Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2008-07

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Kept[edit]

Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/Elemoont, etc.[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep

This is likely the contributor's own work, and he is certainly entitled to put his own work into a GFDL. The statement there to this effect is in the passive voice. The IP address resolves to The Netherlands. This probably needs some independent confirmation that he is indeed the person whom he says he is. The one place where he appears in Wikipedia is at w:List of authors by name: L where he entered his name himself. It would probably also be a good idea to have links to the original Pravda articles in Russian. Eclecticology 09:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


w:Andrei Lubensky and w:SLUN were removed from Wikipedia due to COI/notability. At the time, I cleaned up our author page, and I verified that A Short History of Russian "Fantastica" was published. The Wikipedia SLUN article linked to here and said

”The Elemoont or Andrei Lubensky’s diverse elemoontian stories” ("SLUN" in Russian, "Elemoont" in English) is a fantastical tale relating extraordinary adventures of an absent-minded elephant falling from the Moon. The tale was published in Russian and Ukrainian newspapers and magazines. The book of Elemoont is taking part in the international charitable action "Help Children." The writer and journalist Andrei Lubensky who is the author of the tale suggested to all editions and publishing houses in any countries to publish freely the story of Elemoont on condition the royalties will be transferred for medical treatment of the children who are ill with leucosis. Every publisher may independently determine addresses for help.

The action was supported by many Russian and Ukrainian printing and internet editions and funds. The charitable action is continuing. There is the aim to change the story about Elemoont into a “brand” that will constantly work for ill children for the sake of their life-saving.

The IP is almost certainly the copyright holder, but a confirmation letter/email to Wikimedia Foundation would be good, and some scans to prove that Elemoont and Ad notam. Diverse years' notes were published would not hurt. John Vandenberg 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect something of the like. It's the passive voice that really made me suspicious. If we are going to keep this sort of thing for a long time it's good to have it properly documented for a time long after the people now involved have dropped out of the picture. The other point that needs to be made clear is translator's rights. Did he produce the English version himself? Eclecticology 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this sort of work acceptable on Wikisource? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete for now. While I like the Elemoont, Andrei Lubensky is unreachable. If the contibutor returns, he can complain at the Scriptorium and then we can settle things concerning the appropriate releases. ResScholar 07:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have contacted Michael Lubensky on his blog who is claimed by the contributor to be the author of one of the illustrations in Andrei Lubensky's works.

Dear Michael,
I have been trying to reach you or Andrei Lubensky. One of your photos is on the public non-profit website en.wikisource.org illustrating one of Andrei Lubensky's works, three of his works having been submitted for publication on the website by someone using your surname. There remain some technical formalities to ensure these works are properly licensed. Please visit Wikisource within two weeks at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WS:COPYVIO#Ad_notam._Diverse_years.27_notes where you can assist us in preventing these works from being removed for lack of adequate licenses.
Thank you,
ResScholar.

ResScholar 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Andrei Lubensky's brother Michael Lubensky has responded to my query at WS:COPYVIO#Ad notam. Diverse years.27 notes above. He writes:

Hallo, ResScholar.
As far as I know, that information has been published by a members of my family. We got the rights for the elemoont illustrations. Just write me a list of documents you need and we will assist.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Michael Lubensky [March 6, 2008]

I noticed some of the drawings illustrating or promoting the Elemoont found on the web have copyright notices. But those were never included with the material contributed to Wikisource, just a very basic graphic.

John Vandenberg had written:

The IP is almost certainly the copyright holder, but a confirmation letter/email to Wikimedia Foundation would be good, and some scans to prove that Elemoont and Ad notam. Diverse years' notes were published would not hurt. [23 November 2007]

John, apart from those scans, could you be more specific as to what Wikimedia Foundation requires as a "confirmation letter/email"? A letter acknowledging a GFDL release? And what address does he need? ResScholar 04:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, m:OTRS should have on file some credible evidence that the copyright holder has relicensed their work in an acceptable manner. Typically this is done as an email to permissions@wikimedia.org from an email address that is reasonably likely to be the copyright holder. You may also forward the emails you have received to that address so that they are visible by any person with OTRS access, in order to be viewed in the event of a dispute of some sort. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, but what is an acceptable manner to relicense their work? ResScholar 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The four tags that are acceptable for modern works are {{PD-release}}, {{GFDL}}, {{CC-BY-SA}} or {{CC-BY}}.
See User talk:Skylark1 for my thoughts on which of the last three is most desirable. In short, {{CC-BY-SA}} is my recommendation for authors who believe in the free content movement; {{GFDL}} would be my recommendation for authors who primarily want their work to be hosted on Wikisource, and are less concerned with whether it is re-used by others. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

John, and the rest of you folks, please help me compose this note to Michael. I don't want to raise his hopes unnecessarily and then dash them by suggesting things that sound easy but are difficult to perform. I am referring specifically to the page scans of Diverse Years' Notes. The Lubenskys call this an e-Book, so it's unclear where it was published together, if anywhere, but it consists, as the title suggests, of 34 articles published in such venues as Pravda.ru and Glasnost Defense Foundation Weekly Digest. Will 34 scans be required, or will an archive of a webpage containing the e-book do? ResScholar 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a copy of section 1.11 of the e-book at the Pravda.ru website here. ResScholar 07:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I guess I asked the wrong question. Many of the articles are available with the Pravda.ru Google search. The most important question seems to me to be, how can he show he has the rights to the articles and not Pravda.ru? 216.165.199.50 07:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we want scanned pages of every single page if it appeared in printed, so that the text can be proofread, and we can reject changes/vandalism that dont appear in the printed edition. If it didnt appear in print, then links to the online edition will have to do. In reality, a token effort should be enough to demonstrate it was actually published.
Regarding the copyright, if he claims to hold the copyright and and has done the upload himself, I think it is safe to assume it is OK if he personally emails OTRS to that effect. The only person who is in breach of any law is him. We could ask Pravda.ru to confirm this, but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for a Russian website to care to reply about a copyright query. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Pravda.ru seems like an website with a great deal of on-line-publication-only material like many news websites in the U.S., so print publication seems doubtful. I wonder if he has the rights, but if he does, can't it be reasonably supposed that as an established and responsible correspondent for Pravda.ru, he can be taken at his word for the existence of the non-editorialized reports about the events he describes occuring in Eastern Europe (that aren't found in the Google index)? If he seemed to have an axe to grind, I'd think differently. As it is I don't see Wikimedia officers e-mailing each other about the author of the Elemoont: "These Wikisourcers really dropped the ball; they never should have trusted that slick media-savvy Andrei Lubensky!" That's how I think when I concur that a token effort is reasonable.

I'd like to sum up at this point the certification requirements I'd like to request from Michael Lubensky

Elemoont

Show publication
Give release
Give translator release (if not A. L.)
Give Dmitry Boyarchuk and Alexandr Saphonov pictures release

Diverse years' notes (34 works, publication to be established as far as possible by links to Pravda.ru)

Claim rights to republish
Give release
Give translators release (if not A. L.)
Give Sergei Tishkovetz picture release

A short history of Russian "Fantastica"

Give release
Give translator release (if not A. L.)
Give Michael Lubensky picture release

I will leave this plan open for comments for a few days if anyone's inclined to check my work. Please don't hesitate to object if anyone disagrees with my summary. This is my first time doing this, and I want to be sure I have everything right. 216.165.199.50 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Pravda.ru has a notice regarding its copyright, which, as John said, Pravda wouldn't be too concerned about limited use anyway, "When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made". As far as copyright compliance goes, that is pretty easy to do. The Pravda.ru archive goes back to Oct. 2, 2001, so in all probability all but two of the Pravda works can be found there. I found all but one of the sources for the works up to chapter 1.17 easily, as I discovered all but one of the works after Oct. 2, 2001 through a Yahoo phrase search. So I have changed the Diverse years' notes requirements accordingly.

Diverse years' notes

(15 works merely Pravda.ru reprints--hyperlinks found, no further action needed). 2 works need the following releases: (Remaining 17 works to be determined on whether a hyperlink can be found or not).
Claim publication
Add generic link to Pravda.ru
Give release
Sergei Tishkovetz picture release.

216.165.199.50 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I sent the requests to Michael Lubensky today, and invited him to respond. ResScholar 07:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lubensky indicated he forwarded the requests to Andrei Lubensky yesterday. Andrei Lubensky (or someone with credibly similar e-mail address) replied to me that day himself in Russian, asking who I was and who I represented. I used Altavista.Babelfish to communicate today that I was sorry, I didn't speak Russian, that the requests had to do with his works at English Wikisource, that I was an admistrator at English Wikisource, and to ask him if he had a translator. ResScholar 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I recently discovered an Andrei Lubensky page at Russian Wikisource. Andrei Lubensky is apparently still a journalist and somebody is collecting his writings in Russian (current up to this month) on his Author page. Go to the WS:Russian link at Author:Andrei Lubensky to view it. ResScholar 06:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Babelfish translation of his reply. I didn't try to "improve" it to make sure I didn't make it worse.

Good day! the transfers Of sluna (Elemoont) and brief history of fantasy in Russia http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_.Short_.History_.of_.Russian_%.22Fantastica%22 - our, I know translator, it made transfers on my request. But in the notes of the different years http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ad_.notam._.Diverse_.years%27_.notes transfers (large part) were done in proportion to the publication of articles in the Russian version - they were translated by the editorial staff of Internet- publication To pravda.Ru http://english.pravda.ru/ into the English for the version of English. Since we indicate translators and we make reference to the publication, probably, everything is normal, but if this it is insufficient, notes can be shut. With the respect Andrey lubenskiy.

Andrey seems to be thinking along the same lines as us, an encouraging sign that this matter can be dispensed with shortly. I will write him back tomorrow. ResScholar 08:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is his reply (the exact literal translation from AltaVista Babel Fish):

----, how do you do! yes, we will try everything to do, about which you write.
I now sent letter to address permissions@wikimedia.org relatively "A Short History of Russian" Fantastica":
I hereby license the English translation of A Short History of Russian "Fantastica" under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation license.
Andrei Lubensky
and it wrote the letters to artists and to translator (Vitalius lubenskiy) with the the pr'boy to send such letters.
Vitallium Lubenskiy soon will be connected with you and it will be possible to everything discuss in the English (4, unfortunately, I too weakly manage English in order to operationally conduct correspondence).
But fairy tale The Elemoont or Andrei Lubensky's diverse elemoontian stories (more precise, the Russian text of fairy tale) we are also utilized in the charitable action:
http://sashka.iatp.org.ua/sashka/vsrosl/action.htm
entire best
with the respect
Andrey lubenskiy
http://sashka.iatp.org.ua/sashka/skaski/lub.html

ResScholar 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2008032010019146 has arrived. [1] I havent seen any other related permissions arrive on OTRS. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lubensky said he sent in release for the picture of "Russian Fantastica" that he made, and be advised he accidently took credit for the English translation of the work. He said that was done by another relative. 216.165.199.50 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
update: Andrey writes:
- - -
The Elemoont (English version) has not been published in print.
I am also the author of the Elemoont Russian version (Слун или разные слунские истории А. Лубенского in Russian) and I hereby license my work under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
This work was published in print in the "Дiльце" newspaper (1998) and I can send a few scans of the chapters to you if it is necessary.
Yours sincerely.
A. Lubensky
I advised him to send the scans to permissions@wikimedia.org. John, let me know of any progress in permissions; I get licenses sent to my e-mail address, and I asked them to send it to permissions, so they may arrive shortly. ResScholar 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we finished? There are a few outstanding issues for me on the Lubensky releases, but maybe somebody else has knowledge that they are already dealt with.

  • Did Alexandr Saphonov write "permissions" to release his Elemoont illustrations? He wrote me.
  • Did Vitaly Lubensky write "permissions" to release his "Fantastica" translation to English? Michael Lubensky says Vitaly was responsible.
  • Did Andrei Lubensky send the Elemoont scans to "permissions" or an appropriate party? He spoke of having problems so he sent some large .zip files to me.

After that, if no one has any objections I'd like to do the following:

  • List Vitaly as translator on the "edition" notes of Elemoont and "Fantastica"
  • Make a brief tailor-made release note for the Pravda.ru pieces in the "Diverse years notes".
  • Add a description of the voluntary charitible program Elemoont is involved with to its title page.

ResScholar 06:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote permissions@wikimedia.org myself. They told me the two permissions of Alexandr Saphonov and Vitaly Lubensky were received. Andrei Lubensky told me he received an acknowledgement for the Elemoont scans, so if there are no objections I will be closing this nomination soon as "keeps" ResScholar 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of San Ildefonso[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Fixed and kept

The original treaty was of course in French, this is an English translation made by the Avalon Project of Yale University, copied from: here, Avalon only grants educational and non-commercial use. I notified the original uploader, User:Zhaladshar more then two weeks ago, he did not react, despite being active. --H-stt 14:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove any copyright elements. Project Avalon says "The treaty of San Ildefonso of October 1 1800, was in French; the text in that language is in the memoir of Luis de Onis Memoria sobre las negociaciones entre Espana y los Estados-Unidos de America, Madrid, 1820, Appendix, 1-3); an English translation of that treaty is in the English version of the memoir of De Onis (Washington, 1821, 151-52) and is printed also in Malloy, I, 506-7. A revised translation is printed below." As a result, the Avalon Project translation is claimed to be a revised version of the PD translation, and thus they hold a copyright on the unspecified changes. The French article w:fr:Traité de San Ildefonso (1800) and the Spanish w:es:Tratados de San Ildefonso do not provide any links to an original text in French for the 1800 treaty. I cant find an online copy of the French Memoria sobre las negociaciones entre Espana y los Estados Unidos que dieron motivo al tratado de 1819, by w:Luis de Onís, however the English Memoir upon the negotiations between Spain and the United States of America, translated by Tobias Watkins OCLC 1540767all editions, is available here, and sure enough, on page 151 there is an English translation which closely resembles the text on Avalon. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The French original text of the treaty is available on Google's cache only at http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:llotex1bnWgJ:www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/traitesaintildefonsesecretoct1800.asp - as the website napoleon.org seems to undergo a revision. Thanks for searching for the Avalon notes. If our/the Avalon translation is in the PD, that's good news. Question: Can we keep the translation as it is, with the modern time revisions - or do we have to look for the original version from 1821? --H-stt 08:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you put the French text on French Wikisource? Someone needs to compare our text with page 151 and 152 of this. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea whether what I added was in the public domain or not, despite looking. That was a work I added when I knew little about copyright information, so there's a possibility it isn't PD. To be quite honest I don't have a desire to trudge through the internet to find out it's copyright status, so I'll support deletion of the work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I did trudge through the Internet ;-) this needs to be uploaded onto Commons, set up as an Index, and our text mvoed onto page 151 and 152. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I added the text in question to Page:Memoir_upon_the_negotiations_between_Spain_and_the_United_States_of_America_which_led_to_the_treaty_of_1819.djvu/161 and Page:Memoir_upon_the_negotiations_between_Spain_and_the_United_States_of_America_which_led_to_the_treaty_of_1819.djvu/162. Once it is proofread, this copyright notice can be removed. --Mattwj2002 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and kept. Yann 11:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Conservation of Force[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Text is public domain.

I just added this text, and it was suggested I come here for a second opinion. The author (Hermann von Helmholtz) died in 1894, so we're fine in that regard, but I've not been able to find information about when the translation took place. Going by Googling the name (Edmund Atkinson) it seems he translated all Helmholtz's works, and it seems to me that it happened near to the time of publication. I've not been able to confirm that yet. Can anybody shed some light on this? giggy (:O) 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A search on archive.org shows many more works, and they have have his year as death as 1901. Similar images may appear in this later work (click Flip Book on the left hand side), or more likely ... on page 277 of this collection. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that John. I take it a 1901 death means everything's fine in terms of using his translations here. giggy (:O) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. If the author died 100 years ago, it's public domain worldwide. - Mtmelendez 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for responses here everyone. I also note Author:Edmund Atkinson, which John created, which asserts what was said here, so everything seems resolved. Cheers, —giggy 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept John Vandenberg (chat) 13:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Eugene Onegin[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

VolatileChemical (talkcontribs) added {{PD-old-50}} as the translation license, with an edit summary of The translation was written in Canada. Public domain applies from fifty years after the death of the *original* author, in this case still Pushkin. Translation remains in the public domain, however I cant see the law that underpins this. In my experience, a translation or adaptation is considered to be a new work by the translator, with a fresh copyright, and a quick scan of w:Canadian copyright law and the act doesnt show any obvious signs of Canada being any different. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that a translation constitutes a new work, and I think it is the norm in most parts of the world. There's a possibility that the translation was published before 1923, or maybe before 1964 and copyright not renewed. However, the only work published by the first translator I found which could fit the bill is Modern Russian poetry; an anthology (1921)[2], a collection of translated Russian poems (and a djvu candidate! :D ), but this poem is not included there. We need the source of the work, a critical component when submitting works. If the uploader does not provide it, then we can't verify its status and it should be deleted. - Mtmelendez 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, god damn it! Fine! You're right! You got me! The translation was published in 1960 and I'm sure the copyright has been renewed and even though there's no chance anyone would ever dream of suing a resource website for publishing a translation of a very, very, very old book, it's still somehow very illegal for that translation to be on this website! God! You know what? I quit. I tried putting a book on this website by an author who was dead. That was illegal. I tried looking around for other old books I might be able to put on the site. I found books from over eighty years ago that seemed fine, until I looked around a little and found out they were illegal because the author had died just past 1958. Finally I find a book from over a hundred and seventy-five years ago, whose author had died over a hundred and seventy years ago, only to find out that that book, by some freak of legal process that some lawyer made up for cases that have nothing to do with a hundred and seventy five year old books, is STILL SOMEHOW ILLEGAL. I give up. I quit this site. Maybe I was able to stick by when people on Wikipedia kept saying every image I touched became a copyright violation, but not here. This is too stupid. I can't surround myself with people who think that writing from over two centuries ago is still copyrighted. I'm quitting this website forever, and I don't expect to be missed. VolatileChemical 15:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Woah, take it easy. The job we do here looks simple but it's not. We're trying to create the largest online library of free works, and they are hard to come by, but that doesn't mean you have to give up. I submitted a work once which I later found to be copyrighted. No big deal, I just kept looking and uploading other works. In this case, there may be other translations which could be PD. Your intentions are well meant, but we just want to be sure of the work we exhibit to readers. If we represent them that anything in this site is theirs for reproducing without limitations, we better make sure we're right about it. If you wish to submit other works, let me know and me or another admin will review them. If you're looking for ideas, there's tons of works in PD just waiting to be submitted here. - Mtmelendez 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That translation of Eugene Onegin was renewed; it's renewal notice R505819. Some translations do actually have quite a bit of value and are likely to get hot reactions from the publishers if posted here. If you want to stay clearly legal without getting too complex, you have to make sure you're working from something published before 1923. This is not Wikisource's fault; that's basic US law. The law was made up to protect these older books; how many books outsell Gone with the Wind or All Quiet on the Western Front, especially year after year?--Prosfilaes 00:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted; It is the English translatoin which is still under copyright; the original Russian is on Wikisource: ru:Евгений Онегин (Пушкин). John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me note that there is at least one free English translation: Eugene Onéguine, translated by Lieut.-Col. Spalding, 1881, available on Google Books.--Prosfilaes 20:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That edition is also on Project Gutenberg John Vandenberg (chat) 14:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Programmers Manifesto[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

No license, no source, credited an author, though. I found the text at [[3]]. I blanked the page and left a note to the contributor explaining our inclusion requirements. Some chance the work is published in an acceptable source and free. If we don't hear back soon, it needs to be deleted. FloNight 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi FloNight,

First of all i dont find a reason why a licsense is required for this. Second this manifesto is not only published at your mentioned link but is also present at the following places. http://programmersmanifesto.blogspot.com http://getpass.netfirms.com/programmers_manifesto.htm Now let me be precise with this article, this is written by Peter Wright a person working @ Micorosft and now @ Apple and he had written it on his personal blogspot, but now he has removed his blog. i had taken a mail confirmation from him to publish it on my personal website getpass.netfirms.com. So this makes clear that there will not be any objections on this. but i would like to mention that incase if this article is published on wikisource then it should not be modified by anyone and preserve it as it is and also the name of the Author be preserved. If possible kindly do the needful or help me doing it. Mitesh Manani

Thanks for your help; though it does raise a few issues. Wikisource does indeed insist that people not change the "original text" of a source, after all, what good is War and Peace if people change it? However, because everything we host is public domain, that means that our readers are free to re-host things on their sites, and allowed to change anything they want. (If they host a false Tolstoy, we can't stop them). Similarly, we always credit the author's name, but that doesn't mean that other sites that copy us will.
While we do keep journals of notable individuals; I also fear that being published in a blog may not meet our standards of inclusion; typically we require things that have been published in an "actual" physical book or such. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 14:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything put on internet is always stored somewhere onto a Hard Drive and hence can be termed as Stored in a "Physical Format" as you said. If you are insisting on a "Book", i can make a small book, put things on it an then scan it and mail the proof to you. but then again is it that everything on wikisource is available with you ppl in a form of a "Hard Copy" or in a "Properly" published book ? With the intention of not aurguing much i hereby withdraw my article but would appreciate if you allow this to be published here or even if advice me as to where this can be put newhere in Wikipedia/WikiMedia/WikiSource/Wiki****. Mitesh Manani

You miss the point; the intent behind the necessity for a physical book is to act as a limit; Wikisource is not the Wayback Machine. Everything on Wikisource is available in the form of a published book, except for certain translations of published material.--Prosfilaes 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mitesh Manani, thank you for your prompt reply. Unfortunately, Sherurcij raises some valid reasons that Programmers Manifesto is not a good fit for inclusion on Wikisource. First, concerning the licensing issues, we must presume that all work published is under a copyright that prevents it from being freely republished unless we see strong evidence that the author has waived it. This can be done by showing that the material is already in public domain, or published with a license compatible with GNU Free Documentation, or by getting written permission for Wikisource to include it. The latter is with the understanding that it is now under the GNU Free Documentation License, which permits liberal reuse including commercial reuse, and the ability to modify the work. Also, as Sherurcij notes, our inclusion criteria usually requires the work to be published in a physical book or magazine by an established publisher. So regrettably, unless the text was included as an essay in a book or magazine published under a free license, I do not think we can include it on Wikisource. :-(
  • I'm sorry for this outcome. Wikisource depends on the work of volunteers that are interested in adding works on topics that interest them. Hopefully, in the near future, you can find something else that will work. FloNight 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ok ..FloNight doesnt matter if it doesnt get published. Internet is a large place. but tell me frankly .. wasn't that stuff inspiring ? Mitesh Manani

It was pretty good, I read the whole thing. The other thing you might consider, is taking it to Wikibooks; where they "write their own books",, though that means other people might edit it. But it would make a great "Introduction" to a book on Programming. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes,Mitesh Manani, I enjoyed reading the piece and wish that we could include it here. Luckily it is available in other venues on the internet. Keep an eye open for texts with a free license that are already published by an established publisher. If you find something and wonder if it will work you can contact me or leave a question on Scriptorium]. FloNight 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Surviving the Dead[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

Yann 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Written by Jeffrey James Weise, and published in 2003. It was posted on an internet bulletin board two years prior to Jeffrey committing mass murder during a school rampage. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not fall into any PD category. Jeepday (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Author:G. K. Chesterton[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

This author's main U.S. copyrighted material has been removed to Wikilivres some time back. But there are still a number of works found on the G. K. Chesterton author page that don't contain license notices on their respective works pages. This may be confusing to visitors who see the U.S. 1923 and the pd-70 notices, along with works with dates after 1923. This author has one of the largest clusters of this type of material, so it might be worthwhile for someone interested in this to do the necessary detective work with one of the copyright renewal databases to confirm the post-1923 works' licenses and provide labels for the works showing their respective licenses. 216.165.199.50 06:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K.! I just looked at The Apostle and the Wild Ducks. This was a collection of essays, anthologized in 1975. After a quick review I determined that of the 43 essays included, 11 are identified as first published after 1922, and 2 have no date specified. Our pages, however, refer only to the 1975 anthology without even mentioning the original source of the individual essays. Eclecticology 09:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't everything he wrote safely {{PD-old-70}}, though? Angr/Talk 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but not in the US. Eclecticology 18:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact we have the template, of course, tells me that we should still host the works - and simply inform readers from various countries, about where these texts are public domain - in either their home country, or the United States. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Sheet music 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many authors who died after 1937 who wrote works before 1922. Those works are still protected in pd-70 countries that don't use the rule of the shorter term, so it could be useful to note. Wikisource could research every PD-70 country as to whether they use the rule of the shorter term, and perhaps even learn they all use the rule of the shorter term. But until then the PD-70 template could be useful as I described.
Wikisource can't legally host the post-1922 works unless they fall under exceptions that are described by specific licenses because the servers are all located in the U.S. Wikilivres is in Canada so it can store works Wikisource can't. User:ResidentScholar 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wikisource already makes available works that are not public domain in those hypothetical pd-70 countries that don't use the rule of the shorter term, as Sherurcij described. The extreme example is Author:Bertrand Russell who has some 19th century works that won't become available in those PD-70 countries until 2040. And as I understand it, even in the "shorter term" countries, the works are not in their public domain unless they were published in the United States as well as the home country. 216.165.199.50 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. G.K. Chesterton was a British subject living in England, and his works are subject to British copyright. The U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term--but it also does not consider a pre-1978 work copyrighted unless (a) it followed all U.S. regulations, or (b) the U.S. is obligated to consider the work copyrighted due to a treaty. As for (a), the U.S. requirements are now automatic, but they used to be quite difficult, including initial registration (for pre-1938 works), renewal with the U.S. Copyright Office 28 years after first publication (for pre-1968 works), first publication with a clear © notice (for pre-1978 works), and other restrictions as well. Practically speaking, in 1936 (which Chestenton died), foreign writers basically never complied with U.S. formalities when publishing a work for their own domestic consumption. So that leaves (b), and the way U.S. copyright treaties interact with the UK (and the rest of the EU) is that if a work is PD in its home country due its copyright expiring, it's not protected here either. (In addition, pre-1923 works are all PD in the U.S., no matter what the home country says.) So far as I can see, all of G.K. Chesterton's works are PD in both the UK and the U.S.Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 18:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Quadell, your intriguing interpretation of copyright law wherein the U.S. legally acknowledges the movement of foreign works in their home country into a kind of common public domain may be entirely correct. But your assumption that "foreign writers basically never complied with U.S. formalities when publishing a work for their own domestic consumption" seems to be contradicted by the many works by G. K. Chesterton found in the renewal databases. On the other hand, it's kind of a moot point since this assumption wouldn't apply to any case that should be brought up under this heading (where I asked for help in discerning the correct licenses) as the works actually found in the Stanford database were already removed some time back. Opinions differ, so feel free to broaden the "mandate" of this section if you want to stick by your original assumptions. ResScholar 08:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(My statement about "for their own domestic consumption" was made to give me some wiggle-room, so that in cases like the two below I can say "Ah, he published this for U.S. consumption as well.") —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In the course of investigating as to whether there were seperately copyrighted works in The Apostle and the Wild Ducks, I discovered two works copyrighted in the U.S. that were recently added:

both with renewed copyrights according to the Stanford Database, making them excellent candidates for Wikilivres ResScholar 08:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps these were first published in both the U.S. and the UK at the same time? He was pretty famous, so that's possible. (The U.S. considers a work "first published in the U.S." if it was published in the U.S. within 30 days of its first publishing anywhere in the world.) —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, according to the renewal records they were, but I fail to see why that should matter. Since the copyrights were properly registered and renewed, their U.S. copyrights run until the end of 2018 and 2024, respectively. Lupo 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And, based on our conversation on Wikipedia, it looks like the works would be considered copyrighted in the U.S. even if they hadn't been registered in the United States, since the works were still under copyright in Britain in 1996. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I copied both these works to Wikilivres. Yann 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be more works at hazard. Inferring from Quadell's lucid research, U.K. authors who died after 1926 and copyrighted works in their home country, have their works protected as if they were copyrighted in the U.S. Is there anything like the Stanford copyright list for the U.K.? Or do they have a droit d'auteur system like France? ResScholar 07:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In the UK (and all EU countries), copyright is protected for 70 years after the death of the author, and this is retroactive, with no registration required. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then we'll have to add at least the following:

ResScholar 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (marked in parentheses are presumed contributors: User Wild Wolf (WW) or Admin Zhaladshar (Z))

The Online Books Page seems to have a well documented list of books including their copyright status. I am copying The Paradoxes... and St. Thomas... which are mentioned as still copyrighted in USA. Yann 11:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
These two are copied. Yann 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I found two more copyright violations that are pretty definite:

The Spice of Life and Other Essays (1964)

Copied to Wikilivres, can be deleted. Yann 18:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Undeleted. As part of my plan, announced in April and delayed till Sherurcij's copyright theories were assessed, I restored the essays and left deleted only the copyrighted ones. I don't think the book title and the names for the part sections make enough of a creative contribution to be copyrightable, so I'll leave them. Opinions differ so anyone please feel free to have your say if you disagree. I expect to move to close this G. K. Chesterton section in about 2 weeks, however. ResScholar 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For Lovers Only (1929)

The first one says it was composed a few months before Chesterton's death and that none of the essays had been published before, and the second one seems to be a very short story that was developed into The Poet and the Lunatics, rather than an excerpt. Two others are problematic as far as removal is concerned.

Eclecticology's find The Apostle and the Wild Ducks (1952) contains some pre-1923 work and The Common Man (1950) may as well. If anyone has the inclination to find out which, please be my guest. 216.165.199.50 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Apostle and the Wild Ducks is copied to Wikilivres, it can be deleted. Yann 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a bibliography of Chesterton's essays (as found in magazines and journals) exists anywhere. I easily found The Apostle and the Wild Ducks annotated bibliographically though, as an exception. That fact (concerning The Common Man) along with the fact that those stories were probably all first published in the U.K. (so treated as if copyrighted under U.S. law) leads me to the conclusion that since there's no way to decide which stories are pre-1923, they should be treated as if they were all protected.
If there are no objections, I'll sift out, disassemble and prepare to keep the pre-1923 essays in The Apostle and the Wild Ducks, and move all four works to Wikilivres. ResScholar 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I misunderstood the introduction to The Spice of Life and assumed all the essays had been written around 1936. I found a bibliography for that work and plan to do the same thing with The Spice of Life and Other Essays as I said I would do with The Apostle and the Wild Ducks. ResScholar 03:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Closed, as it seems we've dealt with all the issues here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamas Covenant[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

According to the "Notes" section, this is a translation by the Avalon project of Yale Law School, whose licence allows only educational or non-commercial purposes.

There seem to be a lot of alternative translations on the web but it's unclear to me what their licence status is, let alone the licence status of the original Arabic version.

--GrafZahl (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Wikisource 'educational or non-commercial'? The alternative translations are links to websites outside of Wikisource so their copyright license status is not an issue.--70.79.8.17 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikisource is a free library. This means that, while Wikisource itself does not make commercial use of the works it hosts, the licence must allow users to do so. See our copyright policy. If the current version actually is a copyvio, we should, if possible, find a free replacement. That's why I was considering the licence status of alternative translations of the web.--GrafZahl (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Who wrote the Magna Carta? Not Nancy Troutman. All she did was type it out. Does she have the right to issue a GNU license for it? I don't see how anyone can benefit financially from modifying any historical document, but if you need something, I can write the same thing as Nancy and Gerald Murphy did [in the Magna Carta Notes] and call it 'mine'. The difference is I will include the links to the different translations. Will that help? --70.79.8.17 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)----
Troutman and Murphy appear to have been members of a free-net. From the wording, it seems they only typed some translation into their terminals. Merely typing something in does not give you new copyright. They also don't give any source for the translation. It might be an old translation by the British Library but we should check this, and fix this omission. Thanks for bringing this up.
Back to the issue currently at hand: unfortunately, mere linking does not help. The text in Wikisource itself must be free. So we need to find a free translation which was legally created and copy it over the one currently existing in Wikisource.
--GrafZahl (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If you know anybody fluent in reading Arabic, it would be a great help if they could translate the document themselves :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 09:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Will a translation from Arabic to English provide a new copyright for the translator, even if the Arabic source was copyrighted?--70.79.8.17 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a new translation will avoid the issue of Troutman and Murphy being able to claim copyright. I'm not sure of Hamas' copyright status, but I would be willing to contact the group to secure either assurance of public domain, or a release for their charter, if you can find me an original translation of the Charter by a translator willing to release their copy. :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Contact Hamas? Good luck with that.:) Maybe they can provide a translation. Provide documentation of your contact with them and their response, if any. I will try to find a translator. Do not delete the 'copyvio' document at this time.--70.79.8.17 05:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, well as long as you can get a free *translation*, I'll take care of getting Hamas to release the text. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hamas isn't a legal entity in US or British law, so I doubt that it can meaningfully own copyright. You'd have to find identifiable individuals who wrote it.--Poetlister 07:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they are legally an entity - they are an illegal entity. However, they still hold the copyright over their texts, the same as getting a release from the Ku Klux Klan. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 08:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Any update on a free translation? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Cookbooks 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Translation deleted With the note that other translations may have a different outcome.--BirgitteSB 19:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

“A New Approach to Capitalism in the 21st Century”[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

Speech by Bill Gates to the World Economic Forum. No indication that it's PD. giggy (:O) 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the head of communications at the Foundation asked me to post it to it'll be in the public domain (though I suppose that's a bit chicken and egg). Anyway, it's not a copyright violation. I'm happy to send express written permission if you tell me where to send it. Thanks, Conor

An eMail to permissions@wikimedia.org from an account which verifies your position within the Foundation, and stating that you are authorised to release the contents into the Public Domain will be sufficient, and filed away as legal documentation that the work is indeed Public Domain -- allowing us to remain certain we are not in any violation by hosting it. Much thanks! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted for no evidence of licensing received. If evidence of licensing is satisfactorily received, it can be undeleted right away.--Jusjih 01:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's address to the White House Press Correspondents Dinner[edit]

Is there any reason to believe our hosting of a transcript of Stephen Colbert's address to the White House Press Correspondents Dinner isn't a copyvio? He's not a federal employee. Angr 06:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, no evidence it's been released in a way that lets use use it. Delete, and delete Author:Stephen Colbert as there seem to be no other works by him. —Giggy 09:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Prepared comic sketches are copyrighted, and the speech presented by Colber for that Press Dinner was probably the work of his ample comedy-writing staff. Anyone wishing to include should provide clear evidence of why it's not copyrighted. Empty author page is going too, since all known works appear to be copyrighted for a long while. - Mtmelendez 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)