Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-12

Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 December 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.



Works of Author:Vladimir PutinEdit

The following discussion is closed:
delete all works, conflicting license remains.

We had a number of translated works added that are the works of Vladimir Putin. The translations come from a and they are clearly marked as {{Cc-by-3.0}}, however, the original are marked as copyright of Putin, if you follow the Russian version links links. There seems to me to be a logic discrepancy there, however, I am not about to beat my head against the wall to resolve. Here to note that on all the added works that I have added
{{translation licence| original = {{Copyright-author}} | translation = {{Cc-by-3.0}}}}
to try to capture the licences. If someone has a better idea, then feel welcome to go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

On further investigation, the works are not {{Cc-by-3.0}} as listed on the page, when you look further through the site at it clearly days non-commercial, which would exclude our ability to host this work. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You can learn Russian! The English version is old. When webmasters to update the site (Russian and English footers with CC + Russian "About" page), they absolutely forgot about the English "About" page. You can check Russian page without non-commercial clause. The same situation occurs with where they published the first permission considered right for journalists, but wrong for Wikipedia and also there is the second OTRS permission for Wikipedia. and (all Wikimedia Commons users are agreed with legality of the license) with no doubt are definetly published under free license. They clearly understand how license works and uses it. --TarzanASG (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The Google Translate version of the Russian about page couldn't possibly be more clear about CC-BY-3.0 -- they ask for a source reference only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
They can separately licence English language translations from the original Russian language works, so I still see that further clarity is needed, as at this moment, it is supposition that that the lack of change is accidental rather than purposeful. The approach by enWS has always to be certain that we are working in the clear zone. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
They can, but they didn't. The license in Russian applies to "All materials copyright of the Prime Minister"; not just Russian-language material -- they would have had to specify that. The Russian-language license is perfectly valid; you can't expect to divide up what the license applies to based on who you think can read the license -- the license is valid no matter the language. If they wanted the CC-BY to only apply to the Russian-language material, they would have said that. This is the equivalent of a file with CC-BY-NC on it where the author later adds (a language-specific) CC-BY-es -- both licenses can technically apply just fine. Doesn't invalidate the earlier license, but neither does the earlier license invalidate the later one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
About articles. Russian original version of "Russia Muscles Up – the Challenges We Must Rise to Face" was published for the first time synchronically on freely-licensed and in the same minute. --TarzanASG (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Does File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf have any bearing? Moondyne (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Indicative, not normative. It clearly only states, so we either need a similar letter, or an update to website (IMNSHO). 04:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC) unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
  • Would it be possible for one of our Russian language persons to contact the web master or Russian government about the conflict between and the CC-BY-3.0 licensing on individual works? While there are multiple indications that the works are probably intended for PD with CC-BY-3.0, this discussion can not be closed as keep while the conflict exists. If the conflict can not be resolved the works will need to be deleted. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, obviously, I'd disagree with that -- I don't think there is much of a conflict ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that these are copyright violations. I feel that all these materials are oficial including their translations, they are treated as histoical documents, and therefore can be freely hosted here under CC-BY-3.0. There are some materials, oficial speeches of Putin on the Russian wikisource ru:Владимир Владимирович Путин, that could be also added here. This is my opinion. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion is echoed by most if not all of the participants in this discussion/decision. The problem is that a conflict exists on the documentation of the CC-BY-3.0 release for these works. Russia Muscles Up – the Challenges We Must Rise to Face page is clearly released under CC-BY-3.0 but at the same time every document released on is "unauthorized ... for commercial purposes, including reproduction, use for commercial presentation or providing access to it for paying clients is strictly prohibited." which is not CC-BY-3.0 compatible (note there is also a CC-BY-3.0 release on the page making this statement). The posted restriction takes precedence over the posted release for the purposes or WS publication. If someone was to attempt contact with that would delay actual deletion; pending a change in the posting at (or stagnation of the attempt). JeepdaySock (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, in this case I can see only one solution for those who want to keep these texts - to move them to wikilivres, where NC license is accepted. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That English page used to have a CC-BY-NC license on it, which corresponded to your quoted text, and means they recently updated the CC license portion to match the Russian about page but forgot to update the text. The Google Translate of the Russian version of the page states this:
All materials copyright of the Prime Minister may be reproduced in any media, the servers on the Internet or on any other media without any restriction on volume and timing of the publication.
This permission applies equally to newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, websites and web pages. The only condition for reprinting and reproduction is a reference to the source. No prior approval to reprint the part of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Press Service of the Russian Government is not required.
That seems crystal-clear to me, that they simply haven't updated the English version yet. The Russian version is very explicit, and that statement is just as valid as a license as is the English version. As I said before, it amounts to putting a CC-BY-NC license on something, then later adding a CC-BY. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If copyright permission does exist but forbids commercial uses, then I propose sending the pages to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I sent an email to CC asking for advice. Maybe they can clear it up.--BirgitteSB 01:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • FWIW They responded but it wasn't useful. I have been looking and looking for where the message might have been put in my emails but I cannot locate it. I don't feel comfortable paraphrasing anything from memory.--BirgitteSB 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like the speed of Wikisource and government are comparable. Many of the links about licensing above are now dead links. But the main English page now has a clear CC 3.0 license "The information posted on this website is licensed under a: Creative Common Attribution 3.0". I am removing the copyvio tag from Author:Vladimir Putin where somebody, not naming names blanked the list of works on the author page leaving the links hidden and the works published in the mainspace. Given that all the concerns above would seem to be addressed I am not adding {{copyvio}} to the works at this point. If there are any remaining concerns about the copy right status of these works please voice them. Jeepday (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Retracting statement above, the English statement remains it just has a different address Given that there is no choice but to close this and delete the works. I guess Wikisource is faster then government. Jeepday (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Letter to John Gunther DeanEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Delete unable to show PD copyright status. Jeepday (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Letter from a member of the Khmer royal family to a US government official. Not licenced and not sourced. No evidence provided that this letter is or should be considered within the public domain with regard to its reproduction. No evidence that the writings of the Khmer royal family are automatically in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this letter still falls under copyright protection. Cambodian copyright law extends protections to works for fifty years after the creator's death (in this case 1978).1 US copyright law finds works created between 1923-1977, which corresponds to this letter, to be in the public domain only if they are considered in the public domain in their country of origin (in this case Cambodia).2 Following these laws the letter will be in the public domain in the USA and Cambodia in 2028. However, special rules may apply if the Royal family are considered public officials; more research may be necessary. — RinoLanda (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It could be more complicated than that. If it was first published in the United States -- somewhat likely -- then it may not have been eligible for URAA restorations (which otherwise happened if it was copyrighted in Cambodia on October 13, 2004; current Cambodian law is not really relevant, though it was likely the same then). If the letter was first published without a copyright notice in the 1975 timeframe though... it may be PD in the U.S. If it isn't though, it won't be PD until its U.S. term expires, which will be considerably longer than in Cambodia. Lots of stuff hinges on when it was published, which is not clear. But if it counts as a diplomatic messages between countries, the status might be a little fuzzy on that account, agreed. I do see this repeated all over the web in recent years but very few Google Books hits; the wiki article seems to indicate it was published in a 2003 book. If that was the first publication, then technically its U.S. copyright would not expire until 2046. But it is a more peculiar situation than most works, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Works by Author:Dr.'Krant' M.L.VermaEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Delete unable to show PD copyright status. Note 3 works under discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions Jeepday (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Having deleted the Author page in August we need to decide what to do with the works that were linked there.

I've marked them all as {{no license}} for the meantime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

HAY! I have this day removed the Honorific Word "Dr" from my auther's name. Kindly read it now as Author:Krant M.L.Verma and not Author:Dr.'Krant' M.L.Verma.
Further I have added licensing templetes to all the above article. One thing more to understand; where the original Author is Ram Prasad Bismil the Licensing Terms are given as:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).

as the year of the death of Author Ram Prasad Bismil is 1927. And where I myself am the Author I have added the Licensing terms as:

This work is in the public domain worldwide because it has been so released by the copyright holder.

You are requsted to please check these templates and remove the "Deletion tag of NO LICENSE" from these above articles.
Thanks.--Krantmlverma (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, so the original Hindi text for the Bismil works is in the Public Domain because the copyright expired in 1987. However, this does not cover the translations on which the Indian copyright will not expire until 60 years after your death and the US copyright until 70 years after your death. The only way we can host these on the English Wikisource is if you release them into the Public Domain through the OTRS process (as you requested to do on 31 July, 2011). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Moved from Wikisource:Proposed deletions as this is now a copyright discussion on translations. Jeepday (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Correction this will actually be two discussions. This is a mix of original unpublished work and translations of published works. I have struck out the works that will be discussed at WS:PD and copied listed the translations below. Jeepday (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Works by Author:Ram Prasad Bismil where the copyright of the translation is in question.

Mi Último AdiósEdit

The following discussion is closed.

The poem itself is public domain, but the English translation is based on this translation by Edwin Lozada. Being that he's still alive, and his book was recently published (within the last decade or so?), I would say makes the translation a copyvio.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The World of Living DeadEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Delete unable to show PD copyright. Jeepday (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A science fiction short story by by Wilm Carver from the June 1943 issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories. I can't find any information on Wilm Carver beyond a brief bibliography. The copyright on this issue (vol. 24, no. 2) of the pulp magazine, however, was renewed by the owners, Popular Library, Inc. in 1970. (see page scan of the Catalog of Copyright Entries on the Internet Archive). Unless Carver died before this year, of which we have no proof, I think this work is probably still under copyright. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if he did die before the end of the original copyright term, in this case there is the possibility of an exemption for "periodical, encyclopedic, and composite works" when it comes to vesting and/or right of renewal under the 1909 Act. Books are a different story and absolutely fall under the vesting scenario you alluded to - see Self_Realization_v._Ananda_Church (2000) for the particulars.

Either way - we can't prove the author assigned his common law copyrights to a/the publisher but the fact they are listed at the 1st renewal entry makes it seem likely he did. Lean delete unless someone has more insight on this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)