Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2013-08
|
Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Kept
Deleted
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The work "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" is a 1995 work by the president of the LDS. It is an early addition to enWS, and it contains no copyright tag. To me it would seem to be within copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
A 2010 speech in America by a general citizen to which we have tagged no licence. I can see no reason why it would be considered in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The copyright permission from the source [1] forbids commercial use, thus not compatible with our copyright licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
delete as translation in copyright
The translator Richard Lansing is alive and working at Brandeis University. Therefore I doubt translation is out of copyright. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- no evidence that the translation is not under copyright
The following discussion is closed:
deleted
One of the translators of this version is w:Jacques Dupuis (priest), who died in 2004. As a result I don't believe that we can host this under our copyright rules. It has been placed here so that it can be referenced from WP in the w:Benedictus Deus (Benedict XII) and w:Benedict XII articles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- copyright violation, no evidence that thw ork has been released to the public domain, and the author died in 21st century so not available posthumously. Will replace page with {{deleted referenced page}}
The following discussion is closed:
Delete - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Pretty straight-forward; author renewed his contribution to a May 1950 issue of Weird Tales (a periodical) at the expiration of the 1st copyright term.
Look up the below renewal number/info at the online Copyright.gov search engine using "keyword" as the Search by option. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tell Your Fortune by Robert Bloch • novelette
- (© Copyright renewed: Robert Bloch (A); RE0000005722 / 1978-03-06.)
Delete and darn, I thought I'd caught all the copyright renewals. Following probable deletion, the pages in the DjVu will also need to be redacted and the index/page pages consequently realigned. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- 1949, 1950 & 1951 (renewals in 1977, 78 & 79) are sort of problematic because not only was the latest Copyright Act (of 1976) coming into full effect but the Copyright Office was also making changes to the way they were recording registrations / renewals. This means some renewals wind up being registered 2x or more depending on the timing of the renewal while others appear to be registered as bunched after-thoughts that also push the limits of the renewal-year period(s). I'd also be reviewing the [corporate] entity that controlled the publishing house in question in that same 1970's time period - you might find blanket-ish PCW renewals indexed/listed for what was once clearly issue-by-issue or month-by-month registration listings prior to that particular time period. It seems a lot of folks were having "fits" in going about documenting any transfers of ownership properly like when one publisher was bought out or merged with another so the registration records for PCWs go kind of off the rails for those particular renewal years as well.
Let me know what I can do to help clean up that .DjVu (or original PDF?) -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks but I think I can clean up the DjVu (which came from the Internet Archive). Bulk moving the pages and correcting the transclusions will be annoying but not difficult (as long as the movements can be done by bot). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- 1949, 1950 & 1951 (renewals in 1977, 78 & 79) are sort of problematic because not only was the latest Copyright Act (of 1976) coming into full effect but the Copyright Office was also making changes to the way they were recording registrations / renewals. This means some renewals wind up being registered 2x or more depending on the timing of the renewal while others appear to be registered as bunched after-thoughts that also push the limits of the renewal-year period(s). I'd also be reviewing the [corporate] entity that controlled the publishing house in question in that same 1970's time period - you might find blanket-ish PCW renewals indexed/listed for what was once clearly issue-by-issue or month-by-month registration listings prior to that particular time period. It seems a lot of folks were having "fits" in going about documenting any transfers of ownership properly like when one publisher was bought out or merged with another so the registration records for PCWs go kind of off the rails for those particular renewal years as well.
The following discussion is closed:
deleted, reasonable to expect copyright on original and translation, no evidence that it is not the case — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess both the original and its translation are copyrighted.--Mpaa (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also added {{Copyright author}} to the Author Page--Mpaa (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete—Translator is still alive and there is no indication of release. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- deleted, reasonable to expect copyright on original and translation, no evidence that it is not the case
Other
The following discussion is closed:
Since it's been open a long time, I'm going to delete the Mikhail Kneller one, and add the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. I see no external publication of the translation and no reason to believe it's not the work of the uploader. Someone else may change the translator to Wikisource if they so choose.
I think the recently added translation by Mikhail Kneller is copyrighted, according to the source--Mpaa (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Right, and in any case it would need to go to its own page. I can remove it from the pages history if anyone thinks that's necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Move to Wikilivres even with the latest removal, the original English translation is attributed to Dmitri Smirnov, a still living, born in 1948, Russian composer. It seems he converted Pushkins' works that were eventually? put to music from Russian to English sometime in the early eighties [2] so I don't think his translation is exactly hostable either. Seems like a work from 1825 should have a better PD English translation than the currently attributed one floating around somewhere, no? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was uploaded by User:Dmitrismirnov, who has uploaded a lot of his own translations to Wikisource.
- Poking at Google Books finds preciously little. Modern Russian Poetry has some stuff, The Bakchesarian Fountain has a few more (in neither case this poem), and that looks to be about it in the easily available category for Russian poetry in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Added {{copyvio}}, the work is posted with {{GFDL}} which is also on the translators author page. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally Author talk:Dmitri Nikolaevich Smirnov implies that User:Dmitrismirnov is Author:Dmitri Nikolaevich Smirnov, if the work is not prevously published it would actually make it a Wikisource translation so it should also be licensed {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- In general, if someone posts something here as GFDL, I don't think we should be changing it to GFDL / CC-BY-SA-3.0. It's somewhat dodgy ethically and possibly legally. However, as this was posted before 2009, as per [3], it's already CC-BY-SA-3.0.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)