Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2009-06

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

Kept[edit]

Lil the Whore[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep {{PD-anon-1996|1927}} billinghurst (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This article was recently Transwiki'd from Wikipedia by request of Dragonfly6-7 via IRC. It's clearly a source text, which makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia, but as there are doubts about its copyright status, we decided it best to Transwiki it here and then discuss it. From our conversation on IRC, we've gathered the following information about the text:
  1. The song was originally published anonymously in Immortalia in 1927 in New York City.
  2. It was apparently originally published without a copyright notice, though this cannot be verified as I've not yet found scans.
  3. A claim is made that the text couldn't be copyrighted due to obscenity laws.

Unfortunately, the apparent source of the article, Immortalia.com is both offline and blocked from the Wayback machine, though from the look of things, they had some form of either scan or OCR of the original text. I've not found anything regarding Immortalia in Archive.org's search system.

What we need to establish is:

  1. Which of the texts Transwiki'd over are from the original Immortalia.
  2. and Whether or not the original Immortalia is currently public domain.

I guess that's it. Jude (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

From looking around the web, it states that Immortalia was an underground publication, and from a WorldCat search there are a number of versions of it or similar. I would say Keep and mark as {{PD-anon-1996|1927}}. billinghurst (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Leyden Papyrus X[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept
This page has been imported from Wikipedia, where Moonriddengirl (talkcontribs) has done most of the copyright investigation[1] It's status is still not known for certain, as it a 1926 translation published in the American w:Journal of Chemical Education, which may have been renewed. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just discovered a website that shows the copyright renewal status of articles published in U.S. periodicals. It's called the Catalog of Copyright Entries and is at this link: [2]. Perhaps this could serve as conclusive proof. All renewals for 1926 are found in the 1953 and 1954 pages. ResScholar (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I did a search for translator, periodical and article title in both 1953 and 1954 and didn't find anything. I'd imagine it's safe to use under the license templates PD-US-no-renewal. ResScholar (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jude (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept
The above is a treaty between Australia and Japan from 1976, which would make it less than 50 years which is the period of copyright for Oz. Original source and restrictions are not contained in the document, and from looking at DFAT's website this is their copyright notice. From my understanding of our copyright policy, we cannot house works with the unaltered form restriction. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Does it not fall under PD-GovEdict?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I imagine it would be considered a Government Edict, but we don't have certain works of the Crown in the UK as they are under copyright? Jude (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jude (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Copy to Wikilivres, and delete at WS billinghurst (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This paper was copied by an IP from that source, where it is claimed to be in the Public domain. I also made some edits some time ago, but I now notice that this is a translation from 1923. So I don't think it's really public domain in the United states. Maybe it should be deleted. --D.H (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning toward keep. What do we know about W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery? Was any of this published in journal articles before 1923? When did Switzerland adopt life + 70, since you are citing a Swiss source? In the case of anything published in 1923, 1924 or 1925 the 70 years may have already expired before the US restored copyrights in 1996. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: barring some unlikely events, it's not in the public domain in the US. It claims to be translated from the 1922 edition, which makes previous publication unlikely, and the odds Perrett and Jeffery conveniently died before 1926 are low.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment w:George Barker Jeffery cited as dying in the 1950s, also note that there is specific mention of the work in the article. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
With Jeffery's death in 1957 it may qualify for Wikilivres if it's rejected here. Perrett seems more obscure. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Cannot find identifying info for Perrett through a number of available resources. He wasn't FRS, Jeffery was. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Wilfrid Perrett was born in 1873. He was a literary and music critic (he also published some books). Jeffery asked him to co-translate some of Einstein's papers, because Perrett has studied in Germany. But I could not find any infos on his date of death. --D.H (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I did see W. and Wilfrid in the LOC Catalog, but since they were dealing with such widely different subjects, I didn't want to jump to conclusions. Your find seems to settle that. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Wilfrid died 1 Oct 1946. I will put some biographical detail on your Talk page. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence (unfortunately) produced demonstrates to me that it is out of copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    OK. Since all three individuals were dead by the end of 1958, it qualifies for Wikilivres. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I found another translation of Einstein's paper by w:Megh Nad Saha in this book. The translation is from 1920 so we could use it. --D.H (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. :-) billinghurst (talk)

Copied to wikilivres:On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. There are some errors with the equations. If someone knowing LaTeX could look at it please? Yann (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PIRA Constitution[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep
Wikipedia doesn't want this text, and raised copyright concerns. see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRA Constitution, and w:User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRA Constitution.

I wonder if the "authors" of this can claim copyright under UK law, or US law, given they were a terrorist organisation. And it may also fit within {{PD-manifesto}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the Provisional IRA itself, as a proscribed organisation, could claim copyright, but the individual author or authors probably could in theory, although it would be extremely unlikely that they would do so as membership of that organisation is not usually publicly acknowledged. I don't really think that {{PD-manifesto}} applies. This is more a document internal to the Provisional IRA, rather than something intended for public dissemination, and the template says it "should only be used after a reasonable effort has been made to verify that a work is unlicensed". How would anyone go about such verification? Phil Bridger 16:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It falls within our charter for the provision of Historic Documents. If someone wants to come and claim copyright violation, we can have the discussion at that point. It seemingly has already been published and we are unaware of any concerns about such publication. I am not sure why we are worrying about a very black letter law perspective, seems like a spurious argument just for arguments sake. Let us apply a modicum of reason and practice and understand the principle of copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
To address Prosfilaes. I believe that it is Free Content, though maybe with a tinge of grey, but am always willing to hear discussion otherwise. Without going to get a legal opinion about how black does black need to be, for me on the balance of probability it is sufficient to Keep.
On what basis do you believe it to be free content? It was written in 1996, so copyright won't have expired, and I see no evidence that it has been released under any a free licence. Yes, it has been published in several books [3], but I'm sure the authors could claim fair use as being necessary to a critical commentary. That wouldn't apply here, both because Wikisource doesn't allow fair use, and because there is no critical commentary so it wouldn't be fair use anyway. 87.80.203.25 17:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Deleted[edit]

The Birthright, The Centaurs and The Changelings[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
:::Also Alnaschar and the Oxen. Hesperian 11:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Plus another eleven Kipling poems. Levana, I wish you would stop nominating these for speedy deletion. They clearly aren't eligable for speedy deletion; deletion needs to be discussed, as it is being here. Hesperian 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I thought the matter had been settled by the previous discussion! --Levana Taylor (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

These threefour15 Rudyard Kipling poems were today nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that they have beem moved to Wikilivres. I can only assume that the person who has requested deletion believes them still to be under copyright in the US. I have declined to delete them because the speedy delete criteria do not cover situations like this. I guess a discussion is needed, and I guess this is the place to be having it. Hesperian 04:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It was me who transwiki'd the articles and requested the deletion; I did so in accordance with the discussion above concerning "We and They" -- like that poem, these three were published in Debits and Credits which has US copyright. I've begun looking through all of Kipling's poems currently on WS to find out which of them will also need to be moved to Wikilivres; so far, I've found Akbar's Bridge, The Appeal, Arterial, The Ballad of the Cars, A Child's Garden, and The Consolations of Memory. --Levana Taylor (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Was the appearance in Debits and Credits the first publication of all these poems? If they were published individually elsewhere before 1923 they would still be usable here. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, all these poems were published for the first time post-1923; I've been checking that using J. M. Stewart's Rudyard Kipling: A Bibliographical Catalogue and the website of the Kipling Society. --Levana Taylor (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and Transwiki on the evidence provided. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Likewise We and They, if they have already been Transwiki'd to Wikilivres, there is no point keeping a copyright violation here, so delete them. Jude (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now finished checking the copyright on all Kipling's poems so far added to WS. Besides the ones that I (prematurely) nominated for deletion, I have also transwiki'd the following: The Bonfires, Song of the Dynamo, Cain and Abel, Chartres Windows, Hymn of the Triumphant Airman, Hymn of Breaking Strain, A Counting-Out Song, The Storm Cone. Please delete them with the rest. --Levana Taylor (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted:
Jude (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lion In An Iron Cage[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
Poem by Nâzım Hikmet Ran (November 20, 1901 – June 3, 1963), on the web in plenty of places. One site cites it as 1928. The combination of writing, nationality and date of death would seem to indicate that it is Copyright Violation. -- billinghurst (talk)
Sorry just found it online thought it was in public domain? --Catty190 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jude (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Copyright violation, delete. billinghurst (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Propaganda, by Edward Bernays is a 1928 US publication that was renewed in 1955, renewal R159390, as can be seen at The Gutenberg transcription of the renewals. Thus it's still under copyright.

Weimar Constitution[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy delete, author's request billinghurst (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The source of this translation is [4], which has a notice at the bottom saying "Translation: A. Ganse 2001; Translator's Comment; © translated and posted by permission of DHM-Berlin". It's still under copyright, and we can't use it unless A. Ganse (and possibly DHM-Berlin) give permission for it to be distributed under an appropriate license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Other[edit]