Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2009-06

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 June 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep billinghurst (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Section 176 of this law states that "no copyright shall subsist" in every work of the Philippine Government. However, the next sentence read, "prior approval ... shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit". Thus, it never qualifies as a free work since they require approval on commercial uses. Delete that page (as it is a work of the Philippine Congress), together with all other Philippine Government works if they continue to restrict the usage of their works. Alexius08 (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In full 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.
  • Keep; the legal code certainly falls under {{PD-GovEdict}} and thus has no US copyright protection, nor Philippine copyright protection, as 176.1 states. It's far more hairy, but I've tempted to take the law at its literal face value; no copyright shall subsist in works of the Philippine Government means exactly that. Wherever Philippine law applies, "prior approval ... shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit", but because that restriction is specifically not a copyright restriction, the Berne convention and other copyright treaties don't come into force, and thus that requirement is irrelevant outside that jurisdiction. One might compare this to the people who post stuff as "public domain" and then add a non-commercial restriction. I think judges will respond differently for two reasons; for one, the Government actually can wave its hands and add a non-commercial requirement without claiming copyright, and two, the Government should be competent enough to actually say what it means in the law, and people have a right to depend on the law as stated. Since Hammurabi, the laws of civilized peoples have been written down for all to read and be judged by.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Host copyright law says it is in public domain. Plus, I am not seeing any profits here, so anyone who wishes to print it and sell it had better seek the appropriate approval(s) first. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Copyright is an economic right, so the provision is self-contradictory, and any legal proceedings would turn on how copyright is defined for the purpose of the statute. Still, even if the second point means anything in relation to Philippine government works in general, the last, more specific point exempts statutes et al. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out and sorry for overlooking the closing statement of the section. Please close this thread. I am withdrawing this nomination. Alexius08 (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No need for an apology, as there is nothing wrong with a nomination. It is why we have a process, and we all can learn something new.billinghurst (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Category:Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy delete billinghurst (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This should be an article (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act), not a category.—Markles 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It is wrong on so many levels. Doesn't meet our scope in that form. billinghurst (talk)


The following discussion is closed: Speedy delete per author
Redundant redirect - Should ideally be speedy as this was merged with a page

in article space. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009/Table of Contents[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, speedied as G4: Redundant. Hesperian 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. There's no need for it. The TOC has been integrated appropriately into the master page and no other articles in the ArticleSpace link to it. —Markles 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Cambridge Declaration[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, see my comments for rationale (Jude (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
The source says, "This declaration may be reproduced without permission." But may it be reused for commercial purposes? May derivative works of it be created freely? If not, it's not free enough for reproduction at Wikisource and must be deleted. Angr 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would take their statement literally and at face value. "No commercial use" must be stated specifically, because it imposes a limitation on the generality of the permission. Any other interpretation would create an absurd situation where anything could be questioned well in the future because of what it does not say. That could happen on this same point or any number of other points that we cannot possibly foresee. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would take their statement literally and at face value; "may be reproduced" does not in any way imply that it may be edited or translated or any of the other rights included in the basic copyright package that we require freedom of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that these things are forbidden? The fundamental legal principle in common law is that anything which is not forbidden is permitted. Alteration of a text brings us into the realm of moral rights, and these are not functional under US law. It is absolutely obvious that "may be reproduced" includes the right to translate or alter. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The fact that all works created in the U.S. since 1 March 1989 are subject to copyright protection, regardless of whether they include a statement of copyright and regardless of whether they were ever registered for copyright protection, says these things are forbidden. The only rights other users have are those explicitly granted - in this case, reproduction only. It is absolutely obvious that "may be reproduced" does not include the right to translate or alter. Angr 09:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        The complete absence of a statement remedied by the cited provision is not a factor here, since the authors have at least addressed the issue in some fashion. The statement is about reproduction not "reproduction only." Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I would take the use of the word may to indicate choice to undertake the act or not, rather than requisition. If there was the element to restriction to reproduction it would be the word 'can'. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that "can" would remedy anything. It's introduction evokes images of school days when the distinction between "can" and "may" was conveyed in no uncertain terms. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Under the law, all those things are forbidden, and making of a derivative work is prohibited under US law as a separate act from distribution. I don't know how you can take it as absolutely obvious that that permission includes things that it doesn't explicitly state.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        Then you should be able to cite a statute which makes that distinction. We are dealing with an important distinction between common and Napoleonic law, and the US is a common-law country. See here for one explanation of the distinction. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        US Code 17, Chap. 1, § 106 (2) says that "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to [...] prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;"--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It has been brought forward as a possible deletion rather than as WS:COPYVIO. I do not see that it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. With regard to CopyVio, I would take the word of 'Declaration' and the grant of reproduction as {{PD-Manifesto}}. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. While this is being discussed at WS:PD, this doesn't preclude it being decided upon as being a copyright violation. Manifesto is not a one-stop shop for keeping something when all else fails; this is a recent document, and it has not been published anonymously, and evidence of them having been contacted is not apparent.
Finally, Prosfilaes makes a valid point: unless specifically stated, the author reserves all rights. The only right they have released here is that of distribution; we would not accept any of the NoDerivative or NoCommercial Creative Commons licenses, and therefore I don't feel that we should accept this. Jude (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence: A history[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This was added in 2006 by a fly-by editor. It is unsourced, and appears to be original writing. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete in its current form, unless details of publication can be provided, and that out of copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The whole thing is unsourced. --MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Status quo maintained with previous discussion billinghurst (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiSource community has decided that with copyright tags, that we would stick with {{PD-USGov}} and {{PD-NASA}} alone. That all US government publications from whichever agency are covered by PD-USGov. There is no requirement to make it more complex than that level.-- billinghurst (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you may want to reverse that decision because USAIOH is the only agency - besides NASA - that has a specific Copyright Notice based on a specific piece of US Law. This is because their caveat is based on Commercial Use of their product. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you please be able to identify that specific piece of legislation, as we would need to quote that with any specific tag. Thanks for the heads-up. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 Military medals or decorations; from which is extracted Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 507 MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF DECORATIONS, MEDALS, BADGES, INSIGNIA, COMMERCIAL USE OF HERALDIC DESIGNS AND HERALDIC QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM; which is the backbone for AR 672-8 Manufacture, Sale, Wear, and Quality Control of Heraldic Items.
This is the tag text we use over on WikiCommons. It is similar to the one we use on Wikipedia:

{| {{PD-Layout}} | [[Image:PD-icon.svg|64px|Public domain]] | ''This image shows a [[:en:flag|flag]], a [[:en:coat of arms|coat of arms]], a [[:en:seal (device)|seal]] or some other official '''[[:en:insignia|insignia]]''' produced by the '''[[:en:United States Army Institute of Heraldry|United States Army Institute of Heraldry]]'''. It is in the '''[[:en:public domain|public domain]]''' but its use is restricted by [ Title 18, United States Code, Section 704] and the [ Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507)]. Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.'' | [[Image:IOHCOA.png|50px|The seal of the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry]] |}<includeonly>[[Category:PD US Army USAIOH|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> <noinclude>[[Category:PD-USGov license tags|Military-Army-USAIOH]] [[Category:Restriction tags|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a bunch of regulations there. I think anything having to do with actually minting the things is out of our scope to worry about, but [1] and [2] are definitely pertinent. I don't see that the USAIOH is our big concern here; these designs will come up in PD-1923 books. I wish I had time for deeper analysis, but I have to run, so I'm just tossing those out there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the general level, you are absolutely correct, but the 1923 date does not apply because the designs remain in constant use and upgrading. For example, everytime a unit goes off to war, it's Heraldic Achievements are prioritized for upgrade due to the new campaigns. Many of IOH's military insignia have dates as recent as 2007, and more recent dates will follow. IOH is a small agency with only 32 personnel. As to the restriction for commercial use, the reason Congress inserted this provision into the law was to stop people from making and selling their own insignia, making use of IOH's designs, without their permission. There are lots of commercial manufacturers who have been given a license to use their designs for commercial use, and the only strings for the license are that IOH gets to provide Quality Control on the products, and they get to police the manufacture and sale of Military Awards on the Limited Use List. That list includes the Medal Of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star, Silver Star, Legion Of Merit, and the Purple heart. The MOH was the reason for creating the list, because forging the MOH became a cottage industry after the Civil War. The others were added recently because of the scandals that have been in the papers. The Purple Heart is also on that list because possession of a Purple Heart infers the receipt of specific governmental benefits. Another restriction is that there are NO licenses available for commercial production of US Government Heraldic Achievements outside of the Uniformed Services, UNLESS Congress has given specific dispensation. Incidentally the Government has started to police the prolific production of products based on IOH designs since 9-11 to put the Genie back in the bottle, but they still have no interest in restricting the use of their designs for non-commercial use specifically because it was Taxpayer Money that was used in their creation in the first place.

Might be a good idea to post this on either WS:COPYVIO pr WS:PD (probably more suitable) to save User:CORNELIUSSEON the joy of people having an extended discussion on their talk page, with requisite emails (if enabled) and pretty orange banners. Personally, I'm slightly confused as to the wording of the commons-template: if something is in the public domain, how can commercial use of it be restricted? Jude (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright tags are limited to matters that arise out of Title 17. What is hosted here is two-dimensional representations of the medals, not three-dimensional reproductions. 32CFR507.5 describes legislative authority:
(a) The wear, manufacture, and sale of military decorations, medals, badges, their components and appurtenances, or colorable imitations of them, are governed by section 704, title 18, United States Code (18 U.S.C. 704).
(b) The manufacture, sale, possession, and reproduction of badges, identification cards, insignia, or other designs, prescribed by the head of a U.S. department or agency, or colorable imitations of them, are governed by Title 18, United States Code, Section 701 (18 U.S.C. 701).
Note that reproduction is only mentioned in (b), and that would seem to apply to situations such as where badges are used to gain unlawful access. Decorations and medals are not included in (b). Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You are picking at Nits here. Here is the Copyright Notice direct from IOH's homepage. I am surprised that no one else here noticed it:
Welcome to the Institute of Heraldry Web Site. The purpose of this site is to provide information on United States Army heraldic entitlements; how they are displayed, and how and why it is worn.

PLEASE NOTE: The images of all badges, insignia, decorations and medals on this web site are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.
I get a 404 error trying to access that site. Be that as it may, what you quote is not a copyright notice. It does not even mention copyright. The reference to the law is to Title 18 (Criminal law) not Title 17 (Copyrights). Regulations, to be valid, must not go beyond what is authorized by Congress. in the Code. That point is more than a mere nit. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Our responsibility here is to follow the law, not to what one webmaster thinks is the law. I'm concerned about Title 32, 507.9
"The following articles are not authorized for manufacture and sale, except under contract with DSCP:
(f) Commercial articles for public sale that incorporate designs or likenesses of decorations, service medals, and service ribbons.
(g) Commercial articles for public sale that incorporate designs or likenesses of designs of insignia listed in §507.8 of this part, except when authorized by the Service concerned."
and 507.11
(a) The photographing, printing, or, in any manner making or executing any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any decoration, service medal, service ribbon, badge, lapel button, insignia, or other device, or the colorable imitation thereof, of a design prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force for use by members of the Army or the Air Force is authorized provided that such reproduction does not bring discredit upon the military service and is not used to defraud or to misrepresent the identification or status of an individual, organization, society, or other group of persons.
This may well impact on use (both commercial and noncommercial--and I'd say it's weak to a First Amendment attack) of material published before 1923, though I've never seen anyone care about it. Also, 507.11 says nothing about commercial; you may use the images commercially in some cases and not non-commercially in some cases. What specifically are we worried about this impacting on Wikisource, though? We don't display badges, etc, on Wikisource out of the context of free content writings, and I'd be willing to waive the issues as de minimus in the context of books on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In 507.9 the emphasis is on "articles"; the downstream control of article production is well beyond our capacity. In 507.11 the emphesis is on "discredit," "fraud" and "misrepresentation"; again, we cannot accept responsibility for every conceivable way in which users might misuse the material. That kind of restriction would have an impact affecting more than mere military decorations, but one that affects a wide range of topics. Following the law is one thing, but engaging in speculative gymnastics to thwart users who may break the law away from this site is quite another. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what these laws mean by articles, but if it would includes books, we certainly wouldn't accept a a text with a license that forbid printing it and selling the copies. 507.11 more directly affects us; say the Iranian government releases a volume that uses these insignia, etc. as part of a direct attack on the morality and legitimacy of the US military, or some white-supremacy group publishes a book (as free content) purporting to show how the insignia were designed by ZOG to show who the true leaders of the government are. Our hosting of those works could well run afoul of 507.11, even if I think the ACLU would be happy to argue the case were charges pressed. I would like to see a real concrete case where we would be concerned about. If we're just talking about stuff like File:1 Infantry Division SSI.PNG, I don't see why they can't be all moved to Wikimedia Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are blowing this all out of proportion. Number one, there already is a 1st ID SSI - actually more than one - over on Wikicommons. The one on this site I just used on 1st ID actualy is one of those Wikicommons files. Next of all, IOH is not going to challenge us on anything since WE are not engaging in commercial use of their files. Actually, we are doing exactly what they intended - helping them educate the world on the material they create - and they dropped the password protection of their site specifically so that the kind of use we are making could continue with less process. They only put up that Copyright notice to remind users of their information that it is intended to be used non-commercially. Their real target with that notice are the number of commercial manufacturers who have been poaching on the images for all sorts of products, not educational and personal users.

It's still not a copyright notice. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the images can or can't be used, I still don't see any evidence that we need this template here, on Wikisource. Are we hosting such images? If so, why are we hosting them, and why are they not hosted on Wikimedia Commons? As far as I can make out from the above discussion, the copyright only applies to images, and not to any text.
If that's the case, then I don't see any need to restore the template, as it would be unused. Jude (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole Wikimedia family is not dedicated merely to hosting a set of webpages, it's dedicated to hosting Free Content for everyone to use, including for commercial uses. IOH not challenging us isn't good enough; we promise our users that they can reprint us in commercial ways--say a DVD of Wikisource sold as "The Family's Library!" in every discount store in the US--and not get sued.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Making such promises to users is unrealistic, especially when the issue has gone outside of copyright law. It is beyond us to try to imagine every fictitious challenge to every conceivable interpretation of all laws; some of those interpretations are often far-fetched. If our promises are mistaken, is there anyone here willing to accept responsibility for that mistake? While I may be dedicated to the principle of Free Content this dedication does not extend to doctrinaire edge-cases.

The First Division insignia referenced above is out of copyright anyways since it was first issued in 1918, and there is nothing in the cited laws to say that they override copyright law.

The point about not hosting images in isolation is well taken. The presumption in this whole thread is that there would circumstances where this template could reasonably be seen to apply, such as in part of a book. Without that the entire discussion is moot. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is, we can't avoid the issue by saying they won't sue us. I'm not arguing about far-fetched challenges; I'm discussing the straight-forward reading of the law. There's nothing in the cited laws to say they expire with the end of copyright, either, and similar flag desecration laws certainly protected a symbol that was well out of copyright. It's probably moot for us, but it's a concerning piece of legislation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
One cannot validly impose a straight forward reading that isn't there. I doubt that any courts would be seriously interested in any suit on these matters. Still, discussing anything in terms of law inevitably brings up the question of what would the courts do. Without that, either of two fair-minded but competing interpretations of a legal provision can be seen as doing right. Such an exemplification of American silliness as flag desecration laws only brings this further from reality; it only protects mere symbols rather than anything of substance. Periodically, we most often hear arguments relating to defamation and obscenity, but we are still very limited in how we interpret these. Ultimately the user of Wiki-material needs to accept his own responsibility for what he does. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I seem to be the one that started this discussion by bringing this tag over from the other Wiki sites, I am willing to go back to the Generic US Government Public Domain tag. I just hope I don't have to revisit this decision in the future.