Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007-02

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

The Sources of Soviet Conduct

This the article described in Wikipedia as Accordingly, Kennan produced a civilian form of the Long Telegram for publication in Foreign Affairs. The article followed the same threads of thought as the Long Telegram but included background information that Kennan had assumed the readers of the Long Telegram (high-level State Department officials) would be familiar with.

I do not see how we can say this civilian document is goverment work as we can for The Long Telegram. It was published in a magazine anomynously.--BirgitteSB 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a very tricky call, I would favour moving the discussion to WS:PD as there are non-copyright reasons why this text my be deletable (and these should have an appropriately full discussion) Physchim62 15:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Published in July 1947, don't see the American magazine name offhand. Becomes a question of whether the original had a copyright notice, and if so, if the notice was renewed, no? But even if it is public domain, it's not a government work, no. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept. There is no copyright record for this work (according to Rutgers and the Library of Congress Online Catalog), therefore no copyright notice. This places the work in the public domain with {{PD-US-no-notice}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Study Group Report

I have found no explicit release for Iraq Study Group Report. It does not seem to be a work of the U.S. government, see also WS:S#Iraq Study Group Report pgs 1-57. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - There is no copyright claimed over the document, and Wikisource policy and precedent strongly suggests that texts which are "pushed into the public sphere without any attempts at limitation or copyright", are hosted, even without explicit releases, such as manifestos and speeches. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is, however (see below), known to be licensed. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm...looking below...I don't see any mention of a license. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
'"In our efforts to make this report available to all, the report may be downloaded, reproduced, and translated free of charge."' --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The report was funded by the w:United States Institute of Peace, a congressionally-funded organization, hence a work of the USGovt. Further, the PDF of the report as released had no such copyright info on it. Because this info wasnt included in the released PDF, and because its dissemination was intended for public reading, and because our usage here only facilitates further public reading (the PDF is a rather large file), we are within grounds to post it. Certainly its not a vio. (crossposted at scriptorium) -Stevertigo 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why it receiving funding makes it part of the government. Works do not need a copyright notice to be copyrighted. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)}}

Furthermore - From the official webpage of the United Institute of Peace they write, "If you'd like to link to the Iraq Study Group report from your Web site, please use the following link: [1]" This should be more than enough reason to allow at least the posting of this link to Wikisource, or the main Wikipedia artile.

Permission to make hyper links is usually considered to not be needed. Wikisource doesn't really include external links. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The United States Institute of Peace site [2] says, "In our efforts to make this report available to all, the report may be downloaded, reproduced, and translated free of charge." That pretty much makes it public domain of some kind.Jmcneill2 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reproduced is only one thing we need. Making a translation is only one type of derivative work. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Danny 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I favour keep. Although it doesn't have a derivative work license (it needs more than just reproduction and translation to be CC compatible) I'd make some sort of weasely exception somehow... ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, except for Iraq Study Group Report/Preface, which is not from the official report[3] but from the Random House publication. --Pmsyyz 04:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete commercial use seems to be limited (viz. the donation by Random House to the National Military Family Foundation). Physchim62 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: that is not in the official report, but only in the printed book from Random House. --Pmsyyz 17:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No mention is made of derivative works or commercial usage. We can't infer that we have permission to go ahead and use this work in either of these manners.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Most works by the federal government don't specify how you can use them either, but we know we can use them because they are works of the federal government. --Pmsyyz 17:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't know that this is a work of the federal government. The website for the w:United States Institute of Peace doesn't say its a government organisation (it's a .org). And even if it were, it did not write the report, it only facilitated it. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This debate is also raging on the scriptorum withsimilar lack of concrete info on the copyright status of the work. After 08/01/2007 when I have access to my non-hotmail e-mail account I'll ask the ISG to confirm what the copyright status of the report is & whether it is a U.S.A. federal government work or not. AllanHainey 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I e-mailed Ian Larsen at USIP on the copyright situation & whether the work is a Federal Gov work or could be released under GDFL. He replied "There is no copyright on the text of the Iraq Study Group report. You may use it as you wish. The only copyright issues have to do with the hard copies of the report that were printed by Vintage Books. In that case, the cover art is copyrighted.
You can assume you are safe if the text you are posting came from the PDF file posted on the US Institute of Peace website (www.usip.org). That version contains no copyrighted information.
Thanks for your interest." AllanHainey 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please forward that to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? --Benn Newman (AMDG) 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please confirm when you have forwarded their response to permissions-en, preferably with a copy of your original message. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Forwarded, with original e-mail. AllanHainey 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bastique 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

Childhood-- Markus Natten

The original contributor, 21stCenturyDRAGON, failed to provide licencing information despite being asked in the Scriptorium. I was unable to find any info on the author or the translator of this poem.--GrafZahl 21:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Deleted.--Jusjih 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Faces

This is a poem from The Tower, published in 1928 and renewed by the author's wife (search for Yeats and Tower).--GrafZahl 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Deleted.--Jusjih 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Works of Mark David Chapman

In re. Mark David Chapman's statement to the 2000 parole board and Mark David Chapman's statement to police: I do not know a of any license or a reason for them to be in the public domain. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both can be found at [4] with restrictive copyright license. I have deleted both as well as its author page Author:Mark David Chapman.--Jusjih 18:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yearning For Freedom

According to the translator's site, the translation for this work was done in 2006.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems clearcut, just thought I'd bump it so there's at least more than a single vote. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Physchim62 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Deleted the article. I am unsure whether the contributor is who (s)he says that (s)he is.--Jusjih 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bono Speech

A speech given by Bono. No indication it is not protected under copyright.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'd prefer to wait until we have a clear consensus on what our ruling is going to be on speeches, preferably with some input from the legal interns and whatnot - hunting and pecking through individual speeches isn't going to help anything, if we can just mass-delete all articles in specific categories or something. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as my views on speeches are well known :) I propose that we treat speeches in the same way as any other "literary work", as nobody has been able to cite a legal reason as to why they should have special treatment. Physchim62 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Deleted.--Jusjih 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joni Madraiwiwi, Ethnic Tensions and the Rule of Law, 24 September 2004 and associated page Author:Joni Madraiwiwi

A copyright violation in tranlation and possibly in the original language as well.--BirgitteSB 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No copyright exists in any of the following works -
any Bill introduced into the House of Representatives
any Act as defined in the Interpretation Act
any subsidiary legislatoin as defined in the Interpretation Act
the debates of Parliament
a report of a Royal Commission, Commission of Inquiry, ministerial inquiry or statuatory inquiry;
a judgment of any court or tribunal
  • As this doesn't fall into any of those categories, I vote Delete, though as with all speeches, I feel we might be best to wait for a formal decision on the status of speeches overall. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the Fiji copyright link, I was missing that one in my collection of copyright laws. Delete as per Sherurci's admirable research. Physchim62 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteZhaladshar (Talk) 14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong

This is an english translation of Mao's little red book. The link on the page to the source is broken but I presume that it is the translation performed by the Communist party through Foreign Languages Press such as this. Copyright law is fairly complicate and this may be {{PD-CN}} exempt from copyright as a Chinese Government Document. Should this be considered a Governement Document. If this is PD then lets mark it with {{PD-CN}}--Metal.lunchbox 09:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from any copyright questions, this "text" would seem more at home on wikiquote.... Physchim62 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that if this is an entire book, presented as a whole, the fact that it's comprised of quotations isn't that relevant. But it's not comprised only of quotations, there is explanatory text with each one, giving the place and date or source of the quote. So I don't see this as suitable for WikiQuote but I may be misunderstanding things. I'd rather see the copyvio question sorted first and then if necessary, transwikificiation considered. Note that I think the poster's {{PD-CN}} links above seem to be red links but I think PD-CN is a template, and appears to be the one I'd suggest be used. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose:

  1. The significance of the collection as a single published work ("Mao's little red book") vastly outways the importance of any of the individual quotations. As such the work is more in the scope of Wikisource than that of Wikiquote.
  2. As documents published by the Chinese Government are understood as not being copyrighted in accordance with the information on {{PD-CN}} and the distinction between the Communist party and the Government is difficult to make at best, this text being a publication of the party is likely in the public domain.
  3. Without any complelling reason to thing that the text is not PD we may as well go on good faith and keep the text, adding {{PD-CN}}.

if the consensus here is that there reason to doubt the copyright status of the text and that is should be removed so be it. I post the thing here because there was enough question about the copyright status to merit looking in to it.--Metal.lunchbox 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My comments were based on the text as it currently appears in Wikisource: obviously, I would welcome a more complete version of the "Little Red Book" if copyright allows it. Jusjih is better placed than me to say if the PRC's 1990 copyright law was retroactive (it doesn't seem to allow reproduction of government works)... Physchim62 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(see below after edit conflict!)
As the only Chinese-speaking admin here, I am afraid that the book Mao's Quotations does not qualify for PD-CN after checking the Chinese copyright law. However, I will try to seek comments from Wikipedia and Wikisource in Chinese that I also administer.--Jusjih 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually the copyright issues not withstanding there seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding about what this work is. The original which seems to be reproduced in its entirity here at wikisource is a collection of quotations from chairman mao. Together these quotations are known as "Mao's little red book" or "the Little red book." As such the work is complete and should be at home at wikisource. The only issue here is the copyright status of the work. --Metal.lunchbox 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to Physchim62, yes, the PRC's 1990 copyright law was retroactive pursuant to Article 55 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990). To make things worse, the USA law has not honored the rule of the shorter term, so assuming that Mao's little red book will remained copyrighted in China through 2026, 50 years after Mao's death, it might be legally copyrighted in the USA for even longer time, i.e. 95 years after publication. I am getting frustrated of this, so I am thinking a petition to ask USA Congressmembers to either honor the rule of the shorter term or require foreign copyright holders to register with the USA if they want USA copyright beyond their home countries.--Jusjih 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

reset tabs
Delete with sadness. If it's is copyright in the PRC we cannot have it here (to abbreviate a long legal discussion). Unfortunately neither of Jusjih's proposals are possible at the moment: we would have to lobby both WIPO and the WTO to have them implemented, not just the U.S. Congress (not that I, personally, am discouraging anyone to do that...). Physchim62 16:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Deleted with extreme frustration. The rule of the shorter term is from the Berne Convention. If lobbying WIPO and WTO is needed to get this rule in the USA, how could other countries honor it? I am abandoning the idea of mandating foreigners to register to get USA copyright longer than their home countries. That's too much. When I am ready, I will tell where to find my proposed petition to the US Congress.--Jusjih 18:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you make the petition really loud. I feel especially with Digital Millenium Copyright that the trend in this country is quickly towards increasingly draconian copyright laws. I mean for Petes sake...--Metal.lunchbox 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)