Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2009-04

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 April 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Man Overboard![edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Yann (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No license, no publication date. Yann (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Looks to be a 1898 publication. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Comics[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept
Not so much a report of a possible copyright violation, but a request for clarification that the following are indeed in the public domain, as are claimed on each page, before I begin standardising headers etc.

I'm not exactly sure where to search for comic book renewals, hence why I'm asking here about their public domain status. Jude (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the comic book renewals section has been transcribed online, or exactly what section that is. Is there any reason not to take the claims at face value?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
None that I know of, but I thought it always better to ask and get confirmation. Jude (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I searched the periodical scans online for a few of these and they were OK. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't Commons best suited for these? Yann (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    They're a sequential story combining text and illustration; why wouldn't they belong here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    The images are already hosted on Commons. I don't see any need to remove them from Wikisource currently. Jude (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I looked at these and did some clean-up there back before people started resenting my positive efforts. There was no question of copyvios, but it would be nice if the contributors came back to finish the job. "Graphic novels", to be politically correct about it, have become an accepted form of culture. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jude (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Louis Lingg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep billinghurst (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Earlyish text to WS, sitting unformatted. Quoted as Sourced from autobiography though is very short for an autobiography, and not one that I can readily find referenced. The closest that I can find is The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs which is published in 1977, though no knowledge of whether that is just a new rendition or the first publication date.-- billinghurst (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: File subsequently moved

The Battle That Ended the Century[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy keep billinghurst (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
While adding headers as part of Jude's and my latest curatorial tasks, I have come across The Battle That Ended the Century by Howard Phillips Lovecraft which we state was published in 1934. Could someone with more skills in this area follow this one through. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing here: http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/search/simple/process?query=Lovecraft Nothing at Rutgers either. Yann (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there's been discussion on these topics before, I'll have a quick look through the archives first, but from Author talk:Howard Phillips Lovecraft, there's a link to this page discussing the copyright of his works. It seems to be implying that all of his works are in the public domain. Jude (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Not debating this particular renewal, but Stanford doesn't have anything but books; a story printed in a magazine wouldn't be in their archive. It's best to search Gutenberg's plain text file directly for anything predating 1949, and both it and the computer database for anything in 1949-1951.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Double Shadow and The Garden of Adompha[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept, speedy (previously discussed) billinghurst (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A work by Clark Ashton Smith found headerless and no licence. We state that published in 1933. Not an author that I know. If the works by the author are Public Domain and we have had this discussion, then could we please annotate such discussion on the author's talk page.-- billinghurst (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No registered copyright either at Stanford or Rutgers. Yann (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2008-09#Short_stories_of_Clark_Ashton_Smith seems to cover most of it. Jude (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Death-Bed[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy keep billinghurst (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
by Siegfried Sassoon another author for whom we have some works, yet some are okay, some are not. Work needs a year of publication. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have been published in 1918 in "The Old Huntsmen and other Poems", according to Bartleby. Jude (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Ireland's Call[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
Work by a famous Irish and living songwriter (w:en:Phil Coulter). No reason why it could be a free work. Syrcro (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Information "Ireland's Call is a song commissioned by the Irish Rugby Football Union for use at international rugby union fixtures (featuring the Ireland national rugby union team and the junior national teams.)[1] It has since also been adopted by the Irish Hockey, Cricket and Rugby league teams." — Excerpted from Ireland's Call on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
At the Wayback Machine found that at the Irish Rubgy website (2006) it states copyright with lyricist/composer.
Note There are many many copies available on the web.
  • Delete So unless there is something explicit that overrides then it doesn't look favourable. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is pretty clear. It might be a popular song that's widely available on the internet, but that doesn't mean that it's freely licensed and thus suitable for Wikisource. Jude (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal analogy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete
Recent work, no license, no publication date. Yann (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete on grounds of WS:PD rather than even getting to CopyVio. Opinion piece, The Genius and Divine Inspiration of the United States Constitution: Broadening of Democracy (Part Three): Denial of the "Federal Analogy" -- billinghurst (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Atheism Tapes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete
Transcripts from the 2004 BBC television documentary series. See Wikipedia article: The Atheism Tapes. Also the BBC link.Ingram (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just put {{delete}} on the page in question. Without a licence that demonstrates that it is not in copyright, then it will be delete' -- billinghurst (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Knees Up Mother Brown[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
Song that has been transwiki'd at some point. Notes state that it was written in 1938. Not sure whether the copyright was renewed or not. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the resources are for checking renewals in England. According to its article on Wikipedia, it was written by Bert Lee and Harris Weston, that should make the search slightly easier. Lee died in '40, and I can't find any information about Weston. Jude (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
British works don't need to have been renewed, if they were in copyright in the UK in 1998. If Lee died in 1940, and it was written in 1938, it will be under copyright in the US until 2033 (1938 + 95).--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In that case, as it's clearly copyrighted, I'll delete it. Jude (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright query: We and They[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
(Moved from the Scriptorium. Jude (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

According to the Kipling Society and every other source I've checked, We and They was first published in the collection Debits and Credits, which is still under copyright. Nonetheless, the poem is all over the place on the internet. What is WS policy in such cases? --Levana Taylor (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The text looks like it's only recently been added (as recently as yesterday/the 3rd of April). I'm not sure what the policy is of copyright on texts by British authors published in the United States without copyright notices/renewal. Anyone? Jude (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this renewal:
CLNA: KIPLING, RUDYARD.
TITL: Debits and credits.
ODAT: 15Sep26 OREG: A950083 DREG: 21Sep53 RREG: R117669 RCLM: Elsie Bambridge
Jude (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. (Accidentally selected the wrong thing in the drop-down, sorry.) Jude (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Other[edit]