, is that just because an author attributes a work to the spirit of their long-dead granny, legally, that don’t make it so. Tarmstro99 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want to clarify that when Thompson stated that the text "came through" her grandmother, she meant that an age old tradition had been passed on through her, not that a supernatural being had "channeled" the content to her grandmother as the chosen earthly transmitter of it. As I say, she was portraying it as inherited folk wisdom, and did not specify who - if any one person at all - was supposed to have actually written the lines. Paul B 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Factual Estoppel is something of a red herring on this case, it's a question of verifiability, whether something is true. The ACIM case you quote is clear that it is ruling on whether the "layout of the course" could be copyrighted when the "ideas" are being presented as facts (thus PD), not "metaphoric claims of philosophical truth" (thus copyrighted). The Rede, as a single recitation, is argued that both the "layout" and the "idea" are from her grandmother - and thus both would be PD, the "channeler" was unrelated to either.
        • This is one of those cases that should be decided as "Keep, though if the estate of the original author should ever happen to complain about infringement, either directly to WS or even just to any other publisher, then we would remove". It is not a dangerous path to take, and do not equate it to Google Books or other projects -- this work is public domain, though how a particular judge will see that can never be absolutely guaranteed - but the same is true for every work on here -- judges often make autonomous decisions that are incongruent with precedent or the rule of law. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm inclined to view this as a keep. A lot depends on who is claiming what. The relationship between the instrumental author and the spiritual author is unique, and the instrumental author may be the only one in a position to give evidence about that relationship. The result would be the same whether the writing was received in a séance from her deceased grandmother, or found on a since destroyed scrap of paper that was left behind in her grandmother's estate. In most cases we thankfully don't need to get into the question of whether there is such a thing as communication with the spirit world. The initial assumption must be that it happens unless it leads to a ridiculous result within the confines of the case. The instrumental author can attribute the authorship to the spiritual author and personally disclaim all copyrights, but a third party should not assume that the instrumental author has done so. In the present case since the spiritual author is also identified as a direct ancestor, normal inheritance rules should also be considered. Eclecticology 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I shall just clarify what I said above. There is no alleged spiritual author in this case. Thomson claimed that the text was passed on to her by her grandmother. She meant that an age-old tradition codified in the poem had been passed on through her, not that a supernatural being had "channeled" the content to her grandmother as the chosen earthly transmitter of it. As I say, she was portraying it as inherited folk wisdom, and did not specify who - if any one person at all - was supposed to have actually written the lines. She asserted that her grandmother had bequeathed to her a book in which the text was present, but that she had destroyed the book. No evidence exists to support her claim. This is well documented in the publication to which I referred above. Paul B 14:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) For copyright purposes, then, the author whose rights must be investigated is Gwen Thompson, who published the work in 1975, because as User:Paul B put it, “no evidence exists” to support a claim of authorship by anyone else. The case law discussed above makes clear that Thompson’s own denial of authorship is meaningless absent actual evidence that the work was previously authored and published by another. The approach suggested above by User:Jayvdb is the correct one: what must be investigated is whether Thompson’s publication of the work in 1975 was under a valid copyright. If it was copyrighted when published in 1975, then it remains under copyright today in the United States; all works published and copyrighted between 1964 and 1977 were automatically renewed for a second term in this country under the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Tarmstro99 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with Paul B. on the issue, if I send in a limerick "that was written in the margins of a book my grandmother gave me as a child" to a newspaper, I am not considered the legal copyright holder of that poem - since I already disavowed authorship and identified that it had been written decades earlier. Similarly, if I find a 'reputed' manuscript by Christopher Columbus, I will not be assumed to be the original author, they can dispute whether Columbus wrote it, but I have already disavowed any copyright claim to it myself by announcing that I found it tucked inside an old sea chest that belonged to my great-great-great-grandfather. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, I think, is that in both your hypothetical cases, the existence of another author is verifiable by reference to an external source, whether it’s the book your grandmother gave you or the contents of the old sea-chest. That is precisely what’s missing in this case. Tarmstro99 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if the book my grandmother gave me was destroyed in a fire, it wouldn't suddenly transfer the copyright to me, just because I can no longer prove that some 19th century youth wrote something in the margins. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The factual framework here is much simplified by the knowledge that paranormal forces were not at work. To quote the case cited "There is no question, of course, that if Schucman had been a "scribe" for Thetford (for example), she would lack the requisite originality for copyright protection. But she was not a scribe for any human creator. She was a scribe for a voice she heard in her own mind." The claim in the present case is that the information was received from the grandmother by normal rather than paranormal means.
I have long contended that since copyright is a property right there can be no copyright if there is no owner. No-one but an owner has a right of action in a copyright infringement case. This ultimately is the problem with orphan copyrights. An essential burden in an infringement case is for the plaintiff to prove that there is a valid copyright. Perhaps then the defendant can challenge the validity of the claim, but in the absence of a prima facie claim he can't even do that. We only have an apparent disclaim of copyright, with apparent attribution to a person who died in 1946, and who would herself have received the poem some time earlier from an unidentified person. Inability to find the original source need not imply that it doesn't exist. Likewise folk-tales are a part of a common cultural heritage, and as such are not directly copyrightable. Eclecticology 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was public domain in Canada in 1996 and the University of Pennsylvania online renewal database shows no renewal data in the periodical section near the bottom of the page. ResScholar 05:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move. Was not public domain in Canada on January 1, 1996. So treated as if under U.S. law. ResScholar 05:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyright status in Canada would depend on what we're going to assume to be true in terms of author, etc. At the moment I'm leaning towards a keep based on the above discussion. Anyone got anything to add to it? Giggy (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. This seems to be the general opinion: the 'author' (Lady Gwen Thompson) disclaims copyright of it. Jude (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statute Of The Primeiro Comando da Capital edit

According to this, the original work is copyrighted. It has found in a written version ([20], [21]) and published in brazilian newspapers due to a "fair-use" permission (See here the section 46. The following shall not constitute violation of copyright). Lugusto 03:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was formerly tagged as "This work is assumed to be released into the public domain as a public manifesto or speech which is not known to be licensed." As it seems to be a fair use work, I think we'll have to delete. —Giggy 10:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This has nothing to do with speeches, and nothing you have raised indicates that it isn't suitable as a manifesto. Also any copyright discussion about the original really should be happening over on the Portugese subdomain first, or at the same time, as they currently host the original. See also Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007-11#Statute Of The Primeiro Comando da Capital. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it have nothing to do with speeches, the {{PD-manifesto}} need to be splited.
      Why you have assumed bad faith reverting and getting annoyed? My only interest is to keep the Wikisource a free project, like you. If you look closely at pt:Discussão:Estatuto do PCC you can see a atempt to research for their copyright status following the brazilian law. It was successfull, I've created the pt:Template:PD-impreciso and uploaded to pt.wikisource more two works from pt:Autor:PCC.
      But now all Wikisources need to gradually adapt their collection to the American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. What pt.wikisource is doing can be viewed here.
      If you look closely at the Portuguese Wikisource you can find I, two users and some newbies editing. I tried to start here a discussion regarding the copyright of Statute Of The Primeiro Comando da Capital because en.wikisource have more users familiarized with the USA copyright law. I've also mailed JLCA (the original uploader at pt.ws) in March requesting for help to research for the copyright from this work, he replied promising to try to search and don't have written again. I've mailed him again notifying about this nomination here at en.ws but I don't have received a reply yet.
      In others words: I'm here requesting for help. I'm sorry if it bother you. Lugusto 04:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I revert because you blanked the page, and I was bothered because I thought the instructions for {{copyvio}} said that the page should not be blanked, but someone has changed the instructions. Sorry. If this is a "possible" copyright violation, the page should not be blanked as it is only a discussion, and not a 100% copyright violation needing to be blanked.
        I have noticed your involvement over on the talk page of pt.ws, and I can appreciate that en.ws has a more active COPYVIO discussion board and we can help. It is not a bother to also discuss this, however it was confusing to discuss deleting the English work while the Portuguese page is not deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this cause the original work to be copyright? Do you believe that the original is PD in Brazil? Do you believe that the original is not PD in USA? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mentioned diff contais a interpretation regarding "fixation". The two links from folha.uol.com.br that I've mentioned in my first message says that the Statute has found written (has found "fixed"). Due to the wording of {{PD-manifesto}}, it seens to me that the same rule regarding fixation of speechs apply to manifestos.
      According to André Koehne @ pt:Discussão:Estatuto_do_PCC#Vis.C3.A3o_jur.C3.ADdica, a work must be made by a natural person or a legal entity to get copyrighted. Due to PCC act like a unregistered pseudonym, the Statute don't have copyright in Brazil (I don't agree totally with this viewpoint, but he is Lawyer and the result of that discussion was no consensus to delete). Lugusto 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My use of "PD-manifesto" was not correct. I should have used {{no license}}, or even {{New license required}} but I had not created that template at the time. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-Manifesto}} appears to be correct in this instance. Kept. Jude (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon Agreement edit

The following discussion is closed:

Kept John Vandenberg (chat) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been copied and pasted from http://www.gibnet.com/texts

--195.244.209.215 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[22] seems identical to [23]. I see nothing to indicate that it's free. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only location I could find online for the compelete work is http://www.gibnet.com/texts/lisbon.htm which claims copyright In the case of certain material presented the copyright belongs to its authors as indicated. Unless otherwise specified, all material including but not limited to; web pages, images, audio clips and arangments of data is copyright © Interlink Communications Limited. I am not sure they can claim copy right on this work, or if they if it would be binding as {{PD-EdictGov}} would apply, and it seems unlikely that the "unofficial home page of Gibraltar" would own the copyright on the work, they must be posting it under fair-use or PD, which would/should make it fair game. Jeepday (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just beginning with the quite ugly way of behaving of 195.244.209.215 not even asking the uploader to provide an explanation, it's quite obvious that this is an official agreement between the Spain and UK governments. Gibnet cannot claim the copyright of an official text that is, obviously, in the public domain (at least according to the Spanish law, I'm not aware of the British copyright laws but, anyway, both versions, Spanish and English were signed by the ministers, so that both are in the public domain according to the Spanish law). That text is verbatim in books on the topic such as Rock of Contention, by former Governor Williams. Best regards and please, whenever a text is marked as a copyright violation, please, leave a note to the uploader. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know the British legislation. After reading this, it seems that the text is under the Crown copyright terms, so that it should be removed (BTW, gibnet is also breaking the British law). Sorry, I'll try to find a way to provide it. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the owner of the website www.gibnet.com and assert that the user Ecemaml copied and pasted the text from my site to created the article. If that is not the case it would be interesting to know where he claims that text came from.
My website is published in Gibraltar and its content is protected under the Intellectual Property (Copyright and related rights) Act 2004
There is little point in asking Ecemam1 anything as he has a declared agenda - however I believe the complaint to Wikisource was entered correctly and is valid. If HMG wish to discuss my use of their material then they can contact me. For the record, I was give a copy of this agreement by a former Chief Minister of Gibraltar and asked to put it online. I did not 'copy and paste it from someone else's website.
As Ecemaml is Spanish, he should contact the MAEC for a copy in English with permission to publish rather than stealing. --Gibnews (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everything is fixed. According to article 13 of the Spanish Law of Intellectual Property, any agreement signed by an Spanish official is in the public domain. As long as the agreement was signed both in the Spanish and English versions, both are in the public domain. I've looked for another source that do not "break" the alleged copyright of Gibnews. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Gibnews: If you translated the work yourself from the Spanish, you might be able to claim copyright on it, or otherwise the translator might be able to claim copyright on it. I'm not entirely sure how Spanish/English Crown copyright works with derivatives/translations, so I can't really comment much on it. If it is indeed public domain, no matter what Intellectual Property Act you quote, there is no way you can claim copyright over public domain material, unless you have extensively edited it into a new form.
To Ecemaml: That's interesting. As far as I'm aware, the British Government's Crown Copyright is a sticky case, and only certain parts of it are accepted under US public domain laws. You'd have to research it further for us to be able to accept it though--the US accepting said Spanish law, the status of the translation, etc. Jude (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested a solution; however I resent someone with an agenda of removing links to my website from Wikipedia copying material from it and pasting it to Wikisource for that purpose, something Ecemaml does not deny. The text on my site was from a document in English which may be crown copyright in the UK when reproduced on a Government website, but my source was different. As Wikipedia is in effect published internationally it should comply with more than US legislation, and the Gibraltar Act cited derives from the latest EU directive on Intellectual Property. --Gibnews (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not published internationally, and that's not particularly meaningful or useful. If the Law of Morocco prohibits the posting of the Lisbon Agreement because it "acts in a prejudicial manner to the interests of the nation", are you willing to stop publishing it internationally? --Prosfilaes (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the current revision says its been copied from the appendix of a book published 1987 - the book does not state it to be Public Domain. --Gibnews (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, very very few books, even when they carry what is most clearly public domain on the publication of the book, clearly state so. If it's not from your site, and you had no hand in its creation, you have no copyright interest in it. Frankly, as someone who has spent thousands of hours and quite a bit of money to make fully transcribed works available clearly labeled as public domain, I resent someone with an agenda of preventing the distribution of public domain work as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As others have, tactfully and otherwise, stated; simply typing out or hosting a work does not grant you any control over it. If I type out the American Constitution, or War & Peace, I cannot claim that I have copyright over those online copies; because unfortunately while I put work into them, they are simply public domain texts. Likewise, unless you translated this English copy yourself, you do not have any say in what can be done with it. If the 1987 publisher translated it themselves, they have copyright, but if they simply copied it from an official English translation of the text; then nobody has copyright. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(My indent levels are screwed, sorry) Hi, Gibnews: Regarding copyright (and your apparent claim of it, please don't be offended if I misunderstood your mention of EU intellectual property acts), unless you are a) the original copyright holder of the document, or b) performed the translation yourself (which, unless the initial document was public domain, would make it a derivative work, and would fall under the same copyright as a)), you cannot claim copyright to it.
On the note of public domain: Wikisource is hosted in Florida, United States, and must abide by the copyright laws of Florida, United States, and nowhere else. According to US law, edicts and other such legal documents by governments are uncopyrightable in the US, regardless of whether or not the nation itself claims copyright (as is the case in the UK, with crown copyright).
See this discussion regarding the Ukraine (which was also a multi-nation agreement) for more info. So, all-in-all, as far as I'm concerned, the document in Question is public domain. Also of note is the fact that it's a document of historical and political interest, which is all the more reason for it to be keep. Jude (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about creating the article myself, but remain unconvinced that it is sufficiently PD for wiki* although quite happy to defend its inclusion on my site. However I do object to material being copied and pasted particularly as it seems to me that the point of the exercise is to remove links to my site. (See the following message) A lot of time and effort has gone into collating and presenting the material there, which is something Ecemaml seems to resent. --Gibnews (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to prefer Wikipedia to link to Wikisource for the text of documents referred to in articles, nor to want Wikisource to have a category on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know whether this is the right place to ask but, would it be possible to create a category on the Question of Gibraltar? There is plenty of UN resolutions, agreements, diplomatic notes that are relevant to the issue but I don't know whether such kind of categories are valid here. Thank you very much and best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the dispute had more to do with a breach of etiquette than a breach of copyright. Category:Gibraltar is not yet in use for anything to do with the place at all, but I doubt that it is because of anybody's objections. Just set it up ... but without "Question of" unless we have a very large quantity of articles. Eclecticology (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it that way. Thank you --Ecemaml (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit

Wesley edit

The following discussion is closed:

Move

John Wesley's Forty-Four Sermons seems to at least be a modern compilation/order/titling, the same 44 sermons were originally published in a 4-volume The Wesleyan Standard in the 18th century (and again in the 19th); but the title we're currently using, I can't seem to find in use before that. I'd propose deleting the main index, and linking to the individual sermons from the author page? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of digging, I found it on archive.org: [24]. I'd propose moving it to Forty-four Sermons or Forty-Four Sermons. Each sermon should also link to the index with the previous spot on the header. Psychless 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the indexing suggestion, no comment on move, do we have a naming convention to support either present or proposed name? (P.S. added link to archive.org to main page for reference) Jeepday (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't, but it's standard practice to use the title of the work being uploaded. In this case, moving it to Forty-four Sermons or Forty-Four Sermons would be preferred (thus getting rid of Wesley's name). However, this isn't a big deal, especially with how general the title is without the name. I don't think it matters which one we use.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved it to Forty-four Sermons and updated the one link to it. Psychless 20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page was moved by User:Psychless Jude (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Template:PD-manifesto edit

The following discussion is closed:

Should be discussed on Scriptorium

Is this template legit? I mean, didn't Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. establish that one should not assume that a "public speech" is without copyright, because it is a "performance"? --Fastfission (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be used for just any speech. It was written wtih works like The FLQ Manifesto or Proclamation of the Irish Republic in mind. To be more exact, I believe MLK vs CBS established that the pubilc performance of a prepared speech does not negate the copyright of the oringinal writing. Sometimes it is is clear whether an oration is given spontaneously or had been previously fixated. Often it is not. I don't think this is a good template to be using for most speeches although there may be exceptions where this is appropriate (speeches from the dock and the like).--BirgitteSB 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An example of speeches that may still qualify are The "Quit India" Speeches. The text contains what can be seen as an implied consent to distribute the message widely surely this would require allowing it to be translated and conveyed in derative to form so that it reaches "all of India". Given the context I can be confident that this implication in the text is valid. ButI think this is not good to be used on Queen Elizabeth II's speeches which are certainly crown copyright.--BirgitteSB 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just glanced through the category, perhaps people are using this template for spontanrous orations. I don't think "Public Domain" is exactly the correct way to label those although we may have used it this way in the past. I am confident such orations are not copyrightable, but I know there are people still unconvinced of that.--BirgitteSB 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the better place to discuss this would be the scriptorium. Jude (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second and third thoughts, this is something that needs to be discussed on the Scriptorium, not here. This page is primarily for discussing issues with specific texts, rather than licensing templates. Jude (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-ZimGovDoc edit

moved to Wikisource:Scriptorium#Template:PD-ZimGovDoc by request. Jeepday (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 

This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Zimbabwean government.
All official Zimbabwean texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

Found this one Template:PD-ZimGovDoc while doing recent change patrol, a quick look at Wikipedia:Official_text_copyright#Zimbabwe seem to counter to the claims of the template which are further eroded by this text at Zimbabwe: Copyright, Act (Ch. 26:1 Consolidation), 1966 (1981), No. 60 (No. 29)

Copyright in Publications of the State

49.—(1) Copyright shall subsist in any original work, sound recording or cinematograph film made by or under the direction or control of the State or any department thereof in which, but for the provisions of this subsection, such copyright would not subsist and shall vest initially in the President.

(2) Subject to this Part, copyright in any original work or cinematograph film first published in Zimbabwe which is first published by or under the direction or control of a department of the State shall vest initially in the President.

(3) The term of copyright subsisting in an original literary, dramatic or musical work by virtue of this section shall be—

(a) where the work is unpublished, for so long as the work remains unpublished;

(b) where the work is published, until the end of a period of fifty years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.

At which point I stopped reading and posted here for review. Jeepday (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've said this before with regards to {{PD-Manifesto}}, but I believe that copyright discussions like this really need to take place on the Scriptorium. Can I suggest you mirror/post about the topic there, so that everyone can see it, rather than those who just happen to come by WS:COPYVIO? Jude (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the details page, Zimbabwe: Copyright, Act (Ch. 26:1 Consolidation), 1966 (1981), No. 60 (No. 29) was repealed (in part?) in 2001 by Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Bill, 2000, but I cant find the text for that.
The text 2008 Zimbabwean power-sharing agreement fits under {{PD-GovEdict}}, so I think we can move this discussion to WS:PD or WS:S. --John Vandenberg (chat) 05:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2008-09&oldid=11008521"