User talk:Atelierelealbe
Welcome to Wikisource
Hello, Atelierelealbe, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Help pages, especially for proofreading
- Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
- Style guide
- Inclusion policy
- Wikisource:For Wikipedians
You may be interested in participating in
Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.
You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.
Have questions? Then please ask them at either
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.
Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright on Index:PhotographyTheoryAndPracticeOCRed.djvu[edit]
If the book was published in 1937, there is all likelihood that the work is still under copyright in the United States, and we need the work to be in the public domain in the US to be able to host it. I would suggest that we do some more work based on the information at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm before we spend a lot of time on transcription. We will need to establish if earlier copies were produced, if yes, when. The dates of death of both the original author and the editor. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- The date of death of the original author doesn't care as this book it is a translation, so a new original work. In 1937 when the translation was published (first edition published in 1930 as per page 8 of the scan), the author of the translation (the one who hold the copyright for this book) was already dead. It says in the title page "THE LATE GEORGE E. BROWN". So, it's dead for more than 70 years now. Besides that there's no copyright sign in the entire book, so as per http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm it fits into “Copyright Term: None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities”. It is my opinion that the book is in public domain. Atelierele albe (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- What do you think?
- As you will see from the respective author pages I have undertaken some research. I agree that I believe that the work is in the public domain, though there are extra tests I feel that were needed to be undertaken. As the work was published after 1923, it is not a straight 70 year test, it depends on when and where published. I think that we can say that the title page shows that the work was published in US at about the same time as the UK, this therefore setting it into the rules of being published (equal) first in the US, then we can get into the copyright symbol, and the check for renewal or otherwise. The first edition may still be copyright (if it was first published in UK, or if it otherwise complied), however, the second would seem to not be so. The UK copyright would have expired in 1985 (50 years post death). — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for diggin. If you feel that further investigations are required… i've got nothing against :) Again, for me the things are pretty clear: the book is PD-old.
- definitely not PD-old, that is 100+ years. In the UK/Australia/Canada, it would have been PD-old-50 (though also fulfils PD-old-70 and PD-old-75) as it reached 50 years post death in 1985 (pre-1996). Unfortunately, the US is simply not that simple, and they don't go to pure PD-old-70 until 2048, at which point I am happy to come back and have that discussion <vbg>. For English Wikisource, US copyright is our requirement, whereas Commons has both US and copyright law of the nation of the author. It is never nice and simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I hope that by 2048 we don't have to talk about this nonsense anymore :)
- definitely not PD-old, that is 100+ years. In the UK/Australia/Canada, it would have been PD-old-50 (though also fulfils PD-old-70 and PD-old-75) as it reached 50 years post death in 1985 (pre-1996). Unfortunately, the US is simply not that simple, and they don't go to pure PD-old-70 until 2048, at which point I am happy to come back and have that discussion <vbg>. For English Wikisource, US copyright is our requirement, whereas Commons has both US and copyright law of the nation of the author. It is never nice and simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for diggin. If you feel that further investigations are required… i've got nothing against :) Again, for me the things are pretty clear: the book is PD-old.
- As you will see from the respective author pages I have undertaken some research. I agree that I believe that the work is in the public domain, though there are extra tests I feel that were needed to be undertaken. As the work was published after 1923, it is not a straight 70 year test, it depends on when and where published. I think that we can say that the title page shows that the work was published in US at about the same time as the UK, this therefore setting it into the rules of being published (equal) first in the US, then we can get into the copyright symbol, and the check for renewal or otherwise. The first edition may still be copyright (if it was first published in UK, or if it otherwise complied), however, the second would seem to not be so. The UK copyright would have expired in 1985 (50 years post death). — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Template functional[edit]
Template:PhotographyTheoryPractice link now seems to be working as expected, at least for paragraph markers
So as discussed, at the text {{anchor+|pXX|XX}} where XX = pageparagraph number
We will look to bot the sectional links, though if you want to try the full format is {{PhotographyTheoryPractice link| chapter = 4 | section = 21}} to give § 21
- or as requested {{PTP link|4|21}} gives § 21
Again the reminder that we would only being this when the link is from one chapter to another, if the link is in the same chapter, we are far better off doing a traditional wikilink like [[#p21|§ 21]] on Chapter 4 to give § 21. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks, again! —Atelierele Albe (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)