Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-11

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.

Kept

Works written to FDR

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, {{OGL}} for the Open Government License applies. Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord Lothian to Franklin D. Roosevelt (August 27, 1940), Draft of Lord Lothian to Cordell Hull (August 27, 1940), Lord Lothia to Franklin D. Roosevelt (August 27, 1940), Cordell Hull to Franklin D. Roosevelt (August 27, 1940), Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt (September 24, 1940), Copy of Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt (September 24, 1940), Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Envelope and Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt (November, 1940) are letters to FDR released by NARA. Without a publication date, I'm not sure that {{PD-UKGov}} applies to them, but I know {{PD-USGov}} doesn't. I don't know whether to bring the corresponding files up on Commons right now, or wait until we've closed here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I lean toward bringing them up at commons first and/or concurrently. If they are OK at commons then they are OK here. If they are not OK at commons, we will want to decide if they are appropriate for here or Canadian Wikilivres. Jeepday (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that in the original ARC records that the documents' Access and Use restrictions are considered "Unrestricted". Lord Lothian died in 1940 so that may affect the status of copyright - if there is one. Also, Cordell Hull was the USA Secretary of State, so I believe {{PD-USGov}} would be applicable to the letters he wrote. RinoLanda (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Upon further investigation it is my understanding that the letters composed by Winston Churchill certainly fall under the UK's Crown Copyright. If the letters are to be considered "unpublished", they are NOT in the public domain until at least 2040. Letters and other literary works that have been published have copyright protection for 50 years from the time of their publishing - this has been affirmed for Crown Copyrights in this reply from the Information Policy Adviser of the UK. However, as the Prime Ministers Office is a UK Crown Body, the letters can likely be licensed under the Non-Commercial Government License for Public Sector Information. The same can be said for Lord Lothian who falls under Crown Copyright and other similar individuals. Finally, some of these works may be in the public domain if published shortly after their creation - this of course requires extensive research. I would recommend not using letters by Churchill, Lothian, and others under Crown Copyright until a template is created that adequately reflects the requirements of the UK Non-Commercial Government License.RinoLanda (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
We can't accept non-commercial licenses here. We do have {{OGL}} for the Open Government License. Is there a reason why these would be limited to the Non-Commercial license? I didn't find anything obvious either way in their guidance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that the {{OGL}} for Open Government License is applicable. I must have of skipped over it while I was double checking the status of the various authors and their respective copyrights. Unless anyone else can come up with a reason NOT to use the UK's Open Government License I think it is the appropriate option for the letters and documents created by the UK government officials located in NARA's archives. RinoLanda (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Novels from Stories by Foreign Authors

The following discussion is closed:

Keep local. Note the table does not like to be inside the closed template.Jeepday (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. These novels are collected in three different books of a series published in US in 1898 (Stories by Foreign Authors, which I am currently proofreading). These three stories are PD in US as PD-1923 but I believe either the work or its translation are copyrighted in their own country. Am I correct? If so, how should I proceed with the scans? Upload them locally here instead of Commons? Rip them from the original volume and put here only the transcription and upload at Commons/proofread only the rest of the volume/stories? Other options?

No. Title Author Nationality Death Translator Nationality Death Link
1. The Cremona Violin Ernst Theodor Wilhelm Hoffmann German 1822 J. T. Beally British (?) 1944 IA
2. Mumu Ivan Turgenev Russian 1883 Constance Garnett English 1946 IA
3. The Massacre of the Innocents Maurice Maeterlinck Hungarian 1949 Edith Wingate Rinder English 1962 IA

The following discussion is closed:

Continue closed template

Comments welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Without verifying if indeed these 3 are still in copyright protection in their home countries, etc., my initial suggestion would be to replace the pages in question with blank place-holders in the DjVu to be uploaded to Commons (clearly noting the omissions and the reasons why) then upload the full DjVu that still has the 3 stories in question embedded (using the exact same file name as the one uploaded to Commons) here to en.WS so that it can override the Commons one when it comes to the hosting/proofreading process. If and when the day comes that the 3 are clear of any & all copyright, translation or otherwise, we can simply copy the locally hosted source file to Commons without any need for bulk moving or secondary Index: patching to keep our mainspace and Pages: intact at that point in time.

    I'd be glad to help to swap in or out pages as needed (& boy do I hope each story starts and ends on its own page!!!). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Each story starts and end on its own page :-) What is the added value of the partial one at Commons when the full one here serve the same purpose for proofreading? Can't we just move when it will be clear from copyrights? Or I am missing something somewhere?--Mpaa (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You mentioned it so I was just being considerate (in case some Hungarians were lurking around or something). So you're right - No real reason to entertain what amounts to a incomplete source file on Commons even though that file is made up of individual works in this case. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If it stays here use {{Do not move to Commons}}. Jeepday (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted

The Dalai Lama's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted for no permission received.--Jusjih (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The work authored by the Dalai Lama has not had an OTRS provided, so after this period of time I believe that it is now time to consider it for deletion. Not released to public domain, no evidence that the Dalai Lama's works are considered to be in the public domain, author still living, no permission to host. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Million Dollar Library

The following discussion is closed:

(formality) have been already deleted

I had found some items in Volume 10 of this series which on some very simple searching might still be in copyright.

I then decided to do a sample audit on Volume 10 and was sadly finding that so far practically every page checked has a copyright concern.

I also note that when the file was uploaded locally, no recognisable copyright tag was added.

I am therefore requesting that the Wikisource community in relation to the following:

and related pages, performs an outright deletion, and sends a courtesy note to archive.org, where it is 'claimed' that the items are public domain. My recent checking in respect of Volume 10 suggests otherwise. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved here from Scriptorium, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Have I finally lost it or are these really 10 volumes of nothing but [as far as I can tell, mostly copyrighted] sheet music? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it to me and they've been here since November 2008 when John uploaded them. I'd be happy to lose them. When we get a working music extension these are not the sort of works I'm going to spend time on.

The Presidential Candidate who uploaded the volumes to IA states the music is in the Public Domain and has released it under CC and claims a Copyright in 2000—both on the same pages. However, these are derivative works at best given that they are lead sheets of songs that I recognise as having been written during the 20th Century. Additionally, the fonts used in the headings and lyrics look familiar to me and on comparison with hard-copy music I have from International Music Publishers Ltd. they are identical. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  •  Delete -- Without a viable music-notation extension in place, any possible debate about copyright status for inclusion/exclusion seems pointless to me. Its clear that these were created in an era now considered obsolete & under policies quite different from the ones we are following today so I believe they should go regardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Delete There may be pd works among them but they are riddled with copyright material. They've probably been missed because they're loaded on en:ws not commons. Chris55 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
already deleted, closing — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted the main page and its subpages for no evidence of copyright permission.--Jusjih (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Written by Carlos Marighella (Brazilian anarchist and and militant), died in 1969, however, has been labelled as [copyleft] and is not cited with a source for the text. I doubt that the author wrote a will releasign text to the public comain, so we may wish to at least review how and why we have the text. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

PACE

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, unable to confirm eligibility for PD-EdictGov. Jeepday (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No license or indication of release for the text. Potentially works by PACE could qualify for {{PD-GovEdict}}, but in this case "This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it", so that would not even need to be considered in this case. The image w:File:PACE logo 75ppi.png is on Wikipedia as fair use, no reason for it to be at WS. Jeepday (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If countries have indeed signed it, that may qualify for PD-EdictGov. I don't think the logos would though, except those may be close to being ineligible in the U.S -- it's a letter "e" with a circle of stars. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not seeing where anyone signed as an official of country. While signers do appear to be members of political parties, there is no indication of acting on behalf of a government. Jeepday (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tăriceanu Note

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, no support for PD found. Jeepday (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The document that related to this work has been "discussed" and deleted at Commons as copyvio. I would think that we should then have that discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Photography: Theory and Practice

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, was a candidate for Export to Canadian Wikilivres, the move was not accomplished, and before delete.

Photography: Theory and Practice by Louis Philippe Clerc and the scan Index:PhotographyTheoryAndPracticeOCRed.djvu have very confusing licencing. The original is claimed as still under copyright but this UK translation into English is declared as in the public domain under US law. Unless there is some complicated issue caused by the interaction of three countries' copyright laws, this is presumably covered by the original work (unless that is actually in the public domain and erroneously declared as still under copyright). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is published in the US and UK (New York and London) in 1937. Taking just the US publication into account, it is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The UK version is still copyright, as the author died in 1959 (i.e. PD in 1959+70=2029). I'm not sure how the two rules intersect. As WS takes the US-rules view (which is great for pre-1923 and non-renewed stuff, not so good for weird URAA things), I would imagine we worry only about the US publication, but I'd like clarification on that as dual UK-US publications are ten-a-penny. The translator died in 1934, so life+70 is satisfied, but the translation is a derivative work, so it's also copyright to the author. Same reason we can't translate a modern French book and PD-self it! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep If the translation doesn't carry the copyright relating to the French original, then the English version is certainly PD in the UK now (life+70), PD in the US via URAA (same year) and life+50 in the UK in 1996, and PD in the US anyway by non-renewal. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Eugh. It sounds like the translation was published simultaneously in the US, so there is no URAA to worry about, and the PD-US-not_renewed is enough for that. Unfortunately, it is *still* a derivative work of the original book, so if those rights still exist, there could still be a problem -- the fact that a derivative work expires has no affect on the copyright of the original, and that includes the right to control derivative works. I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of court cases where a movie was not renewed, but was based on an original novel, and since only the one studio had a license to distribute the film from the novel's copyright owners, that studio still had the only rights to distribute the film. I'm pretty sure I see some publications of that French book back into the 1920s, maybe even 1926, but not earlier. If the copyright on the original was restored via the URAA, then yes there could be a problem with the derivative, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment -
    1. I'm not at all clear from the information above when the original work was first published; but it sounds like it was after 1923. The rule under US law for foreign works of the period (assuming they weren't published within 30 days in the US) is 95 years from publication. The URAA does not invoke the French law but rather forces the US to treat the work as if it complied with all US formalities. The copyright period for US works that were registered and renewed during that period was also 95 years from publication. So, again assuming the work was not published in the United States within 30 days of publication abroad (and was not published prior to 1923), the French original is still in copyright until 95 years after whenever it was first published. The dates of death of the author and translator are irrelevant to US copyright in this case.
    2. Even if the copyright on the translation has expired as to the translators the copyright as to the original remains and generally continues to control the publication of derivatives, including copies of the translation to the extent not licensed. Billinghurst has an interesting theory which essentially means that when the author licensed the translation, he was giving up his right to control the translation should it's copyright on the licensed work earlier expire. However, this would suggest that a licensed derivative work that failed to include the circle-c would also be in the public domain. The general rule is that for a derivative work a+b, there are two (somewhat) independent copyrights on the two parts of the work. In a translation, there is no way to identify what part of the work is the original and what part is the derivative, but the rule still holds, there is no merger of the creative content and therefore no merger of the copyright. Thus only that part of the work that is original to the translator is in the public domain. If you can identify it, you can publish it.
    3. Another way to look at it that gets to the same result is this: the publication of the translation constituted a US publication of the original (or part of it) greater than 30 days after publication abroad. The work would be protected for 95 years from publication.
    4. Where is the evidence that this work was published in the United States other than the multiple addresses of the publishing house? I may have missed it, but I didn't see a circle-c on the work and without that I'd find it hard to believe a US publishing house handled any part of it.
    --Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    I have exported Photography: Theory and Practice and its sub-pages to Canadian Wikilivres, but some related pages like Template:PhotographyTheoryPractice lkpl may also require exporting as Index:PhotographyTheoryAndPracticeOCRed.djvu does not work fully at Canadian Wikilivres. Therefore, I am leaving this discussion open until all exports are complete.--Jusjih (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There are some technical/logistical issues in completion of this task. Please see User_talk:Jeepday#Re:_Photography:_Theory_and_Practice if you can help with DJVU issues on Canadian Wikilivres, see User_talk:Jusjih#Photography:_Theory_and_Practice for history on the request. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


Other

Template:EUCopyright

The following discussion is closed.

I found the {{EUCopyright}} template in use on a few documents and was considering adding it to some of the images linked Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Financial Supervisory Authorities, Central Banks and Finance Ministries of the European Union on Cross-Border Financial Stability (and sub pages). When I look at the link http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/editorial/legal_notice.htm#droits in the template it says "Except where otherwise stated, downloading and reproduction, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, of legal texts and other documents publicly available on the EUR-Lex website are authorised provided appropriate acknowledgement is given as follows:", I am pretty sure this is compatible licensing but I wanted to run it past the community. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like CC-by to me, but you could always double template it with {{PD-EdictGov}} for good measure.--BirgitteSB 01:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi - Chapter_49

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to proper forum: -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Autobiography_of_a_Yogi_-_Chapter_49

Moved to proper forum:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2012-11&oldid=5703976"