Wikisource:Copyright discussions

Discussions

Pacem in Terris

Issued in 1963 by Pope John XXIII, many other Encyclicals on the Vatican website say they are © Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The latin wikisource believes it is copyright until 2034 which is 70 years after the death of the pope. Afraid I don't know much about copyright so brought it here. Suicidalhamster 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Papal statements were not originally copyrighted until the last five years, when the Vatican announced a policy shift. As I recall, they hit a stumbling block on the retroactivity of their policy, and I don't recall how it worked out in the end. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: William Lyon Mackenzie King} 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/23/catholicism.religion http://www.zenit.org/article-13176?l=english And finally http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_en.html which appears to be the decree itself. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to say that the Vatican doesn't own the copyright for the past 50 years of papal documents, and can't therefore begin to enforce/transfer it. Jude (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, being asked to look a bit further into this, I found mention that they seem to consider Papal works from 1978 onward copyrighted, which is enough to push me to a Keep. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer} 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced myself... They're just saying that policies have remained unchanged since 1978, not that things weren't copyrighted before then. I've yet to find an actual copy of the 1978 policy, however. Jude (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with Jude's interpretation. Leaning to delete. Giggy (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Graveyard by the Sea

I added this translation by Cecil Day-Lewis. I couldn't find any entry in a copyright database. Yann 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And why would there need to be one? It's by an Anglo-Irish author translator (1904-1972) who published his first book of poetry in 1925; I see no real likelihood that it's in the public domain just about anywhere.--Prosfilaes 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright databases can search whether copyright was renewed, a requirement for books published between 1923-1963 that if not met, will result in the book being Public Domain. Also, I believe the author died in 1945, not 1972. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 00:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I was talking about the translator, not the author. Copyright renewal is only the case for certain books; the fact that the translator was Anglo-Irish makes it unlikely that renewal was necessary.--Prosfilaes 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This translation was certainly published in USA. It would be interesting to know how and when. Amazon gives a publication by Martin Secker & Warburg (1945). Yann 21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Religion of God

This was previously discussed at WS:DEL (Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/09#The_Religion_of_God_and_Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi), where it was found to be copyright. It was deleted as follows: 16:36, 31 August 2007 BirgitteSB (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Religion of God" ‎ (Per WS:DEL consensus) (restore).

The submitter previously nominated it for featured text status, with the following discussion: (copied from WS:FTC)

The Religion of God is considered as a very important book of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on spiritualism. Originally this book was written in urdu, however, translated by International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam in many languages including English, French, Hindi, Sindhi, Arabic etc. In this book Gohar Shahi revealed the path to attain Divine Love of God. I have checked in all the aspects and in my view this can be one of the Featured texts on wikisource.--Iamsaa 05:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any evidence that this work is covered by the {{GFDL}} and the Wikipedia artice about the translator (International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) has just recently been deleted at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. The deleted article did not mention "Religion of God".

This work was last discussed at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/09#The_Religion_of_God_and_Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi, where it was deleted. I didn't notice this when I patrolled it being created.

Without clear evidence of being GFDL, it can not be featured. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This books is a GFDL and it's been taged on its page as well. Moreover, International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, which was founded by His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, has given permission for all material of ASI to be used however, attribution to the author is a condition. I think this book is one of the most important work of Gohar Shahi and has been translated into many languages. I think it should be considered as one of the featured text on Wikisource.--Iamsaa 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Being tagged as GFDL is not sufficient. We need the copyright holder to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with a clear statement that the work has been released under the terms of the GFDL. Email permissions@wikimedia.org to begin this discussion. Also, we need proof that the original work was published in urdu in print. Does it have an ISBN? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me tell you that it is not yet popular in Pakistan to secure an ISBN, however, here you can see the proof of this books, moreover, you can also see here another evidence that this book was printed. Further, if you want I can arrange an email from International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam to be sent to you regarding GFDL.--Iamsaa 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, now we are getting somewhere. this says "The first edition of the book was published in January 2000 in the United States with the joint cooperation of RAGS International, London, the American Sufi Institute, and the All-Faith Spiritual Movement Northern Ireland." Do you know what language that edition was written in ? Could you find out how many copies were printed? The copyright of the original is owned by the author, and it is only the author (or their estate) who can grant the work under free license. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of this book is Deen-e-Illahi (in English The Religion of God), orignally it was printed in Urdu and the quantity of the book when printed for the first time was 50,000. The RAGS International, London, the American Sufi Institute, and the All-Faith Spiritual Movement Northern Ireland are the sub-branches of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam for missionary activities abroad. International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam holds the rights for this book, which can be viewed here. I hope now you may consider this book as a feature text. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to ask.--Iamsaa 05:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)}}

However, page linked to by the contributor has:

“

First Edition January 2000 All rights reserved.

”

On it, and no notice that the text is released under the terms of the GNU Free Document license. I've alerted both User:Iamsaa and User:Jayvdb on their talk pages. Jude (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are waiting for an email to permissions@wikimedia.org. If it does not come, then we do not have a right to redistribute this work. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bookofjude has told me about OTRS ticket 2007042410006911, regarding an English Wikipedia matter. I have emailed user Iamsaa and also the person that raised the OTRS ticket. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I have said earlier many times again I would like to say that there's not violation of copy rights as I am the Office Bearer of ASI and I take full responsibility of the contents. I think a reply to John's email has already been sent by our Press & Information Section. Kindly don't remove this book.--Iamsaa (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If, and only if, the following conditions are met,

1) You are the copyright holder of this work and you can prove it.

2) You fully understand what releasing a work under the terms on the GNU Free Document license means. (It means that the work becomes freely redistributable by anyone, so long as the page history is kept intact; and it can be changed and edited by anyone. It can even be sold.)

then follow the directions here. They are mainly directed towards Wikipedia users requesting permission, but the "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" boilerplate is appropriate. Email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Jude (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the concerns about this text also apply to Menara-e-Noor? Ha! (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't very clear, but yes; this concern applies to any and all texts by Author:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi that are uploaded to Wikisource. Jude (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A single OTRS ticket should save all the works however, as long as the Press office complies and sends that eMail. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer} 09:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Various photos using PD-EE-exempt

This series of photos of Estonian authors may be old, but age is not used as the justification for having these photos. The template lists a long list of exemptions to Estonian copyright, but none seem to apply. In the statute linked from the template Section 4 (2) 17) makes specific mention that photographic works are protected. Eclecticology (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-EE-exempt doesnt show anything like these photos, so the tag is definitely being used incorrectly. I have speedied about half of these photos. Many of these subjects are old; which makes the images likely to be old too. Here is the three left to figure out:

Image:Carl-robert-jakobson.jpg comes from w:Image:Carl-robert-jakobson.jpg, but that image doesnt give sufficient information for me to want to move it to Commons.

Image:Tammsaare.jpg doesnt look PD, and doesnt exist on the Wikipedia article.

Image:Karl Parts.jpg looks PD.

Image:Hannes Walter.jpg ((1952–2004) is almost certainly not PD.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon Agreement

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been copied and pasted from http://www.gibnet.com/texts

--195.244.209.215 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[1] seems identical to [2]. I see nothing to indicate that it's free. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The only location I could find online for the compelete work is http://www.gibnet.com/texts/lisbon.htm which claims copyright In the case of certain material presented the copyright belongs to its authors as indicated. Unless otherwise specified, all material including but not limited to; web pages, images, audio clips and arangments of data is copyright © Interlink Communications Limited. I am not sure they can claim copy right on this work, or if they if it would be binding as {{PD-EdictGov}} would apply, and it seems unlikely that the "unofficial home page of Gibraltar" would own the copyright on the work, they must be posting it under fair-use or PD, which would/should make it fair game. Jeepday (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, just beginning with the quite ugly way of behaving of 195.244.209.215 not even asking the uploader to provide an explanation, it's quite obvious that this is an official agreement between the Spain and UK governments. Gibnet cannot claim the copyright of an official text that is, obviously, in the public domain (at least according to the Spanish law, I'm not aware of the British copyright laws but, anyway, both versions, Spanish and English were signed by the ministers, so that both are in the public domain according to the Spanish law). That text is verbatim in books on the topic such as Rock of Contention, by former Governor Williams. Best regards and please, whenever a text is marked as a copyright violation, please, leave a note to the uploader. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know the British legislation. After reading this, it seems that the text is under the Crown copyright terms, so that it should be removed (BTW, gibnet is also breaking the British law). Sorry, I'll try to find a way to provide it. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am the owner of the website www.gibnet.com and assert that the user Ecemaml copied and pasted the text from my site to created the article. If that is not the case it would be interesting to know where he claims that text came from.

My website is published in Gibraltar and its content is protected under the Intellectual Property (Copyright and related rights) Act 2004

There is little point in asking Ecemam1 anything as he has a declared agenda - however I believe the complaint to Wikisource was entered correctly and is valid. If HMG wish to discuss my use of their material then they can contact me. For the record, I was give a copy of this agreement by a former Chief Minister of Gibraltar and asked to put it online. I did not 'copy and paste it from someone else's website.

As Ecemaml is Spanish, he should contact the MAEC for a copy in English with permission to publish rather than stealing. --Gibnews (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, everything is fixed. According to article 13 of the Spanish Law of Intellectual Property, any agreement signed by an Spanish official is in the public domain. As long as the agreement was signed both in the Spanish and English versions, both are in the public domain. I've looked for another source that do not "break" the alleged copyright of Gibnews. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To Gibnews: If you translated the work yourself from the Spanish, you might be able to claim copyright on it, or otherwise the translator might be able to claim copyright on it. I'm not entirely sure how Spanish/English Crown copyright works with derivatives/translations, so I can't really comment much on it. If it is indeed public domain, no matter what Intellectual Property Act you quote, there is no way you can claim copyright over public domain material, unless you have extensively edited it into a new form.

To Ecemaml: That's interesting. As far as I'm aware, the British Government's Crown Copyright is a sticky case, and only certain parts of it are accepted under US public domain laws. You'd have to research it further for us to be able to accept it though--the US accepting said Spanish law, the status of the translation, etc. Jude (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested a solution; however I resent someone with an agenda of removing links to my website from Wikipedia copying material from it and pasting it to Wikisource for that purpose, something Ecemaml does not deny. The text on my site was from a document in English which may be crown copyright in the UK when reproduced on a Government website, but my source was different. As Wikipedia is in effect published internationally it should comply with more than US legislation, and the Gibraltar Act cited derives from the latest EU directive on Intellectual Property. --Gibnews (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not published internationally, and that's not particularly meaningful or useful. If the Law of Morocco prohibits the posting of the Lisbon Agreement because it "acts in a prejudicial manner to the interests of the nation", are you willing to stop publishing it internationally? --Prosfilaes (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the current revision says its been copied from the appendix of a book published 1987 - the book does not state it to be Public Domain. --Gibnews (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, very very few books, even when they carry what is most clearly public domain on the publication of the book, clearly state so. If it's not from your site, and you had no hand in its creation, you have no copyright interest in it. Frankly, as someone who has spent thousands of hours and quite a bit of money to make fully transcribed works available clearly labeled as public domain, I resent someone with an agenda of preventing the distribution of public domain work as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As others have, tactfully and otherwise, stated; simply typing out or hosting a work does not grant you any control over it. If I type out the American Constitution, or War & Peace, I cannot claim that I have copyright over those online copies; because unfortunately while I put work into them, they are simply public domain texts. Likewise, unless you translated this English copy yourself, you do not have any say in what can be done with it. If the 1987 publisher translated it themselves, they have copyright, but if they simply copied it from an official English translation of the text; then nobody has copyright. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock} 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(My indent levels are screwed, sorry) Hi, Gibnews: Regarding copyright (and your apparent claim of it, please don't be offended if I misunderstood your mention of EU intellectual property acts), unless you are a) the original copyright holder of the document, or b) performed the translation yourself (which, unless the initial document was public domain, would make it a derivative work, and would fall under the same copyright as a)), you cannot claim copyright to it.

On the note of public domain: Wikisource is hosted in Florida, United States, and must abide by the copyright laws of Florida, United States, and nowhere else. According to US law, edicts and other such legal documents by governments are uncopyrightable in the US, regardless of whether or not the nation itself claims copyright (as is the case in the UK, with crown copyright).

See this discussion regarding the Ukraine (which was also a multi-nation agreement) for more info. So, all-in-all, as far as I'm concerned, the document in Question is public domain. Also of note is the fact that it's a document of historical and political interest, which is all the more reason for it to be keep. Jude (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about creating the article myself, but remain unconvinced that it is sufficiently PD for wiki* although quite happy to defend its inclusion on my site. However I do object to material being copied and pasted particularly as it seems to me that the point of the exercise is to remove links to my site. (See the following message) A lot of time and effort has gone into collating and presenting the material there, which is something Ecemaml seems to resent. --Gibnews (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to prefer Wikipedia to link to Wikisource for the text of documents referred to in articles, nor to want Wikisource to have a category on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know whether this is the right place to ask but, would it be possible to create a category on the Question of Gibraltar? There is plenty of UN resolutions, agreements, diplomatic notes that are relevant to the issue but I don't know whether such kind of categories are valid here. Thank you very much and best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the dispute had more to do with a breach of etiquette than a breach of copyright. Category:Gibraltar is not yet in use for anything to do with the place at all, but I doubt that it is because of anybody's objections. Just set it up ... but without "Question of" unless we have a very large quantity of articles. Eclecticology (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it that way. Thank you --Ecemaml (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Boer War

Source appears to be the 1959 work, available at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1985516

• Robert Walker Davis
• Reviewed work(s): The Boer War. by Edgar Holt
• Military Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 1959), p. 111 (review consists of 1 page)
• Published by: Society for Military History

I am not finding a PD, rationale. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The book, OCLC:1635534^{all editions} is only listed as being published in London, and Edgar Holt was born in 1900 according to LOC, which means that it is neither w:Edgar Holt nor w:Edgar George Holt which I created because I thought it could be him (if LOC are slightly wrong).

However this text is a review of the book, and the journal Military Affairs is a US periodical, and I cant find renewal records for it. The earliest record of this journal is a registration for 1977. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Society for Military History[3] was the American Military Institute between 1939 and 1990, an important fact to note for copyright searches.

Having searched on the copyright.gov databases, which should include any copyright renewals for this date, I'm not finding any renewals for Military Affairs in this period, or any renewals for David, Robert Walker, or any renewals for this work under the name "[The] Boer War" or "Review: The Boer War". Assuming this was the first publication, and that it was first published in the US (a reasonable assumption, IMO) or that Robert Walker Davis was an American citizen, it should be in the public domain. I have a significant degree of distrust in that answer, however; there are several ways it could be wrong. If I had the original copyright registrations, I could be more certain, but I neither have access to the physical volumes nor any interest in going trawling through them after this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)