Wikisource talk:Possible copyright violations

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposal[edit]

I request that we make it policy, that when we blank a copyvio, we leave the header intact, with the c{{copyvio}} notice below it. Often we click the links to see what "A Statement on the 60th Anniversary of the United Nations" is, and a header would definitely help that - and certainly doesn't represent a violation in its own right. Cheers Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You can just bring up the source of the page (the header is still there in the source text). The pages aren't exactly blanked; it's a CSS trick to make everything on the page disappear but leave all the text intact so that people can evaluate it without having to go to the history.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Header levels[edit]

If you change the header level for "Discussions" from level 2 to level 1 and for the other headers from level 3 to level 2, new section edits will produce the correct header level. Now if someone adds a new section with "alt++" he will get a level 2 section and hs to change it to level 3. /82.212.68.183 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the new section link. Level 3 headers are needed to simplify archival. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 18:32:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Resources[edit]

Found an additional source of scanned copyright entries or two

George Orwell III (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Khrushchev's secret speech - proposal[edit]

In my view, Khrushchev's secret speech is one of the most important documents of a XX. century. I think, it should be on wikisource, and it was, but was deleted because of some unclean copyright problems. I want to find its original, russian version and translate to english.

Question 1: the copyright of the original text isn't clean, too. It is an important historical document, but unknown who is its owner. Anybody knows? I really didn't like if some copyright-pharizee admin deleted days of my work with a simple click.

Question 2: my english isn't as good as it should be. A little lectoring will be needed by a fluent editor. Will it be ok?

Thank you,

94.21.30.77 09:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough of the details to address question 1, for question 2 translations on wikisource are a community process, so many editors are likely to make changes to your original work. You need not be perfect to begin the process. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Speeches & manifesto[edit]

With the demise of {{PD-manifesto}} we have lost significant license potential for many of the unlicensed works posted to Wikisource. Published works are not a significant issue at this time, but speeches and transcriptions of speeches are problematic housekeeping challenges at Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Pages with no licence. To prevent a flood of posting at WS:CV can the community provide some insight as to what types of speeches and transcripts of speeches might easily fall into a PD license of some type? Jeepday (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. law requires fixation for something to be copyrightable. It has not traditionally protected speech. However, many speeches are written down beforehand, and that would change things -- such as the MLK case over his I Have a Dream speech. Transcripts of impromptu speech I think are fine. Interviews are a more interesting situation... the interviewer may often have written questions, and may have a copyright over the arrangement too (i.e. order of the questions). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
So given we need to make some reasonable assumptions... Jeepday (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
1. If a speech is covered by {{PD-USGov}} or other licenses that would take precedence.
2. Any scheduled or planned speech would presumable have a written foundation that would be copyrighted, and without PD support would not be appropriate for WS.
3. An unscheduled or impromptu speech would by it's nature not allow for a written foundation, so would not be covered by US copyright laws, hence would be PD and could be hosted on WS.
Examples
A. John Adams' First State of the Union Address as the work of a sitting president = {{PD-USGov}}
B. Barack Obama's Iraq Speech assumes written foundation of a civilian and copyright so not PD
C.Branch Davidian Negotiation Transcript from April 18 A discussion between an FBI agent and civilian (without an expectation of privacy), for FBI = {{PD-USGov}}, for the civilian = {{impromptu}}, both parts are PD
That's basically the way I see it, yeah. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

PD-impromptu or PD-ineligible[edit]

Thoughts on if a template PD-impromptu should be created or if {{PD-ineligible}} is sufficient? If {{PD-ineligible}} is sufficient, then it should probably be fortified with some content defining is use and legal rational. Jeepday (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}} is roughly based in the principle that "facts" cannot be subject to copyright even when some degree of original expression or creativity is used to present them. In other words, a set of facts arranged in some never previously seen manner or order for the first time does not qualify as original creativity or expression on the author's part; therefor, the work is not subject to copyright protections (basically per 17 U.S.C. 102(b) as ruled on in 499 U.S. 340, Fiest v. Rural).

Impromptu anything makes no sense to me here on WS as well as in a legal context - first fixation is still the key. While the example where an interviewer is soliciting on-the-fly responses has some merit for distinction here if the questions were written down prior to their execution, the other notions of impromptu speech or conversation are not so cut and dry thanks to the "need" for a first fixation to take place (see definitions for 'created', 'fixed' & 'transmit' under 17 U.S.C. 101). Without a statement or authority to the contrary, unless the WS contributor adding a work was within earshot of the impromptu speech and transcribed/recorded it at that time it was taking place, he or she (or we?) cannot say copying it from some other source constitutes the same thing (copyright wise) as actually being there to "first" fixate the content themselves in my view - the source being copied would then be, at worst, the first fixation of the content wouldn't it? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-hosting copyright review[edit]

A recent comment points out that the header does not specifically include allowing discussion of copyright prior to hosting a work. We do have a history of including these types of discussions with Copyright of 1949 work being a recent example. I propose to update the header to include both per-hosting and specific License discussions. There is not enough volume to warrant a separate venue for the discussions, and both have discussed here previously. Jeepday (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)