User talk:Karaeng Matoaya
Welcome to Wikisource[edit]
Welcome
Hello, Karaeng Matoaya, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Help pages, especially for proofreading
- Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
- Style guide
- Inclusion policy
- Wikisource:For Wikipedians
You may be interested in participating in
Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.
You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.
Have questions? Then please ask them at either
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.
Again, welcome! --Xover (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Changse-ga[edit]
Hi Karaeng Matoaya,
I have a few concerns regarding Translation:Changse-ga (1930).
First and foremost, the copyright term in South Korea for this kind of work is relative to the death of the author; currently 70 years and previously 50 and 30 years. Only if you assume he died immediately on going to North Korea would his copyright expire in 1980 (1950+30). And if he lived until 1957 the copyright would have lasted until 2007 (1957+50). But there is no particular reason to assume he had died even in 1957 (57 is presumably not a dramatic outlier even in North Korea), and if he lived until 1963 the new terms introduced in 2013 would apply (pma. 70), making this copyright last quite a long time. But that's the South Korean copyright, and for the US copyright the situation is somewhat different: if he lived until 1963 the work's US copyright would have been restored by the URAA with a publication + 95 term (until 2026). In other words, I can find no plausible way this work can be in the public domain.
Secondarily, the work is unsourced and not scan-backed. User translations on English Wikisource should be backed by a scan and translated in the Page: namespace (before transclusion into the Translation: namespace).
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and this does look like a cultural treasure that would enrich our world literature. Please let me know if I've missed or misunderstood anything, or if you need assistance or have any questions. --Xover (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Xover Thanks for the welcome and the comment!
- So I was under the misimpression that there was court precedent in South Korea for the date a person went to North Korea being considered his presumed date of death—but I was wrong, since in the case I was thinking of there was actually strong evidence that the relevant person had indeed physically died in 1950. I did a bit of research and it seems that there is no reliable information whatsoever as to when Son died, due to the strange sort of country North Korea is. (Admittedly he seems to have published no academic work at all while in North Korea, which doesn't bode terribly well for the life expectancy of someone who was then the country's foremost ethnologist, but this is all just speculation.) So the SK copyright would begin from the date of presumption of death, which isn't publicly available.
- It seems right to err on the side of caution (who knows, the guy might still be alive). A huge bummer, really.
- On the brighter side of things, though, there are two other creation narratives published in a 1937 Japanese government source. Here are the relevant dates:
- Date of publication: 1937
- Publisher: Governorate-General of Korea (Japanese colonial administration)
- Reciting shamans: Yi Jong-man (Korean shaman, date of death unknown but born in or before 1870s) / Bak Bong-chun (Korean shaman, died 1961)
- Transcribers/publishers: Chijō Akamatsu (died March 1960) / Akiba Takashi (died October 1954)
- So:
- I'm not sure if shamans have copyright, but is this fine for Wikisource?
- The catch is that I only have access to a 1970 photocopy of the 1937 edition. (The actual 1937 editions, which are exceedingly rare, are in fragile condition and I'm not allowed access to them.) Is this alright?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- That the print is from 1970 is not a problem so long as it does not add new materials (i.e. it is a pure reprint of a PD original). If there is new matter there then that material has a separate copyright with separate expiration. If the new material is a small part then it can probably be redacted before upload and the PD original used. (provided the original is actually PD, of course)That rare older editions are in a fragile state does not necessarily mean they cannot be accessed. Most GLAM institutions I have heard of are happy to facilitate access for the purposes of digital preservation—especially if they get free volunteer labor out of it! :); they just usually need to make sure there's no damage to them. Depending on what your relationship is with the holding institution, I would suggest you simply contact them and explain what you want to do and discuss how this can be achieved. Maybe they'll want to do the digitization themselves but would be happy to let you transcribe it. And maybe they just want to set rules or other quality control measures but would otherwise be happy to let you do the digitization. Don't automatically discount the possibility, is what I'm saying!Regarding shamans' copyrights… In US copyright there is a requirement that a work be fixed in some tangible form in order to be eligible for copyright protection. A speech written in advance is protected, but off the cuff remarks are not. For oral tradition works like this there is a grey area, but absent case law to the contrary I would not automatically assume that there was a copyright there. Note that that's the US situation (which is what Wikisource requires), but for Commons you also need to consider the country of origin which may not require "fixity" for copyright (I don't know the status of that in Korea). Some countries also have special legal regulation of traditional forms of expression, which may factor in: e.g. the Ka Mate is regulated by a separate law in New Zealand. Whether any such applies in Korea I do not know.Finally, as to the copyright of the transcribers… In 1937 the term was pma. 30, so for the transcribers the original copyrights ran to 1990 and 1984. The extension of the term of protection from 30 to 50 years was enacted in 1986, and was not retroactive, so the 30 year term is the applicable one. The URAA date for ROK is 1996 so we also avoid that complication.So, bottom line, the 1937 transcriptions appear to be public domain. There is a slight question mark regarding the shamans' copyrights, but I hold that unlikely. And there may be special regulation for traditional cultural expressions, but I am not specifically aware of any such for ROK. --Xover (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Xover, that was very helpful. I consulted a ROK lawyer indirectly and he says that the shamans should have no copyright.
- In other news, all of Son's works (including the anthology that includes Changse-ga) were actually republished in 1981 by the South Korean academic publisher Taehaksa (the circumstantial evidence I mentioned below). I asked them if copyright was an issue, and they said that Son's potential copyright was "not taken into consideration" during the 1981 republication. What do you think?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
not taken into consideration
sounds to me like "We didn't bother to consider it. He probably won't sue." I think we'll need some positive evidence here to be able to say it is public domain. Either a documented date of death (possibly in the form of a legal determination that they are presumed dead as of some date), or a legal precedent that directly addresses this situation. The rule of thumb for works where the author's date of death is unknown is 120 years from date of publication, so we'll need something that is more specific than that. Did Son have heirs? Absent heirs his copyright would have passed to the state, and there may be other copyright rules in effect. If he had heirs, they may be able to clarify presumed date of death or current copyright status. And if we can identify any current copyright owner they may even be willing to license the work under an open license (there's a specific process for that, so please check the details before you approach any copyright owner with such a proposal). --Xover (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)- @Xover: You might be right about the publisher, unfortunately. Son does have heirs, but I haven't found any way to contact them—or indeed, who they even might be at this point, since his original heir and eldest son died in 2002. I've asked both the Korea Copyright Commission and an organization that specializes in NK-SK copyright issues about this specific case, but I'm not super optimistic. I'll let you know what they say, but if they don't respond within a few days I agree that Changse-ga should be removed.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- That the print is from 1970 is not a problem so long as it does not add new materials (i.e. it is a pure reprint of a PD original). If there is new matter there then that material has a separate copyright with separate expiration. If the new material is a small part then it can probably be redacted before upload and the PD original used. (provided the original is actually PD, of course)That rare older editions are in a fragile state does not necessarily mean they cannot be accessed. Most GLAM institutions I have heard of are happy to facilitate access for the purposes of digital preservation—especially if they get free volunteer labor out of it! :); they just usually need to make sure there's no damage to them. Depending on what your relationship is with the holding institution, I would suggest you simply contact them and explain what you want to do and discuss how this can be achieved. Maybe they'll want to do the digitization themselves but would be happy to let you transcribe it. And maybe they just want to set rules or other quality control measures but would otherwise be happy to let you do the digitization. Don't automatically discount the possibility, is what I'm saying!Regarding shamans' copyrights… In US copyright there is a requirement that a work be fixed in some tangible form in order to be eligible for copyright protection. A speech written in advance is protected, but off the cuff remarks are not. For oral tradition works like this there is a grey area, but absent case law to the contrary I would not automatically assume that there was a copyright there. Note that that's the US situation (which is what Wikisource requires), but for Commons you also need to consider the country of origin which may not require "fixity" for copyright (I don't know the status of that in Korea). Some countries also have special legal regulation of traditional forms of expression, which may factor in: e.g. the Ka Mate is regulated by a separate law in New Zealand. Whether any such applies in Korea I do not know.Finally, as to the copyright of the transcribers… In 1937 the term was pma. 30, so for the transcribers the original copyrights ran to 1990 and 1984. The extension of the term of protection from 30 to 50 years was enacted in 1986, and was not retroactive, so the 30 year term is the applicable one. The URAA date for ROK is 1996 so we also avoid that complication.So, bottom line, the 1937 transcriptions appear to be public domain. There is a slight question mark regarding the shamans' copyrights, but I hold that unlikely. And there may be special regulation for traditional cultural expressions, but I am not specifically aware of any such for ROK. --Xover (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Xover: I've found some very strong circumstantial evidence that Son's copyright was indeed considered to have expired in 1980, but I'll go consult a ROK legal authority.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)