:This is a source text used by Dimitry Pospielovsky in his book Soviet studies on the Church and the believer's response to atheism
(1988), which is volume 3 of History of Soviet atheism in theory and practice, and the believer
. Because it is a school syllabus I would vote PD-ineligible or PD-edict, but I agree we ought to get permission from the translator. Reesorville also added another source text used by the same author, this time some letters from the 1940s
. I understand Soviet copyrights were very short in those days and these letters would have been in the public domain by 1996; but again it would be important to try to get a translation license. ResScholar
) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 05:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I now noticed that the letters were written in Lithuania, but that's still life + 50. ResScholar (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Soviet copyrights by 1998 were life+50, so I don't think that will help. I don't see why a school syllabus would be PD-ineligible. It's possibly PD-edict, but I could also argue that it was purely an internal document. I'm slightly uncomfortable waving this in as a source text; if we were actually putting a published book in, it would be different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll think about it, but practically if a bureaucrat wanted to sue over this, he or she would have to risk being branded a cold war relic as a result of the bad press. (I have contacts, like the author of the Elemoont.) Do you agree with me that the letters are PD? ResScholar (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- It would be far from the first work that we've deleted even though there was virtually no chance that anyone was going to sue over it. I've reread WS:WWI and I've changed my mind on that matter at least: both the syllabus and the letters are documentary sources. The originals of the letters are PD, but we still have the translation copyright to deal with. And I would hope we could get scans, since the formatting on the letters needs cleaned; headings in letters are indistinguishable from breaks between the letters themselves, and there's a 5,600 word paragraph that I hope is missing paragraph breaks in our edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was joking about the Elemoont author. Along with people like John Vandenberg, I helped him acquire and submit permissions for Elemoont, and I think I drove everyone at WS:COPYVIO crazy due to the problems the language barrier caused.
- The currently-absent devotee of Pospielovsky probably personally transcribed the letters from Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions (1988). Those errors are probably an artifact of the transcription, and if we got permission, someone near one of the 264 libraries listed on WorldCat that have the book, could fix it. I will reformat this WS:COPYVIO entry to include both works. ResScholar (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I realize I am very late to this discussion, but I didn't realize this page existed until last week, as I have very little experience with wikimedia. Here is the results of my search: I have attempted to try to contact Pospielovsky and even to get in contact with the university of western ontario (where he retired from) if they could help me, but I have not (yet) had any success. Pospielovsky would be I think in his 70s if he was still alive. If he is dead, then that will probably make this even harder. I have determined that the school text was in fact translated by Dr. Pospielovsky's son Andrew, although I have not succeeded in locating this Andrew Pospielovsky to know what copyright permissions he has on the translation he gave to his father; I am still trying though. The letters of the Metropolitan I would guess have also come from his son, or I would at least strongly suspect that they did not come from another source (beyond either him or his son) because there is no attribution of this in his work.
Both of the sources I transcribed from two of Pospielovsky's titles which are no longer in print and which he is obviously not losing any royalties over by a copyright violation. I think the paragraph spacing may be a result of my typing the letters in MS word and then putting them in wikimedia and not realizing that the format of the page was going to delete the spaces.
Pospielovsky of course didn't have any legal permission to publish documents written by the soviet government, but I don't think that that should have stopped him.
I would like to make a case that while these may potentially be copyright violations, that I think this site should consider altering its policy in this instance. Here is my case: I live in Beijing, and tons of people and chinese companies use pirated books, music, videos, cds, etc. The chinese economy is partially being fuelled by stealing the ideas of western countries. There are stores on the street you can walk into that have racks filled with pirated material, and I think this is wrong, because people are making their living off of selling these things that they create and it is not as though the material is going to disappear from history if the copyright isn't violated. I disagree with what's around me, but my conscience doesn't bother me about publishing this, because there is no one who is losing money from the potential violation (it is no longer in print), there is a high probability that the translator(s) (considering who Pospielovsky was and the years of labour he did in collecting information from emigres and anonymous sources in order so that people would know what was happening) would not have been opposed to this kind of publication, it may in fact be impossible to figure out if the translator(s) place a copyright on the translation or if it is creative commons, etc. the original government that made the school source no longer exists and the government that has replaced it does not have the same reservations against publication that the original one would have had, the school curricula text may be public domain (I could be mistaken, but I suspect this was not an internal document; the wording especially wherein the seminar topics are listed and it is said to focus on religions in the particular area, makes me think it was perhaps intended to be given to public school students) anyways. Perhaps most importantly, these sources are not available elsewhere in English except in these titles that are no longer in print and which only a handful of used copies are still being sold over the internet, and it would be a shame I think for these things to be lost to history and public knowledge, because of a fear that the copyright could be violated through making them known.
If you still wish to delete it, I understand though. Thank you for the work you do and God Bless,Reesorville (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
From Andrew Pospielovsky,
I apologise in advance as I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with its workings.
I can confirm that my father, Dr Pospielovsky, is still alive, however, due to his advanced age he is unlikely to be able to contribute to this discussion. As I can not see the actual text of the documents I can not shed much further light on this discussion. Generally my father did not use the services of translators and would probably have translated these documents himself, if no translation existed. I sometimes helped him with translations, but I can not recall if I was involved in the translation of these specific documents. If soemone can send me the documents referred to, I can try and clear this up with my father. I can be reached at (email redacted Jeepday (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC))
- Comment- Copyright on these works is quite complicated.
- Contrary to what Prosfilaes is saying, the 1980s dates relate to the Canadian translations, not the originals in Russian which were apparently all published in the 40s. The problem, however, is that the 1993 Copyright Law of Russia was retroactive and established a term of 50 years pma, meaning works by authors who died after 1962 are still under copyright. Moreover, there is a twist, works which had gone into the public domain under the Soviet law and were restored by the retroactive Russian law were sometimes (in the event of posthumous publication) recalculated to run from the date of publication. Furthermore, there was a wartime extension of four years for certain authors during the Great Patriotic War. At least one author who died in 1940 had his works published in 1966, at which time they were in the public domain under Soviet law, in 1993 the copyright was not only restored but was calculated to run from 1966 and thus the works are still in copyright. This is not solid copyright ground by any stretch.
- Letters of Metropolitan Sergii of Vilnius appear to have been published in the 40s; however, for some of the letters, publication is questionable as they were reports to the German authorities, not general publications. There use may mean that they were ineligible for US copyright; but this is not clear.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- While archiving, I choose to leave the related closed argument in place. Seemed best to keep them together. Jeepday (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, I only did the partial closure to note the deletion decision for that part. The reasons didn't hold for this part, but they should remain together.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- the letters were not written in Russia. Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania, which separated from Russia at the end of communism. Wouldn't that mean that a 1993 Russian Federation law would not affect it therefore? The author was murdered by Soviet partisans before the war ended, and was not alive after 1962. The letters, if I remember or understood right, were things written to the German authorities, which they used for propaganda purposes by publishing so that people could read it-not really reports meant for an audience in camera. God bless —unsigned comment by Reesorville (talk) .