Talk:Vivekachudamani (Swami Madhavananda)

The Vivekachudamani's translation by Swami Madhavananda (1929) falls under public domain license and is published by w:Advaita Ashrama. The book is also published by Kessinger Publishing—who publishes books in public domain. --Gadigeppa (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also available on Archive.org ...Nvineeth (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What year did Swami Madhavananda die? It would need to be 70+ years ago for us to host his work. Just because the work is PD in India, doesn't necessarily make it PD for WikiSource. We need to ask more questions. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find the year of death, but I am confused about one thing. At wikisource we have pd-india license, so will this alone not be sufficient? Are the 70+ restrictions necessary? Since the Indian copyright act of 1957 moves the works to public domain. --Nvineeth (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on US copyright (not my country), however, my understanding is that it needs to comply with US law, and I don't know whether US law allows for the shorter term. My guidance is Help:Copyright tags. Let's seek another opinion. billinghurst (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At Wikisource, I feel that there is no restriction that we must comply with only US copyright & I feel that precisely for this reason, there are copyright tags for other countries. The status of copyrights vary from country to country. Let us seek other opinions as well. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually the Wikisource server does have a physical presence in Florida, where people can physically come take it away if it contains stuff that violates US copyright, unlike say if it contains stuff that violates Indian copyright. Once we deal with that very real legal requirement, I see no reason not to include everything we can.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it was published in 1929 in India, it will be in copyright in the US for 95 years (until the end of 2024) unless it was out of copyright in India in 1996 and wasn't filed or renewed in the US. (I see no evidence of renewal.) If we don't have a year of death, it might very well still be in copyright in India, much less in 1996.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It might not be in copyright in US, because, Kessinger Publishers based in US have published this book. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however, WHERE was it published? We have determined that it has expired in some parts of the world. This is one of reasons why publishers setup and still maintain local offices, to deal with copyright issues. So we are still not at a definitive answer. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WHERE--According to the website, "Whitefish, MT 59937". I dont see any other local offices. -- Nvineeth (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone has reprinted the book, doesn't mean that's in the public domain. They could have gotten permission, or they could just be violating the copyright. We need to know for ourselves why a book is in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not even sure that the Swami is deceased (alive in 2005)Alive in 1960-65 which is 44 years ago. While I understand your information about expiry of copyright in India, that doesn't mean that the expiry of copyright has expired in other countries, unless there is the provision in that country's local legislation that allows for shorter term. I am not sufficiently conversant with US law, and Prosfilaes is more around that subject than I. It may be able to be hosted on Wikilivres, though we would need to ask that question. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Madhavananda you are referring to belongs to Divine Life society, and the Madhavananda of this current work is of Ramakrishna mission :) and both are different persons; The sannyasins of different sects have common names, and can be confusing. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"...that doesn't mean that the expiry of copyright has expired in other countries,"

I am confused with this statement. Should we go about removing all the works which might have a copyright problem in some country? Then why do we have the copyright templates catering to different countries? --Nvineeth (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The governing copyright that affects WS is US copyright law, as that is where the servers, and hence the data is located/published. Why the additional statements? Not exactly sure as it is before my time, though indicative and nicety would relate. Printing and selling copies in a country where they are covered by copyright might still have you in trouble in such countries. billinghurst (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I am not good at copyright related judgments and learnt a lot from this discussion. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Archive.org, it was published in 1921, so it is PD in USA. Yann (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Solves the problem. billinghurst (talk)

I uploaded the DJVU and created the index: Index:Vivekachudamani.djvu. Yann (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)