Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-04

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Argh! It looks like the translation was published in 1929. --CSN 01:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, it should have renewed in 1957. It is not listed in Copyright Renewals, so unless it was originally published in a periodical, you are fine. This is what the PG folks call Rule 6. --Piggy 18:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like it was originally published in London, so the US copyright (non-)renewal doesn't help. There WAS a 1934 edition published in San Antonio which apparently did not claim a fresh copyright. I'm pretty sure it is a treaty issue. I believe we need biographical information about Phillip Pye. I have not done any copyright work for UK publications, but the UK is a life plus 70 country, so I think Mr. Pye would have to have died by 1935 for this to be clear. OTOH, this etext is pretty widely available. --Piggy 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just found suggesting a publication date in 1936. I cannot find whether the translator Philip Pye M.A. is live or dead. Shall we keep it or delete it? If we can keep it, please say so.--Jusjih 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's just delete it, to be safe. Also, it's only about half complete, and the original contributor has been inactive for quite some time now, and I imagine he won't be coming back.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added copyvio tag there. If there is no argument for its retention, it will be deleted sometime soon.--Jusjih 09:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, translation source not obvious, this version appears less than 10 times on the web. submitted by User:Writers Cramp, as were the previous 2. his user page is interesting. Wolf man 03:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurovision lyrics[1] for romania Wolf man 06:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TV script Wolf man 07:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously copyrighted - delete AllanHainey 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was first published in 1925 by TS Wlliot. The other three works we have of his are alright but we will have to watch this author --BirgitteSB 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ogden Nash was first published in 1930 in the New Yorker magazine.--BirgitteSB 02:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published in 1936. per article--BirgitteSB 16:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text was published originally in German in 1922. It is highly unlikely that any English translation came out that very year, so now we have to worry about copyright. I'm not sure where this came from, but I feel it's safe to say that it is infringing upon some copyright, due to the circumstances of its publication.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to [2] this was not translated until 1950 so its a copy-vio. (Apwoolrich on a different computer - forgot my password so can't logiin.
Delete it. --Kernigh 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted per your requests.--Jusjih 09:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original (Spanish) was published in 1959, and I could find no indication that it has been release from its copyright. Therefore, the translation of it is not legitimate and would constitute a copyright infringement.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Copyright Article.JPG
Copyright law is not violated if the work is not in the author's words. Thoughts cannot be
coprighted--[3]only original works can. Even if it were in his own words (which it is not as it is a translation by me), it would be fair use, as it is (1) a short excerpt, (2) not being passed off as my own, and (3) being used for educational purposes. On the right is a screenshot from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article "Copyright," which I think supports my assertion. --Primetime 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also note that Wikisource is not limited to educational purposes. The texts here can be used for any purpose.
Please note, though, that the text I added is educational. It explains a part of Mexican culture. --Primetime 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order to translate someone else's works, you need to obtain an appropriate license from the copyright holder. Translating without the said license will infringe upon that person's copyright, as all that is happening is the words are being changed to a different language. Everything that was in the original work will be in the translated work exactly in the way it was described by the original author.
Here is an excerpt from the United States Copyright Office faq:
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work.
That is, only the copyright owner can allow for derivative works to be created.
Also, Wikisource no longer excepts fair use works because we collect whole texts which is not compatible with fair use and because fair use is very sticky in American copyright law.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link you just provided is dead. Here is the correct one: <>. I cannot find the quote you just gave anywhere on that copyright page. Please provide adequate citations to back up your claims! Until you do, the quotes I just gave from Encyclopaedia Britannica should be presumed correct. --Primetime 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've corrected the link to point to the fair use faq instead of the dead page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well. However, looking on this page, I can find no statement supporting your claim against the inclusion of fair-use material or of excerpts. Also, here is yet another FAQ in addition to the two articles I provided above: <>. It states clearly that restatements of an author's work is OK under copyright law: "The question to ask here is whether you are merely copying someone else's work or instead using it to help create something new. The Supreme Court calls such a new work 'transformative.' The more transformative your work, the more likely your use is a fair use." --Primetime 02:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing out our inclusion page. Since we've been formalizing our policies, I've been taking the "implicit" policies and making them explicit. I've overlooked these points. There has been quite a confusion lately about fair use, and we're tired of dealing with it, and it is a fairly precarious implementation. The biggest thing about fair use is requires limited use of a work. This is not very compatible with WS because we want to collect the whole work. Taking excerpts of the work and posting it would be more applicable at Wikiquote or at Wikipedia, where the entire text is not used (or even desired).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, but Wikibooks focuses on instructional texts,[4] and the excerpt in question is awfully long for a quotation. I see no implication of including only longer texts in this site's name or in any of its statements. I doubt that there has been a poll taken about what users believe text means, either. In any case, I would imagine that moving such a text would require listing on a page much different than this. --Primetime 03:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Zhaladshar here that we are looking to host complete texts here. We aim to be library if you find a title in a library it expected to be complete. Although I imagine we may end up with some fragments of texts here, where the rest has been lost in antiquity. I am highly against hosting any excerpts of texts where the complete version exists. I think this is implict in stating we are "the free Library".--BirgitteSB 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you want to delete it because it doesn't belong here, shouldn't it be listed here? I certainly don't want to have it moved, as I feel like I will certainly have another disagreement over it if I move it to Wikiquote. I'm sure that they will say it's too large. --Primetime 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's listed here because there's reason to believe this is a copyright infringement. The ensuing discussion shows that it is considered inappropriate for WS.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Zhaladshar here as well. Since the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make derivative works and one week has passed from the time that active discussion has ceased, I have deleted it.--Jusjih 09:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand it's really easy for you to delete other people's work, but I would have appreciated it if you had warned me so I could have moved it to Wikiquote. You also could have pressed CTRL+C and CTRL+V on your keyboard to move it yourself, but that would have too hard for someone like you to do. --Primetime 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not our job to move material over to other projects. We've got other things to be doing. And you've had ample time to move it yourself. If you would like, I'll undelete the page, give you enough time to move it and try your chances with Wikiquote, and then delete it again.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please do. I would only need a window of a day or so. --Primetime 18:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've restored it. I will delete it at the end of the weekend, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was posted by an anon and appears to be a copy of the translation published by the Grove press in 1966 Its an enormous text and features as one of our longest documents. Apwoolrich 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"All rights reserved. No permission is given to further reproduce or to distribute any material appearing in these pages."
Unless the submitter has more information, this should be deleted.
Cheezerman 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The translation was from 1961, no indication it's PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This recent work includes the following © notice:

Permission is hereby granted to make copies of any part of this document for non-commercial purposes provided the original copyright notice with the author's name is included.

This, IMO, is not compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. Also, IMO, this is of questionable value. See also Author:Hulda Regehr Clark. --Droll 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete copyrighted. AllanHainey 12:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before deleting this for not being compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, shall we delete works under GFDL-incompactible British Crown Copyright and UN Copyright as well? Our page Wikisource:Copyright considers restrictive conditions such as for non-commercial use only as licensed use, so I have to be better sure.--Jusjih 02:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes we should see the above notice about Crown copyright material. David Newton 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have deleted this page and its talk page while our Wikisource:Copyright policy no longer accepts non-commercial licenses.--Jusjih 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text is "Cyber-Claus" by William Gibson, originally published 01 December 1991 in The Washington Post Book World, which asserts copyright on its content. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Agrippa: A Book of The Dead" by William Gibson, originally published in 1992. The copyright seems to belong to Kevin Begos Publishing. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

William Gibson is a modern author, born in 1948. There is reason to believe that all his works are copyright, particularly given the above two discussions. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has been copied from and , the National Heritage Board of Singapore. Its terms of use forbids reproduction without permission. As I cannot find the texts free of copyright pursuant to the Singaporean Copyright Act and fair use is very unlikely here, I suggest deleting it.--Jusjih 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted.--Jusjih 03:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a copy of . For the same reason as above, I suggest deletion.--Jusjih 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This work appears to be a song by Dan Schutte, under copyright within the last twenty years. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 02:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

®1981, can't give you twenty, but I'll give you twenty-five ;) Sherurcij 07:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is from and violates .--Jusjih 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is from , , .--Jusjih 12:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is extremely sorry, but unfortunately, Section 197 of the Copyright Act of Singapore copyrights Singaporean govenmental works for 70 years since publication. Sections 45 to 48 of the Singaporean Copyright Act may probably not apply to us. Unless someone can prove that this constitution is copyright-okay here, it may have to be excluded from here and be posted here no earlier than 1 January 2036, another 30 years to wait.--Jusjih 12:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] has a copy and its Copyright Info provides a non-commercial license saying: "Most documents are originally based on government translations donated to the public domain by embassies as copies freely distributable for non-commercial purposes without further notice".--Jusjih 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page has been proposed for deletion. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is verbatim from here: [5].—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Zues page Haiku thought was his own writing... What was i suposed to say? -- 15:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lyrics from the the CD Dangerous and Moving by T.A.T.U. (2005) See the Amazon page --Inge 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Wikipedia w:The Lorax was written by Dr. Seuss and first published in 1971. --Droll 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was written by Arthur C. Clarke, and is in copyright. Apwoolrich 15:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete AllanHainey 11:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted while the author is alive.--Jusjih 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone tagged this today. I believe it qualifies under all four conditions for fair use. It seems to me crazy and counter-productive for the UN to copyright all their stuff. However, I very much doubt they intend to prohibit people copying their resolutions. Further, they can't stop a fair use, even if they so desired. They clearly have not tried to assert any protection, see 1.25 million google hits. Jimbo needs to find a copyright lawyer who'll give some pro-bono advice now and then. Wolfman 22:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need a fair use template with language like the following. I found variations on this theme on lots of sites replicating UN Resolutions.

In accordance with the fair use provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this copyrighted material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Wolfman 22:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The U.S. government, for example, freely redistributes Security Council resolutions e.g. this pdf with no mention at all of copyright. Wolfman 22:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use is not an issue with wikisource texts. By its very nature Wikisource means reproducing the entire text of something which knocks out one of the main underpinnings of fair use. It may be 'crazy and unproductive' for the UN to copyright its material, but it certainly does, see here: [6] Consequently every single UN resolution text is a copyvio and needs deleting.
I also happen to think that fair use should not be allowed on Wikisource for the same reason it is not allowed on Commons, but that's a separate issue. David Newton 23:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to get some advice from meta on this. These things are reproduced all over the web. They are distributed by governments. There is a very strong argument under US copyright law that this is fair use. As you'll see in the fair use article, the US Constitution authorizes copyright only to promote "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". That's not just boilerplate, it's the foundation of the laws and the basis of the "fair use" exemption. Fair use is not just Congress being nice ... it's essentially required under the Constitution. Again, we wikimedia needs to secure some professional copyright advice. But deleting these without a stronger argument, or a complaint, strikes me as an over-reaction. Further, that logic would mean we can't reproduce any laws here at all, except for US federal laws. Most US states have copyright on their work, and thus laws. So do most national governments. Can we reproduce recent constitutions? Why? Those works are also copyrighted, at least those produced recently. Can we reproduce transcripts of trials, such as Saddam's upcoming one? All recent works are automatically copyrighted, so if we're not going to allow fair use, we're basically restricting all our modern historical documents to be US federal works.
As to whether Fair Use should be allowed, I can't imagine why not, but then I don't follow stuff on Commons. Wolfman 00:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter if those things are reproduced all over the web. There are links to illegal software and illegal DVD downloads all over the web and it still does not make them any less a copyright violation. These texts are copyrighted, that is a fact. It even mentions the United Nations in the US Code copyright under Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 104(b)(1) as a legitimate place of national origin for copyright to subsist.
The line of reasoning that no laws, except US federal laws, can be reproduced on Wikisource goes too far. No laws, except those that are not copyrighted, or those that are out of copyright, can be reproduced on Wikisource. For example, British laws from 1954 and earlier are fair game as they are out of copyright and I have enquired with HMSO about whether the Crown copyright term in the UK of 50 years from date of publication for published works can be considered to apply worldwide, and they have said that it can be. However, the Hunting Act 2004 is a copyright violation as it is Crown copyrighted material. There is a copyright waiver on reproducing British legislation, but the terms of that waiver are not compatible with those of the GFDL. Therefore we cannot reproduce British legislation from 1955 and later on the site.
Fair use is also irrelevant. In reproducing entire works Wikisource essentially exempts itself from fair use applying. That fact is admitted to in the copyright section of this very website.
"Can we reproduce recent constitutions?" No if they are copyrighted and we do not have permission. "Can we reproduce transcripts of trials, such as Saddam's upcoming one?" No if they are copyrighted and we do not have permission. "All recent works are automatically copyrighted, so if we're not going to allow fair use, we're basically restricting all our modern historical documents to be US federal works." Yes and we have to according to the strictures of copyright law. David Newton 00:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you are incorrectly intrepreting the law. But, I'll say no more for now. I copied the previous discussion (before your last comment), back over to Scriptorium, as this clearly requires broader involvemnet. Wolfman 00:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A user at w:Talk:United_Nations_resolution has thought that UN resolutions are like any other treaty, law, judicial decision or public document and are public domain and have no copyright, but I still doubt it. I need reliable info on this, or I have to stop adding any UN resolutions indefinitely. This also applies to French and Chinese Wikisource that I edit.--Jusjih 05:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Applicability of US Copyright Law to the UN Headquarters

As I read the UNITED STATES HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT for the United Nations, I have found that Section 7(b) says: "Except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district." As I cannot find otherwise, I think that American Copyright Act does apply there. Help:Copyright and Wikisource says:

"8. If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, and it was published without a copyright notice, it's in the public domain.

9. If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 WITH a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain ONLY IF the copyright was not renewed. (This is difficult to determine.)

10. If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, and it was published without a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain only if the author failed to subsequently register that copyright. (This is difficult to determine.)“

Whenever the United Nations Resolutions were published without a copyright notice, would any of them be in the public domain? As of now, I think that latest ones may be copyrighted, but earlier ones might be in the public domain. Please reply if I am thinking incorrectly in any way. We have to settle this hot topic, or I have to stop adding any UN resolutions indefinitely.--Jusjih 10:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, going by point 8, all we have to do is find out if the resolutions published before 1978 had a copyright notice. The question is, how do we go about finding that? OR, how do we discover whether the copyright was renewed or not?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
US Copyright Office Records do not have older records online yet. I just briefly reviewed PDF copies of UN Security Council Resolutions in 1946 but could find no copyright notices. Latest Resolutions do not have copyright notices in their PDF copies, but they are presumably copyrighted by default. This may also apply to French and Chinese texts. However, What I think is suggestive but not essentially conclusive.--Jusjih 01:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is in response to Jusjih's comment on Wikisource:Administrators. Read the section Soufron on UN on the Scriptorium and the blog Soufron wrote. It seems to tell us that we are allowed to reproduce the UN's works here. But to do so, we must make sure that these can not be edited. These resolutions will probably be the first pages we protect here, and once we've proofed all those pages, the protection will start very soon (probably will start while we are proofing those resolutions). And if Wolfman can text dump the rest, we will have an easily accessible repository of all the UN resolutions.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As we sometimes talk about disallowing non-commercial licenses and fair uses, I suggest that should we have to remove any UN resolutions, we should start from the ones published after 1 March 1989 since they are copyrighted by default even without copyright notices. They will remained copyrighted for 95 years since publication.--Jusjih 10:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. If there are no other arguments to keeping these, I will begin deletion in about four days. If someone else does it, that's fine, but this can't linger on anymore. If there are any compelling reasons (which take into account copyright law, the UN's TOS, and WMF's policies) to keep it, please give them now.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project Gutenberg seems to be more able to accept copyrighted works with non-commercial licenses than us, so UN works published after 1 March 1989 (copyrighted by default with non-commercial license) may be acceptable there, but users must register to post works there. I have posted what we are concerned here at w:Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources to remind Wikipedians. As I have never been able to find copyright notices posted at the UN resolutions, I am dividing Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolutions into three parts (American law applies), but please reply if I may not be right:

  1. 1946 to 1977: Public domain for having no copyright notice.
  2. 1978 to 1 March 1989: Published without notice, and without subsequent registration found, so presumably in the public domain.
  3. After 1 March 1989: Copyrighted for 95 years since publication with just a non-commercial license, so they have to go.--Jusjih 04:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am starting deleting from the latest ones. Administrators may copy this deleting reason: "UN work published after 1 March 1989, copyrighted for 95 years since publication by default, Template:UNCopyright with non-commercial license is GFDL-incompactible here".--Jusjih 05:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 contains a letter by then US Secretary of State Colin POWELL. Maybe that part can be kept?--Jusjih 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should definitely be able to keep Powell's letter. And probably Allawi's, as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait. Before deleting it, I just found a copy of UN Security Council Resolution 1546 at [7], the United States Mission to the United Nations, connected to the US State Department, so we can probably keep it. Eventually, we should better delete links to presuambly copyrighted newer UN works, or others may still be tempted to add them.--Jusjih 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UN Security Council Resolutions at American Governmental Websites

Search "United Nations Security Council Resolutions" at Google and many are found. About the U.S. government, for example, freely redistributes Security Council resolutions e.g. this pdf with no mention at all of copyright, that is because the US government wrote the text first then had it passed the UN Security Council. We should be able to keep their English version, such as those from [8], but avoid adding other language versions while presuambly copyrighted by the UN.--Jusjih 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great. We can at least keep some of the newer resolutions.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it is better that we administrators try to search American Governmental Websites for any resolutions after 1 March 1989, it will be more time-consuming. Should an article be deleted in error, any user may appeal the deletion.--Jusjih 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New UN copyright tag proposed

I have prepared the description at Help:Copyright_tags#United_Nations_public_domain to say what are in the public domain pursuant to the US Copyright Law. If everything is okay, I will prepare a new tag to replace the non-commerical Template:UNCopyright. In the meantime, it seems that Template:UNESCOCopyright is not GFDL-compactible, either, so shall we deprecate its use? (There is currently no article using that here.)--Jusjih 03:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have prepared Template:PD-UN. Please comment before I prepare its Chinese and French versions. Once again, shall we keep or disallow Template:UNESCOCopyright?--Jusjih 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted UN Security Council Resolutions

So far the following articles have been deleted. If you want to appeal their deletion, please say so here, for example, any American Governmental Websites have them and they have probably been written by any US govenmental employees while on duty.

--Jusjih 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am searching any texts posted at the US State Dept Website through Google.--Jusjih 14:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UN General Assembly Resolution declaring Israel Security Barrier Illegal

This is dated in 2003, after 1989, so it should be considered copyrighted for 95 years.--Jusjih 13:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am unable to find it at any American Governmental Websites while the USA strongly supports Israel. There is another UN General Assembly Resolution that we should be able to add: A/RES/60/35 with a copy at [9].--Jusjih 03:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secretary-General's speech at Qing Hua University

This is tagged Template:UNCopyright, but since it is a very late work dated 2004, it should also be deleted while non-commercial license does not fit here well.--Jusjih 13:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am new to Wikisource, so I decided to attempt to split Constitution of Syria into multiple pages, as suggested by the Wikisource:Community Portal. I noticed that it was an English translation of the Syrian constitution of 1973, without later ammendments. I did not split the page because I thought that it was a copyright violation.

I would expect that national consitutions are public domain. Thus, this means that anyone who translates such constitutions into English can claim a copyright on the translation. Our copy of Constitution of Syria appears to be a copy of the translation at or ... also in its previous edit history it was marked with Template:From en, suggesting that a user dumped the copyrighted document on Wikipedia, and another user (not checking copyright) moved it here. --Kernigh 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at US Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 102, and it seems that constitutions and laws are not things that one can copyright. That is, you cannot copyright them, even if you make translations or propose ammendments, unless you make it into something like a literary work or picture or sound. So I decided to restore Constitution of Syria.

However, I am still not sure about this, and I would appreciate pointers to information about whether constitutions and laws of real states can be copyrighted. --Kernigh 03:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, check the Syrian copyright law. NOT all countries release their constitutions or laws into the public domain. Second, where is the translation from while Syria does not officially use English? Remember that translations are derived works that have separate copyright.--Jusjih 06:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops! A constitution is a "literary work", and thus obviously eligible for copyright under Title 17, so that reasoning is void. --Kernigh 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to reopen this discussion. The text was posted at Wikipedia then moved here. It looks the same as . As Syria does not officially speak English, this translation may still be copyrighted.--Jusjih 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks copyrighted to me. There's more in favor of it being copyrighted than PD, in my opinion.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] has a copy and its Copyright Info provides a non-commercial license saying: "Most documents are originally based on government translations donated to the public domain by embassies as copies freely distributable for non-commercial purposes without further notice". How has the Wikimedia Foundation debated about non-commercial license?--Jusjih 03:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No WMF project is allowed to use works under non-commercial licenses. That's the reason we need to get rid of all the UN Security Council Resolutions and works under Crown Copyright. As such, we probably should begin deletion of those pages soon.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the archive of the latest debate? Our page Wikisource:Copyright has not fully disallowed non-commercial license or even fair use. This makes our policy less clear than Wikimedia Commons.--Jusjih 08:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of this (the non-commercial works being disallowed) was taken directly from the Foundation-I mailing list (February archives). This was stated directly by a number of stewards, so we can (and must) trust what they say to be true and that it applies directly to us.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Song lyrics. AllanHainey 12:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The talk page says, "lyrics published with permission of 'glued soul'." posted by the uploader of the article. I cannot be sure whether it is reliable.--Jusjih 12:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deleted. The user is not active on Wikisource, has not set an email allowing us to contact them for confirmation, and the Wikimedia Foundation has not received any notice of permission. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We have The Rise of the Stupid Network posted. Do we have permission to have posted it? The author seems to not mind it posted on the Internet (see the preface at the top of the article), but I doubt the original poster put it up on Wikipedia. Maybe someone should email the author for permission to GFDL it -- I bet he won't mind (read the preface again, I think it's by the article's original author). --w:user:unforgettableid

It's tagged as PD as so-called US Government work, but it's a work by Brit Hume and FOX news, not the US Government. Interviews by journalists are copyrighted and therefore not eligible to be on Wikisource. - 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree. FoxNews would hold a copyright on that interview.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The White House does have a copy at . As the Vice President was a participant, this makes the copyright status tricky.--Jusjih 12:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deleted; there is a reasonable possibility that the text is copyright, and there has not been any evidence to the contrary. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First verse of the Spiderman Lyrics by the Ramones and was the theme of the Spiderman TV series that started I believe 1967. See lyricsdomain --Inge 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been once listed at oldwikisource:Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Chromabarography_and_Image:81a.gif. The bottom of the web page says:

Quoting and reprinting of the materials are welcome!
Have a question? Write now! E - Mail
Date of last modification: 05.17.2005
Copyright © 2002 TD Design

However, as commercial reuses and derivative works have not been expressly permitted, I wonder whether it is GFDL-compactible, so I am reopening this case here. Please comment whether to keep or delete.--Jusjih 14:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user would have to know he's inviting people to commercially use it, and I'm not seeing any problems copyright-wise. However, the actual content looks like it doesn't belong here; it reads more like something from Wikipedia, and should be incorporated into their pages.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article by Verner Vinge from 1993. Copyright release mentions copying for noncommercial purposes only. - illy 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published 1993 by Vernor Vinge, copyrighted but released for non-commercial purposes only. Doesn't meet GDFL. AllanHainey 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Statutes After 1955

We have a number of British statues on this site that were published after 1955 and thus come under Crown copyright. A recent pronouncement by the Wikimedia Foundation Board has now firmly made it clear that works on Wikisource must be either public domain, GFDL or a GFDL-compatible licence. Consequently all works reproduced under the Crown copyright waiver on this site are copyvios. It saddens me to put this up, but given the ruling of the board this must be done. The following are thus copyvios:

I posted a number of those myself in the aftermath of trying to find out the status of the copyright licence for Wikisource last November and receiving no reply from the board. All these articles have to be deleted and no more British legislation from after 1955 can be posted here. David Newton 22:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please identify where you have found the recent pronouncement by the Wikimedia Foundation Board that works on Wikisource must be either public domain, GFDL or a GFDL-compatible licence since it may also affect Template:UNCopyright as well.--Jusjih 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Copyright debate at mailing list. This does affect UN Resolutions. From what I could gather from reading the mailing list all the resolutions have to go. And I'm pretty sure other works we have must be deleted as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I was a little over-emphatic in the above paragraph. The reason that I say this about the Crown copyright material is that, at least for the material that I posted, it comes from the OPSI website. That is in the UK and consequently British copyright law applies to it (as it does to me as I'm in the UK as well). British copyright law has no such thing as fair use. It has fair dealing which is still somewhat grey, but far less so than fair use. Fair dealing certainly does not cover postings like the ones on Wikisrouce. Morwen who has also contributed some of the copyrighted legislation is also in the UK and is also therefore bound by British copyright law. There is a strong chance that the IP address that added the Hunting Act 2004 is in the UK as well, leaving the Peerage Act 1963 as the only one that was potentially originally contributed by a user living in the United States. Even then I strongly suspect that user may well have got hold of a copy of the text from a British source.
Without the fair use defence, and without the possibility of using the Crown copyright waiver, which allows pretty free reproduction but is GFDL-incompatible, we are left with legislation from 1956 onwards being copyvios. Legislation from 1955 and earlier is fair game as I have established that OPSI regard the expiry of the British term of copyright of 50 years from date of commercial publication as applying worldwide. David Newton 23:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this to be handled? Are the pages to be expunged completely leaving no record that they ever existed on WS? Or do we create pages with the same title but having a template saying why we have no text, and maybe with a URL pointing to the UKGov server that has them. I feel this will be essential where we have a series of documents on the same theme, some before 1955 and some after. Readers coming to us from say WP who are researching a topic ought to know the position. Also such pages will be a marker for later editors and admins to add the documents when they are free for us to use. I take is the present date of 1955 will increment by one year each New Year's Day. Apwoolrich 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A template seems like a nice idea, but I don't want to inflate the amount of pages we'll have after we delete everything. There's been a problem like this going on at the Croatian WS, and it's been causing the admins at the multi-WS some grief. Probably just purging everything (we could add a message to MediaWiki:Sitenotice explaining it for a while). But first, let's make sure that we must delete everything. We need to get Soufron's comments sorted out.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we have to delete these pages, and I believe we do, then we are left with no choice but to wipe them out from the Wikisource database just like copyvios at Wikipedia. The only people able to see the deleted versions and potentially undelete them would be Wikisource admins. David Newton 23:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Apwoolrich's question was more along the lines of when we delete them, do we then add a template to each page we deleted indicating that the work has been deleted, why it was deleted, not to add this work, etc.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since we have disallowed fair use and other GFDL-incompactible licenses here, if no one objects, I will start deleting them as well as other remaining recent United Nations Resolutions in 7 days. If you have anything to say, please do so.--Jusjih 14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately this work was published in 1939. I would hate to see it go but is it PD? --Droll 03:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on [10], use the following to determine:
  1. If without a copyright notice: in the public domain
  2. If published with notice but copyright was not renewed: In the public domain
  3. If published with notice and the copyright was renewed: 95 years after publication date--Jusjih 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's so very difficult to determing whether something was published with(out) a copyright notice and whether (or not) its copyright was renewed, that I tend to approach this cautiously and go for being safe. After all, if it is later determined that it should be PD because it, say, wasn't published with a notice, it's easily restored. But determining all this is near impossible, that these are usually just deleted because no decent case can be made to keep it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another page from a work that is more than likely under copyright.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep I am sure this is not in breach of copyright. This text is freely available on the internet in various translations and is taken from a botanical publication printed almost 80 years ago and more than half a century has passed since the author's death. As per comments above, I believe this page should be kept as it adds greatly to the wikipedia article. Mgiganteus1 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the comment on the preceding article.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well in this case, the source has not been rewritten; what is presented is the original printed work. In light of that I don't see where else it could go or would be more appropriate. Mgiganteus1 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one's actually the source text itself? Is it complete (that is, is it all of the source cited at the top of the page)? Note, I'm not trying to troll, I just need to know if I need to try and hunt down the rest of the source text or tag it as incomplete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the complete entry on Nepenthes rajah (Entry 38) from the source publication. It is one species entry out of 65. I only included this part as it supports the Wikipedia article that specifically covers Nepenthes rajah and no other species. Mgiganteus1 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was able to find the work in question here. Under "LITERATURE CITED" there are references to publications after 1923 so it would seem the work is likely under copyright. --Droll 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this text meets all four conditions of fair use. 1. It is included for nonprofit educational purposes only. 2. As a serious scientific publication, the original work was of a non-commercial nature anyway. 3. The use of this text here has absolutely no effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, since the work has no such value. 4. This is only a small extract from a complete work covering 65 species. It is not a substantial portion of the original text.

Now you are probably going to tell me that fair use is not an issue, since Wikisource is only for complete texts. If that is the case, where else am I to place this text? I do not think it belongs on Wikiquote and it is certainly not suitable as an article on Wikipedia. The extract is complete in relation to the article it is supplementing, since it is the entire section on Nepenthes rajah, nothing more, nothing less. This extract is very important, as all current knowledge on this plants is based on Danser's original monograph and it is often used as a reference to this day. Please let me know how this issue could be resolved. Mgiganteus1 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource does not accept anything under fair use. No matter how important, even if it was the answer to world peace. I am sorry that we cannot help you host a work which is obviously so important to you. However we have to look at the site as a whole and hosting copyrighted works in not acceptable to us. The best suggestion I can give is the be sure all the important info is entered into the appropriate Wikipedia articles and then list it as a printed reference.--BirgitteSB 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Written after 1923 (it is about a plot during FDR's administration) and there is no copyright information. --Inge 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are excerpts Delete--BirgitteSB 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice articles as follows:
This work has been published here with permission of the author. Permission to repost or reprint this work or any portion thereof elsewhere is denied, unless otherwise noted by the author. --BirgitteSB 02:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote both of these, and then gave myself permission to post them publicly. If you wish to delete them because of their unpublished nature, that is fine (although, I would prefer, if at all possible, that you do not); but there is no copyright violation. Allixpeeke 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is copyright violation because you are dening permission to reprint etc. However it would be deleted even if you gave correct permissions as it is unpublished.--BirgitteSB 03:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You write, "It is copyright violation because you are dening permission to reprint etc." I do not understand. I'm just not granting permission to reprint elsewhere. I've granted permission to myself to post it here, so I don't see how I would be in violation of copyrights. If you have the time to explain that, I'd appreciate it. You also write, "However it would be deleted even if you gave correct permissions as it is unpublished." That's perfectly fine. If wikisource chooses to have a certain standard, that's their right. However, I would first like to know what counts as "published" and what does not. Does it have to be available on paper, or does it count to've had it "published" on the Internet? If the Internet is not acceptable for determination of publication, and printed paper is a necessity for this determination, does the work have to have generated money, or could it have been distributed for free? Does one need to have made a deal with a company, or does self-publication count? Yours truly, Allixpeeke 03:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under the [wikisource licence] all documents hosted here can be freely reproduced anywhere else for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If your document doesn't fall within that then we can't host it here. On the previous publication issue I think we generally take the view that internet only publication & vanity publication isn't sufficient to justify us hosting a document here. We don't want to become a warehouse for non-notable blogs & self-published vanity books. AllanHainey 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm left with no other choices but to die and/or forfeit my right to my property, then in that case feel free to delete the two poems completely. Although, I think it's worth noting then that this is decieving: "If you maintain that the text is in the public domain, or (emphasis added) that you had permission to use this material under the terms of our license or (emphasis added) if you are the copyright holder of the text, then please indicate so on this page's talk page." This sentence is also decieving: "Unless permission is given by the copyright holder, deletion will occur after one week from the time that active discussion has ceased." Allixpeeke 10:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted per your request as you do not want to release them under a suitable license. I am sorry you found our policies confusing. --BirgitteSB 11:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is definately still under copyright. - illy 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since, I believe, this has been posted before, it may be useful to replace it with a page similar to the "1984" page. - illy 18:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - AllanHainey 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyvio --BirgitteSB 16:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

w:Goran Petrović was born in 1961 so any of his works should be under copyright. --BirgitteSB 16:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and BS Murthy - Addendum to Evolution: Origins of the World by Eastern Speculative Philosophy appears to be a copy of a current academic article. - illy 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I've also discovered Addendum to Evolution -Origins of the World by Eastern Specuative philosophy - BS Murthy which is a another copy of the article above. - illy 18:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Various of this authors works have been discussed before at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006/01#Various_pages_by_User:BS_Murthy. AllanHainey 12:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted per the discussion there to delete all his works --BirgitteSB 11:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, this appears to be a copy of a current academic article. - illy 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is text (maybe a speech) written by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam born in (1941). - illy 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the Woody Guthrie song from 1945. - illy 19:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and the following entries came from a scan of the orphaned pages.

This appears to be the text from a company web site. - illy 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a english translation of Japanese. The translation was done in (1982) according to the article. - illy 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appears to be a vanity page. No discussion of release of copyright or previous publication. - illy 19:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may just be a self-promotion page. Regardless, reproduction with consent of the owner does not seem to constitute releasing the text to the public domain. - illy 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page, and it's subpages, appear to be a current academic article. - illy 19:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appears to be text taken from the church's web-site. - illy 19:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May be a current academic article. - illy 19:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be a copy & paste job from a few different sources, including wikipedia. Parts of it look copyvio and it isn't a single source. AllanHainey 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page lists the text as being from 1953. Appears to be a work of fiction. - illy 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original in French is PD. Yann 11:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, unless we know that the translation is also in the PD, it's still a copyright violation. - illy 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an academic article published in 1982. After a quick web search, I see no evidence that this has been released to the public domain. - illy 13:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a copy of a press release from 1953. Since most companies copyright their press releases I think this is in violation. - illy 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article states Copyright © 1973 by the American Humanist Association--BirgitteSB 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Notice
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than AHA must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the AHA at (202) 238-9088, or If you use a document, you are encouraged to make a donation to the American Humanist Association.
According to this excerpt from [12], this seems to exclude commercial use. This, therefore, is incompatible with our license.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article states Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association—© 2003 American Humanist Association --BirgitteSB 17:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Notice
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than AHA must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the AHA at (202) 238-9088, or If you use a document, you are encouraged to make a donation to the American Humanist Association.
Same as above. Commercial use is excluded. Delete.Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, Bruce Sterling (the author), in the preface, specifically does not release the copyright for commercial purposes. - illy 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insects, their way and means of living. Printed with copyright notice in 1930. --BirgitteSB 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Same as above, though it is more common. google does not turn this up in the .gov domain. origin unclear. these are both short, so we could always ask for help at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English Wolf man 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I did not put this source on the site but according to this site English Source: United States, Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 8 vols. and 2 suppl. vols. (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946-1948), VI, 259-263, Doc. No. 3569-PS. I leave it to someone else to check if the version on Wikisource is this translation. -- 10:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This was printed in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression in 1946 by United States Printing Office. There is no record on for this in their database. I'm thinking that since this was printed by the federal government's Printing Office, that it would also be created by the federal government. This appears to be PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kept. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 15:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The page says "This work is copyrighted in England under a perpetual copyright term" (and the opening text itself is copyrighted). Doesn't that mean we aren't allowed to have it here??? (In contrast to the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., which is in the public domain.) --Angr/Talk 13:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this under the same sort of crown copyright as British laws? We accept those terms on WS but it will need the right notice.--BirgitteSB 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know its copyright to the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge, not the Crown. I will see if I can find more. Apwoolrich 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the actual wording of the copyright, it seems like it's saying that the Book of Common Prayer is copyrighted in England (i.e., not anywhere else). Indeed, looking at WP's page on BoCP, under the "Copyright" section, it says that the book is out of copyright in most of the world, and England is keeping it in copyright in their country alone. I might be mistaken, but it seems like it's perfectly fine to have this work here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if any copyright applying solely to England as a country (as it was when book of common prayer was 1st published) would apply as England isn't technically a country anymore but a component part of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. AllanHainey 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a copyright. It's a distinct right which effectively does the same thing as a copyright within the UK. As for whether it only applies to England etc you might be surprised. There are plenty of laws that only apply to England, or only to Wales or only to Scotland, or only to Northern Ireland. The biggest distinctions on jurisdiction are between three of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales. However, since Welsh devolution in 1999 there has been some distinct secondary legislation applying to Wales only or to England only as well. David Newton 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the Book of Common Prayer is not under copyright in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else. That said it cannot be reproduced at will in the UK. The rules that govern the reproduction of both the Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible in the UK are very unusual. They derive from letters patent and are perpetual in extent. They essentially mean that within the UK only the so-called priviledged presses (ie OUP and CUP) can print, import or publish those works. There is one exception in that within Scotland there is a different body that licences things and it has allowed HarperCollins to produce the AV in Scotland. What this means is that anyone outside the UK can quite freely put the BOCP and AV up on Wikisource. David Newton 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. But what about the introductory statement at Book of Common Prayer? There's a note there that that statement is under copyright too. --Angr/Talk 20:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I say we omit the introductory statement.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See talk page. We have the book, and maybe its the play that under copyright. Anyone know? Apwoolrich 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't really make heads or tails of this. Peter Pan seems to indicate that the copyright is extended (but according to the article and Talk:Peter Pan, all the scripts are before 1923--I don't know what the article talks about when it says "1928 scripts"). If I can get more time/interest to research this, I'll attempt to dig up more information about what's going on.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know for sure but in the UK I heard a bit on the radio that the copyright for peter pan was expiring, I think this year, & that the copyright owner (I believe Great Ormond Street Childrens Hospital) had commissioned a sequel reusing the same characters so that they could continue to get money from it. I am fairly certain that the copyright is expiring soon (or has already done so) in the UK. AllanHainey 14:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright originally expired in the UK at the end of 1987. The work was retrospectively put back into copyright in 1995 and it now comes out of copyright in the UK at the end of 2007. In the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 there is a special provision for Peter Pan. Great Ormond Street Hospital as copyright holders have a special right, distinct from copyright and also perpetual in extent, to demand royalties from all commercial exploitation of the work in the United Kingdom. As for whether it is in copyright in the United States, if you can find an edition that was published prior to 1923 then it is out of copyright in the United States. The fact that Project Gutenberg has an ebook of Peter Pan in their collection, given their stance on copyright, strongly suggests that it is public domain in the United States. If the person who contributed the article lives in the United States there is absolutely nothing to worrya about. Even if they don't live in the United States then Great Ormond Street can't come after Wikisource since the servers for Wikisource are in Florida and thus under US copyright law. David Newton 22:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per disscusion on the talk page this is a derrivative of several English translations including BBC and CNN. Which is prohibited by the copyrights on those two websites. Hopefully we can find a usable version of the important manifesto, but this is not it. --BirgitteSB 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To argue the other side, this CNN story (Which has oddly since been deleted, thought they archived everything) seems to imply that the translations of Al Qaeda manifestos and similar, can only be used under "Fair Use" by Doubleday, CNN and their translators themselves. So it falls back to my example of "If I translate Harry Potter into French, I don't suddenly free myself of the fact that it is J.K. Rowling's words, not my own". So if publishers of translations are only allowed to release their translations under "fair use" themselves, I think it's a bit difficult to then claim that they own a copyright on the work. Sherurcij 11:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Harry Potter is a bad example because it is still under copyright in it's original language. Your argument here is this is a manafesto and therefore was released for wide distribution by Bin Laden in Arabic. So a more fitting comparison is if you translated The Three Musketeers which has entered the public domain in French into another language you would be able to copyright that translation. They would be words you decided were the appropriate translation from French and it is then considered a new work. Translators and the publishers that pay their salary most certainly do own a copyright on the work they produce.--BirgitteSB 14:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but if the copyright is held by Al-Qaeda, thus forcing Western publishers to claim "Fair Use" of publishing it, wouldn't that mean they can't copyright something they have no claim to in the first place? Translating the Three Musketeers is as bad an example as my own Harry Potter one, because they have the legal ability to reproduce it...but the Western media already needs to claim "Fair Use" just to publish the translations of Osama's 'press releases/manifestos/whatever'. shrugs I guess the best example would be when Wikipedia uses "Fair Use" to justify using a photograph of Osama...but say the uploader photoshopped the image to remove the logo in the bottom corner...can Wikipedia now sue some geocities site that hosts the new image without logo, claiming that it's copyrighted to WP? It wasn't theirs, or public domain, to begin with, they had to use "fair use" just to publish/alter it. And I don't think changing a pixel in a photograph gives me the ability to ignore copyright status and claim it's my new version of an Associated Press photo...though I wish it did. Anyhow, I'm rambling now, so I'll just shrug ;) Sherurcij 00:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the translators an CNN/BBC aren't claiming fair use they are claiming copyright. That is what their website says and I have nothing to counter it. You say they are claiming "fair use", because you do not believe they have a right to copyright the derivative work (translation). If I am wrong and you have seen them claiming "fair use" for themselves please show me. The best example I can find is here w:Walter v. Lane. A politician gave a speech, a reporter takes shorthand and publishes it in the newspaper. At later date a third party publishes a compliation of speeches this one is included. The newspaper sues the book publisher for copyright infrigment and wins. Writing and trancribing shorthand is great deal less creative work than translating, so I feel safe saying this would fall under the same rule. --BirgitteSB 01:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, being polite, I don't see where they're explicitly claiming copyright. The pages with the translations don't say anything about Copyright, and I'm not sure we can just point to a general "all material is copyright of BBC and its subsidiaries" that summarizes the entire webspace, and assume it's also applying to things to that appear not to be under their coprright. Sherurcij 15:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My view of this is that the Arabic version (which Arabic wikisource may have) isn't copyright as the speech/tape was put into public domain & intended to be widely disseminated (technically ObL may hold the copyright but it'd never be enforced - & not just because he's in hiding). Any translation however, regretably, is the copyright of the translator or the organisation which paid their salary & they may enforce the copyright - though legally it may be complicated to do so as the original was obviously intended to be translated & disseminated in languages other than Arabic. We may have the argument that the translation is fair use for that reason though, as with all things legal, we can't know for sure unless & until it is tested in a court (I know of no precedent & wouldn't consider the one Birgitte quotes to be applicable as the published speech was published in the same language as it was given). I haven't checked the website the translation came from so i don't know if they are claiming copyright but the BBC are usually quite helpful so we could send them an e-mail to ask. If they claim copyright one solution might be to remove our version but contact someone in Arabic wikisource or an Arabic speaker (there are plenty on wikipedia fighting edit wars with the neocons) & see if they can do a translation & release it under GNU.

AllanHainey 16:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claiming fair use will be very dubious, I believe, since we are not excerpting the work and printing it in its entirety. A better approach might be to find the Arabic original and see if a nice soul from Arabic WS/WP will translate it for us. I can't see anyone enforcing ObL's copyright on the work (if indeed there is one, the U.S. will never enforce it), but I can see any company which translates such work to try to enforce their copyright/copyright license/whatever on it, since this is how they get paid.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News organisations which use this text are operating under the news reporting exception to copyright. Wikinews could probably claim the same sort of thing, but it would be a dubious thing for Wikisource to use to claim fair use of the material. On the other hand OBL is at war with the US so it is possible that alterations to the status of copyrighted material from such people are in place. There doesn't seem to be anything explicit about this in USC 17, but then I haven't looked very hard. However, the idea of OBL suing over copyright infringement is rather ludicrous to say the least! David Newton 16:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to clarify. I do not believe the text of this tape is inherently a copyvio on OBL's account. In fact I expect we will be able to host a different version of this document. I simply believe this version is a copyvio on behalf of the various translators and news organizations that paid them who unkonowingly contributed to this document. Even if BBC would be kind enough to let us publish thier translation, it is highy unlikely they and the other contributors would allow us to modify thier work in such a manner as this. It not acceptable for us to simply claim fair use and hope they don't sue us(or hope they won't win), when we should be able to replace this with a 100% lawsuit free version. Of course as a possible copyvio this history should be deleted, or replacing the text does us no real good.--BirgitteSB 17:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Author:Pope Pius II the contributor noted that the translation by Flora Grierson dates from 1929. --Droll 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source website states the following:
Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini The Tale of the Two Lovers translated by Flora Grierson (London: Constable and Co., 1929). reprinted by Hyperion Press in 1978 with no notification of copyright renewal.
So this may be OK. I am not sure how to check on that.--BirgitteSB 01:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]