Wikisource:Copyright discussions: Difference between revisions

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more experienced users or administrators. (Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.)

I seem to have detected a somewhat unusual copyright problem: the apparent electronic source of the WS edition of the Jewish Publication Society 1917 Bible comes from http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm. This electronic edition, though derived from a Public Domain original, claims a new (2002) copyright. In fact, Sacred Text Archive removed this text from its archives because of the "new" copyright and text purity issues. See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/faq.htm#jps for more details. I'd really like to see the existing MM version of the text removed from Wikisource for the same reasons: "new" copyright, and the text corruption by the transcriber. That is, unless by means of electronic comparison (ie Unix diff, etc.) there can be shown to be no differences between the MM STA and a print edition save those introduced by genuine transcription error (which need to be corrected). If anyone has a print copy of the JPS 1917 for comparison that would be good too. —Wikijeff 21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that such a claim of copyright by transcription has any merit. Obviously we need to eventually proofread this version against a print edition, but there is no copyright violation.--BirgitteSB 00:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think Wikijeff's issue is that the man who did the transcription made alterations (sounding fairly substantial) to the text as he transcribed it. Of course, no one knows who "creative" his alterations were or if they would qualify for a new copyright. I propose, to keep text purity first of all and to avoid keeping this man from demanding licensing fees from WMF secondly, to phase this edition out (going all the way as to delete the current text) and replace it with the accurate, definitely free edition Sacred Texts is doing here.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 01:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

From what I read the differences were meant to be quite insubstantial; rather only enough to prove it was "his" transcriptions. It is not actually any additional material, but intentional errors that are small enough not to be casually noticed. The claim of copyright is not for his alterations, which we don't want anyways, but for the entire transcription. These intentional alterations the transcriber made should be cleaned out during proofreading. Of course we should replace the available chapters with the more accurate transcription at scared texts. I just don't think we should delete the rest.

The difference between transcribing from scratch and proofreading an exiting digital text of this size is huge. There is no evidence the introduced errors are more substantial than OCR errors. Do we really want to set the precedent that we accept such ridiculous claims as "copyright by transcription"? And just because we found that a report that such a claim was made to a completely unaffiliated website? Even if we had evidence of there being differences from the 1917 edition we should only delete the parts that are different. This is jumping at shadows and I think the bar should be higher than this.--BirgitteSB 01:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I never said we should agree with "copyright by transcription" as that is clearly not protected by copyright. The FAQ entry at Sacred Texts which addresses this issue definitely indicates that the errors are not just standard OCR errors and are not just errors by transcription

"Not the least of these is that the transcriber deliberately introduced an unacceptable number of errors into the text. These are not accidental errors, which would be acceptable, as they could be fixed incrementally. He edited the text with the intention of creating a version which would vary from the 1917 public domain edition, so that he could claim a copyright on the result."

It sounds material was added by the transcriber that differs from the content of the original publication. This adds not only a level of copyright uncertainty (because his own additions can be copyrighted), although that is only minor to this issue for me, but also a level of impurity which means we have an inaccurate text as of right now with no knowledge of what needs to be changed to bring this in accordance with the original edition. Unless anyone knows how to weed out these errors, I believe we need to phase out the entire document.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it sounds like any material was actually added at all. It sound to me like he made alterations, changing a word here or there, just so he could trace the legacy of the etext. I know these are not OCR errors, I meant that I don't think the text with intentional errors is further from the accuracy of the published text than the text with OCR errors. I have no problem with this text being replaced by new OCR, or an etext with a different legacy, etc. I just cannot support it being deleted as a copyright violation.--BirgitteSB 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, my primary issue is the fact that the transcriber had the audacity to knowingly alter the Sacred text (Cf. Deuteronomy 4:2). Moreover, he used such alterations as a basis for a "new" copyright is just a case of adding insult to injury. I am for phasing out the existing text in favor of the Public Domain edition located at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/index.htm. That is, unless scans are made available from which we can work directly. —Wikijeff 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've found a scanned copy of the 1917 JPS. It is located at http://www.archive.org/details/holyscripturesac028077mbp. I've tried numerous times to upload the Deja Vu file to WM:Commons, but the server keeps resetting. This should help a LOT. Though the text is in columns, so most OCR software may have an issue with it. —Wikijeff 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may have to make deja Vu file for each chapter and upload it that way. There is a file size limit at commons that you are probably exceeding.--BirgitteSB 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, Birgitte's right: the DjVu file is far too large for the upload limit at Commons (which is around 20MB). This file will need to be split (I think doing it by chapter is most logical, but any way is fine) to fit the upload limit.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up with the file cap. I'm looking into what it takes to split a Djvu file. I did some Google searching without much avail. I've found sites for crating Djvu files, just not splitting them. I've posted a question on Commons Help regarding this issue. I hope someone gets back with me soon. If anyone here knows how to split Djvu files under Linux or Windows, please let me know. —Wikijeff 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No idea on how to split them. Luckily the files I was working with before were available for download either as the complete works or split up by work. The quickest way to find help would probably be to get on IRC and search freenode for a channel on djvu.--BirgitteSB 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've tried finding a program that will split DjVu files and have found absolutely nothing. The closest thing I've found is that you can individually save all the different pages as separate images, but how to rejoin them into a multi-page DjVu is beyond me. What we might have to do (which sucks), is save all the image pages separately and upload them individually to Commons.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry I didn't notice this before, and thanks for the link, Jeff. In my opinion there is no reason not to post this text. The website itself says the changes are technical (having to do with paragraphing based on objective sources with no copyright claims).

Now it may be that they did change the actual 1917 text in some places (I suspect in very few, but the images may help in checking some samples of that). WikiJeff, I don't think there is any "audacity" in this or anything wrong at all, after all a translation is just a translation and nothing more, and they might have wanted to improve (in their eyes) the translation. If it was to create a dubious copyright claim then that indeed is audacity, but it still doesn't mean the trick is legally valid.

If, as I suspect, these changes are few and far between, then I suggest using the JPS text until it can be replaced by the new "Sacred Texts" version, book by book. We should just check some samples here and there to make sure that the overall text adheres fully to the original (MM tends to proofread very well). If we find a significant number of discrepancies we should stop, but otherwise the burden of proof should be on them to point out what original contributions they have made. Dovi 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I have given this some thought. I believe Zhaladshar is correct, we can't have inaccurate texts here. But on the other hand, we only have a singular "witness" (Sacred Texts) alleging significant inaccuracies in the texts. The other "witness" (MM) alleging "In addition to converting his text to HTML, we did correct a few typographical errors, based mostly on comparing the various text versions we found, and took out all of the paragraph marks (¶), which were not based on the Hebrew original.". The way I see it: we need another "witness" going either direction on this matter to make a truly intelligent decision on the matter.

So, I propose the following, and I'd like others to way in on this:

(1) We post an text box on ToC page, and each page with text (at this point the whole Torah, and the Song of Songs) indicating that the fidelity of the electronic edition forming the basis of the WS edition is contested or otherwise in doubt.

(2) We request users proof read the existing text against the images of the 1917 text, and provide a link to the Djvu and PDF file that will (hopefully) be on Commons shortly.

(3) We request that users identify which portions of the text they have proofed against the images, and comment on the Talk pages about any irregularity in the text.

(4) We don't add any more Books of the Bible until the existing posts are proofed and normalized against the page images.

(5) We move forward systematically, one book at a time until the entire text is good.

This way we don't have to retype everything. We end up with a known-good copy, checked vigorously and systematically against the scans, the text becomes normalized against the print edition, and most importantly everyone who comes to the text knows it is suspect and in the process of being proofed. If Dovi is right, (and MM has been truthful) then this will be a reasonably simple (if tedious) task. But, if Zhaladshar is correct (and Sacred Text has acted prudently) it should become readily apparent and we can do as he suggests: and dump the whole thing in favor of re-entry. Either way we will know the truth of the matter for ourselves; as well as have our "second witness" for this point of fact. And, this text, sacred to so many, will will be a trustworthy copy given time. Though we should agree ahead of time as to where the line in the proverbial sand is that if crossed, means we need to dump the existing text. Comments please. —Wikijeff 04:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

@file upload limit: this may helps ;) Lugusto 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Lugusto, I just emailed Eric. I requested he upload the Djvu and the PDF version of the JPS 1917 text to Commons. I'll let everyone know when it's up by posting here, and on the text's Talk page. —Wikijeff 03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think Jeff's suggestion is reasonable and thank him for his efforts. Dovi 03:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think Jeff's suggestion is good, too. I do hope I'm wrong about this, and all we have to do is minor typo errors to restore it to the original edition.  :) By the way, how is it Erik can upload documents past the limit while no one else can?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Zhaladshar, according to the post given by Lugusto, he [Eric] is a (2006) member of the Wikimedia Board. Apparently he has direct FTP access and shell accounts into the relevant Wikimedia servers. I still haven't heard anything from him yet, though. —Wikijeff 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I'm sure this is not the last time a source document's fidelity will be at issue, I've created a new template {{fidelity}} for texts with fidelity issues. All such documents are in a Category called "Doubtful Fidelity". This should help in dealing with future issues (hence the name) like this one. I know this discussion will be Archived given time. How do I create a permanent link to it, on Talk:Bible_(Jewish_Publication_Society_1917)? —Wikijeff

There's no real easy way to do it, but I would imagine this discussion will be archived sometime in July, so the link Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007/07#JPS 1917 should eventually work.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Has there been any progress on the above proposal? If not, I suggest we delete the work and replace it with an edition which does not carry a claim of copyright or contain deliberate errors. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:25:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would still oppose outright deletion but not overwriting with a new edition.--BirgitteSB 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also oppose the deletion of what we have. I have requested the djvu file to be uploaded onto commons so that we can vet the text and remove any alterations. John Vandenberg 06:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The upload of this djvu file did not go ahead as planned, however proof readers can still download it onto their own PCs. John Vandenberg 03:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

No source, no author. Yann 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: the IP user attributed it to Jan Kochanowski.--Jusjih 03:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Sadly, it seems to be from here, where its translator seems to be current-day. A nice eMail might get him to release the translation though, who's feeling diplomatic? :) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe} 03:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
• I think the translator is w:Michael J. Mikos; a selection of other translations appears here. This information page states "OLD POLISH LITERATURE was created in 2000 as a private project designed by Roman Mazurkiewicz and Mariusz Górniak (Cracow). It is a non-profit enterprise: the authors have never profited from any sponsorship, endowments or subsidies; no commercial advertisements or banners are placed on the site. All materials included in the project are available to the users.", so there is a chance they will pick a PD or GDFL license for these translations. John Vandenberg 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This work was published in w:Gold Coast (British colony) (now Ghana) and written by Isaac Theophilus Akunna Wallace-Johnson (1895–May 10, 1965).

From a brief investigation, Ghana was using 25pma at the time of his death.[1]

The current law, Art. 12, Copyright Act, 2005 brought it up to 70pma and says

In 1985, only 20 years would have elapsed, making this retrospectively protected, unless I have something wrong. John Vandenberg 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the current law of Ghana, it says that "Copyright subsists during the life of the copyright holder and 50 years after his death...In the case of published works, copyright subsists for a period of 50 years from the date of first publication." which suggests that the death+50 is only for unpublished works to protect the person's privacy - while published works are date+50, which would mean this work expired in 1986, by current law. If I'm misreading that, then ignore me. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables} 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The doesnt look anything like Copyright Act of 2005 PDF that I am looking at. John Vandenberg 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Buggered if I know, I just googled around and found the reference. shrugs. Is this the 1985 law then, which you didn't link? If so, then in 1985 the law made his work (which was only five years from PD) date+50 (ie, 1986, actually reducing its copyright term) - and in 1986 his work entered the public domain through the 1985 act. Which means the work had "expired under the Copyright Law, 1985" by the time the 2005 act was made law. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables} 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

WIPO provides an outline of the 1985 law, which says 50pma, but I cant find an original. I suspect the document you point to is about audio recordings. John Vandenberg 05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As this was published in w:African Morning Post, it could be PD. The 2005 law says

It was published in 1936, which means it is public domain if it is considered copyright to "African Morning Post". John Vandenberg 05:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

What we need to know, and currently don’t (unless I’m misunderstanding the foregoing), are: (1) what was the duration of copyright in Ghana at the time this work was published in 1936; (2) had that period expired at the time of the subsequent legislation (1985 and 2005); and (3) if not (i.e., the copyright was still in force), did the legislation retroactively extend existing copyright terms or was it prospective only? Knowing the rule now in effect under the 2005 Act for corporate works (publication+70) tells us little unless that was also the rule in 1936, which we don’t presently know. I don’t know of any reference sources on the history of Ghanaian copyright law; anyone have any hints on where we might look? Tarmstro99 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Essay by an American author who, according to this page, is still alive. Nothing to indicate that the original author has released the text into the public domain. Tarmstro99 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have left a message on User talk:81.208.83.247 in the hope that they are able to help. John Vandenberg 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have emailed info@williamparker.net, and received an automated reply "Thank you for emailing the official William Parker website at www.williamparker.net, someone will get back to you shortly." John Vandenberg 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have been emailed a copyright release for this, authorising it to be in the public domain. We also need to consider if it is suitable within our inclusion policy. Here is some context:

Do we need more info? John Vandenberg 10:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Has the copyright release you received been recorded via OTRS? Assuming the text is considered to be within the scope of WS:WWI, we just need to make sure we have a clear release on file to host it here (and the appropriate license template should be added to the page). Tarmstro99 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am waiting for confirmation by other project members that is acceptable under WS:WWI before filing it into OTRS. John Vandenberg 09:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should we move this discussion over to WS:DEL, then? The original copyright issue would appear to have been resolved. I guess I am indifferent on the issue whether this is within WS:WWI or not; speeches in general seem to require a fairly relaxed interpretation of the “publication” requirement for hosting here. Tarmstro99 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This was already deleted once, but apparently not salted as someone else has recently put it back up. This work is not public domain, or if you want to claim it is you will probably have to go through a lengthy legal process. It is certainly not the clear-cut case that Wikisource likes to use and, to make it worse, the copyright holders that are being deprived of income are Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. On top of that, the explanations of old-fashioned/obscure terms that were in square brackets suggest it may even have been a copyvio of a more recent edition. 79.69.41.118 01:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

[2] Same text, different version of name. Hence probably why it's still there. 79.69.41.118 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was previously marked as copyright on the Author page. [3] Project Gutenberg has an unusually detailed statement about the copyright.

w:Peter Pan#Copyright status describes the complicated status of this work. "GOSH claims full copyright in the European Union until the end of 2007," which is 70pma. In the US, "The Library of Congress catalog states that the original edition of Peter and Wendy was published in 1911, and Disney asserts that that material, like any other work published before 1923, was already in the public domain at the time of these extensions, and was therefore ineligible to be extended." The 1911 edition is OCLC:4616397^{all editions} My understanding is that the URAA cant affect works in the P.D. due to {{PD-1923}} - it only affects {{PD-US-no-renewal}} and similar. However, this gives more details

and

According to cyberlaw.stanford.edu it is also PD in Canada.

So it appears to be PD in at least AU, CA, US, but has a perpetual copyright in the UK and is copyright in the EU until the end of 2007. John Vandenberg 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This work is actually not the same as the play Peter Pan, which was deleted earlier. This is the book adaptation of the work.

In any case, it is not a copyright violation for Wikisource to host the play or the book, as both are essentially non-commercial use only in the EU, and public domain everywhere else. If I had been aware of the disputed copyright at the time I added the text to Wikisource, I would have waited until the end of December to add it. But it would be rather pointless to delete the text now, only to undelete it a month from now, especially since its inclusion breaks no law. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've checked the deleted page Peter Pan/Chapter 1, and it was the novel not the play. John Vandenberg 05:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

"If I had been aware of the disputed copyright at the time I added the text to Wikisource, I would have waited until the end of December to add it." But you removed the explanatory note about it not being out of copyright on the author's page. It is definitely worth removing the text and readding it next year, if readding it is considered okay next year, because otherwise we're acting as if copyright doesn't really matter. Can't you at least give the children's hospital one more Christmas of book sales before you publish their property for free? 130.88.140.7 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would just blank it until the end of this year. And I think that publishing it on WS would not deprive the hospital of anything. This is just another trick of copyright holders. Yann 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Wikisource is non-commercial, so we are not depriving the hospital of any royalties. Whether or not Peter Pan is in the public domain in the United States is contested, so it may or may not be free enough for Wikisource.

Blanking the pages until the end of the year seems like a good solution. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

While it may be "non-commercial" or "copyrighted for this final year" in the EU, is that relevant to our inclusion guidelines? I'm not certain I've understood the hypocrisy subtlety of our inclusions, but since it is PD in the United States, then I thought that was enough to merit inclusion? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Pulitzer-winning writings} 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lol Sherurcij, did all those suicide notes provide income to help sick kids too? 216.165.199.50 04:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that the distinction between the book and the play means much. The book quotes so much of the play that if one is copyright, surely the other is too.--Poetlister 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 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)Reply

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)Reply

User 85.0.179.144 (talk • contribs) flagged this page as a possible copyvio with the following note: blatant copyvio, not a "manifest". I add it for discussion here without expressing any current view on the merits of the nomination. Tarmstro99 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

IMO Mythopoeia is definitely not covered by {{PD-manifesto}}.

The earliest publication that I can pinpoint is the 1988 edition of Tree and Leaf (ISBN 0395502322), however there are earlier commentaries, so it is likely that it was published earlier than this.

This is kind enough to cover all manner of copyright, but then says "Special rules for unpublished works." From Copyright law of the United Kingdom:

The Wikipedia page appears to omit this case of Tolkien, because he did not die 50 years prior the 1988 Act. The 1988 Act is not retrospective; it only covers works that have been created since 1 August 1989, however it does include transitional provisions which appear to make some distinction between published posthumously, and "unpublished in the sense of the proviso to s. 2(3) of the 1956 Act" (which have a fixed expiration of 2039. So, ....

if it was published while he was alive, i.e. before 1973, then it is copyright until 2044 (70pma)

if it was published 1974-1989, it would expire in 2034 or after (50pd), or in 2039.

As a result, I think it should be deleted. John Vandenberg 01:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

What has been posted at this page is the text of a poem entitled “August 22, 1939” by poet Kenneth Rexroth. The text of “August 22, 1939” is also online here. According to Google’s scan of Kenneth Rexroth: Selected Poems, “August 22, 1939” was first published in 1940 as part of Rexroth’s collection entitled In What Hour (OCLC 2064893). The record for In What Hour in Stanford’s Copyright Renewal Database indicates that the book was copyrighted in 1940 and renewed in 1968 (#R432759). Thus, “August 22, 1939” is still under copyright in the United States. Tarmstro99 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Delete probably. unless someone can establish that it was published prior to being put in a collection. Eclecticology 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Presumably it wasn't written before August 22, 1939 so can't have been published much before 1940! It is also still copyright in the UK as PD-old-70 won't apply.--Poetlister 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

First published 1937, according to w:The Devil and Daniel Webster (short story). Stanford’s database shows a copyright renewal in 1965 (#R353835). Tarmstro99 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. Unless someone can establish that the story was first published earlier earlier than the renewal would indicate, the case seems straightforward. Eclecticology 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This a collection of works by Romanian Tristan Tzara (1896–1963); some of these may be covered by {{PD-manifesto}} or even {{PD-release}}, but the earliest collection of them is 1977 (London/New York), and Lampisteries is only held in one library OCLC:48101574^{all editions} and is translated by B. Wright. John Vandenberg 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Original may be OK (pre-1923), but English should consider rights of translator. Eclecticology 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A contemporary work published in the 1970s by a still-living American author (whose web site is available here). The text of the poem on the author’s own site includes an express copyright notice. Either this poem was created in 1978 or later, in which case it is subject to 17 U.S.C. 302, or it was created between 1970 and 1977, in which case it is subject to the automatic renewal provisions added in 1992 for works that were still in copyright as of that date. In either case, it’s still under copyright in the United States and cannot be hosted here. Tarmstro99 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Delete Looks like a prima facie copyvio. That said, it's up to the contributor to provide contrary evidence. Eclecticology 19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indian author, w:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888 – 1975); published overseas so it is probably covered by copyright in India until 2035 (60 pma). John Vandenberg 07:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Delete Eclecticology 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Keep, the book was written in 1918, so falls under the Pre-1923 clause of US Law. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill} 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Keep per Sherurcij. Poetlister 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is almost a {{PD-manifesto}}, but I wouldn't want to make that call on my own. It was anonymously distributed, but presumed to be authored by the current President of South Africa, and a recent biography says he admitted as much privately. John Vandenberg 10:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, it seems South African copyright law requires that ...in order to establish copyright in a work, the Act requires that it must be proved by way of admissible evidence (i.e. not hearsay) that the author or maker of the work is a citizen or permanent resident of South Africa... - so I'm not sure if this would qualify. On the other hand, SA is a Berne signatory, so I'm not sure how the exemption would work. I think it would be PD in South Africa (since the author is not legally proven), but copyrighted in any other Berne signatory states (which would pay attention only to the Berne guidelines, not individual local law). So it could potentially be hosted under a "PD in its home country" tag - but not in a "PD in the United States" tag...or at least that's my armchair legalese. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill} 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm the one who posted the article on Wikisource. I only posted it up because it 1) it's posted in full to a number of websites without any copyright license (or a name), particularly those that are concerned with AIDS/HIV and the debate over reappraisal and 2) because this is a document of paramount importance in the South African debate over reappraisal, since it reflects the already-apparent feelings of the former president of the ANC, and provides a look into the sentiment that guided Mbeki's health policy throughout his tenure as head of state. I'm not saying that the document should be immediately removed from copyvio investigation (I support any look into the copyright status of this document, since I wasn't initially able to find one myself), but I just want to state that I posted this document completely without the intention to bring Wikisource into judicial contempt in any given geopolitical jurisdiction. Thanks. --Toussaint 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (formerly --70.185.188.35 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC))Reply

Appears to have been published in "Color", which was renewed. see Author:Countee Cullen. John Vandenberg 07:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This gives an original publication date of 1924, a year before the "Color" compilation was printed. It's possible we can hunt down the original publication, rather than the publication - and it wasn't renewed. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī} 06:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A poem, first published in the U.S. in 1974. Jkelly 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

...Authorship seems to be disputed, so "legally speaking, there is no likely risk to WMF in hosting the text", but even speaking pedantically, w:Lady Gwen Thompson says her grandmother w:Adriana Porter (d. 1946) wrote it, not her. Her grandmother was a Canadian (born in Nova Scotia - no idea about where she actually first 'wrote' the work, could be a minor complication) - and thus Canadian law releases the text 50 years pma, so this text has been Public Domain in its homecountry since December 31st 2006. 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

1946+50 = 1996, not 2006. Eclecticology 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's a reason I never pursued a degree in math ;) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī} 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Comment Presumably it is still copyright in the USA. (I have a degree in maths!) Poetlister 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Not necessarily. If there is no assignment of copyright, the author of each work in a collective work retains copyright in their own work. If she was Canadian, a different set of rules do come into play, even though it was published in the U.S. (see here). As far as I can see, it all comes down to whether the Green Egg magazine issue #69 (1975) was published in accordance with the formalities. It is possible to search the 1975 copyright registration/renewal scans in order to know for sure. John Vandenberg 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • This is a rather unique case. Gwen Thompson, the person who published the poem, claimed when it was published that it came 'through' her grandmother, who died in 1946. Many other commentators believe that some or all of it was written by Gwen Thompson herself, though some lines can be traced to Doreen Valiente, who also did not claim to have written them. Thompson said that "our own particular form of the Wiccan Rede is that which was passed on to her heirs by Adriana Porter". It's difficult to understand how anyone can claim copyright over a text which they themselves have claimed to have been passed down through many generations and which manifestly contains lines taken from other sources that also claimed to have inherited them. Thompson essentially presented it as inherited folk culture. All the alleged "authors" either denied athorship or attributed to someone long dead for whom there is zero evidence of authorship. This is documented in the book by The Rede of the Wiccae by Mathiesen & Theitic (2005). Paul B 11:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • This sort of problem comes up infrequently, but often enough, in copyright: what do you do with an author who denies authorship, but instead attributes the work to some supernatural source. Google the phrase “factual estoppel” (in quotes) and you will find some of the leading cases. Sometimes the courts say: if an author’s denial of authorship is objectively unreasonable, then readers can’t take the author at his/her word—they must presume, contrary to the author’s own statements, that the author is the real author and therefore holds the copyright. (Thus, for example, Shirley MacLaine can hold a copyright in her stories about her past lives even though she contends that they are 100% true and factual, and factual matter can’t be copyrighted, because her statement that “this is a work of fact, not fiction” is objectively unreasonable.) Here’s how one court put it in Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, rejecting the argument that the author, Helen Schucman, couldn’t claim copyright infringement because she had said Jesus was the true author (pp. 36–37):

      “These significant distinctions mitigate against a finding of estoppel based on Plaintiffs' representations that the Course was authored by Jesus. As a matter of law, it is irrelevant for copyright purposes whether Jesus wrote the Course. There is no question, of course, that if Schucman had been a "scribe" for Thetford (for example), she would lack the requisite originality for copyright protection. But she was not a scribe for any human creator. She was a scribe for a voice she heard in her own mind. While she identified this voice as "Jesus," and Plaintiffs, Defendants, and countless other people have apparently chosen to believe this, beliefs are not substitutes for facts. They cannot be verified in a court of law according to the rules of evidence. See Garman, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21932, at *7 (with regard to issue of originality, held that there was "no legal relevance to the assertions by both parties that the information was provided by spiritual guides") (citing Urantia II, 210 U.S.P.Q. 217 ("legally … the source of the [author's] inspiration is irrelevant.")).

      “Thus, the defense of lack of originality fails on two independent grounds: the Course is an original literary work of Schucman, and even if it were not, it would still be an original compilation of facts.”

    • The upshot of all that, I think, is that just because an author attributes a work to the spirit of their long-dead granny, legally, that don’t make it so. Tarmstro99 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • I just want to clarify that when Thompson stated that the text "came through" her grandmother, she meant that an age old tradition had been passed on through her, not that a supernatural being had "channeled" the content to her grandmother as the chosen earthly transmitter of it. As I say, she was portraying it as inherited folk wisdom, and did not specify who - if any one person at all - was supposed to have actually written the lines. Paul B 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • Factual Estoppel is something of a red herring on this case, it's a question of verifiability, whether something is true. The ACIM case you quote is clear that it is ruling on whether the "layout of the course" could be copyrighted when the "ideas" are being presented as facts (thus PD), not "metaphoric claims of philosophical truth" (thus copyrighted). The Rede, as a single recitation, is argued that both the "layout" and the "idea" are from her grandmother - and thus both would be PD, the "channeler" was unrelated to either.
      • This is one of those cases that should be decided as "Keep, though if the estate of the original author should ever happen to complain about infringement, either directly to WS or even just to any other publisher, then we would remove". It is not a dangerous path to take, and do not equate it to Google Books or other projects -- this work is public domain, though how a particular judge will see that can never be absolutely guaranteed - but the same is true for every work on here -- judges often make autonomous decisions that are incongruent with precedent or the rule of law. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī} 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm inclined to view this as a keep. A lot depends on who is claiming what. The relationship between the instrumental author and the spiritual author is unique, and the instrumental author may be the only one in a position to give evidence about that relationship. The result would be the same whether the writing was received in a séance from her deceased grandmother, or found on a since destroyed scrap of paper that was left behind in her grandmother's estate. In most cases we thankfully don't need to get into the question of whether there is such a thing as communication with the spirit world. The initial assumption must be that it happens unless it leads to a ridiculous result within the confines of the case. The instrumental author can attribute the authorship to the spiritual author and personally disclaim all copyrights, but a third party should not assume that the instrumental author has done so. In the present case since the spiritual author is also identified as a direct ancestor, normal inheritance rules should also be considered. Eclecticology 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
        • I shall just clarify what I said above. There is no alleged spiritual author in this case. Thomson claimed that the text was passed on to her by her grandmother. She meant that an age-old tradition codified in the poem had been passed on through her, not that a supernatural being had "channeled" the content to her grandmother as the chosen earthly transmitter of it. As I say, she was portraying it as inherited folk wisdom, and did not specify who - if any one person at all - was supposed to have actually written the lines. She asserted that her grandmother had bequeathed to her a book in which the text was present, but that she had destroyed the book. No evidence exists to support her claim. This is well documented in the publication to which I referred above. Paul B 14:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) For copyright purposes, then, the author whose rights must be investigated is Gwen Thompson, who published the work in 1975, because as User:Paul B put it, “no evidence exists” to support a claim of authorship by anyone else. The case law discussed above makes clear that Thompson’s own denial of authorship is meaningless absent actual evidence that the work was previously authored and published by another. The approach suggested above by User:Jayvdb is the correct one: what must be investigated is whether Thompson’s publication of the work in 1975 was under a valid copyright. If it was copyrighted when published in 1975, then it remains under copyright today in the United States; all works published and copyrighted between 1964 and 1977 were automatically renewed for a second term in this country under the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Tarmstro99 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I agree with Paul B. on the issue, if I send in a limerick "that was written in the margins of a book my grandmother gave me as a child" to a newspaper, I am not considered the legal copyright holder of that poem - since I already disavowed authorship and identified that it had been written decades earlier. Similarly, if I find a 'reputed' manuscript by Christopher Columbus, I will not be assumed to be the original author, they can dispute whether Columbus wrote it, but I have already disavowed any copyright claim to it myself by announcing that I found it tucked inside an old sea chest that belonged to my great-great-great-grandfather. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer} 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The difference, I think, is that in both your hypothetical cases, the existence of another author is verifiable by reference to an external source, whether it’s the book your grandmother gave you or the contents of the old sea-chest. That is precisely what’s missing in this case. Tarmstro99 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but if the book my grandmother gave me was destroyed in a fire, it wouldn't suddenly transfer the copyright to me, just because I can no longer prove that some 19th century youth wrote something in the margins. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer} 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The factual framework here is much simplified by the knowledge that paranormal forces were not at work. To quote the case cited "There is no question, of course, that if Schucman had been a "scribe" for Thetford (for example), she would lack the requisite originality for copyright protection. But she was not a scribe for any human creator. She was a scribe for a voice she heard in her own mind." The claim in the present case is that the information was received from the grandmother by normal rather than paranormal means.

I have long contended that since copyright is a property right there can be no copyright if there is no owner. No-one but an owner has a right of action in a copyright infringement case. This ultimately is the problem with orphan copyrights. An essential burden in an infringement case is for the plaintiff to prove that there is a valid copyright. Perhaps then the defendant can challenge the validity of the claim, but in the absence of a prima facie claim he can't even do that. We only have an apparent disclaim of copyright, with apparent attribution to a person who died in 1946, and who would herself have received the poem some time earlier from an unidentified person. Inability to find the original source need not imply that it doesn't exist. Likewise folk-tales are a part of a common cultural heritage, and as such are not directly copyrightable. Eclecticology 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Calculation of the Qibla has "Copyright: 1994" all over it - and I'm not sure it meets the criteria for inclusion anyways. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī} 15:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Delete as copyvio. Poetlister 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Comment: I have left a note at w:user talk:Modemac. If it has been published traditionally, it should be easy to acquire a GDFL/CC release from the author. mnd@columbia.edu John Vandenberg 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The UK Colonial Office (?) commissioned a report known as the "Palin Commission of Inquiry" in 1920 but never published it. I've come across a portion (the conclusions only) and wish to keep them on WikiSource[4].

I've rung the TSO help-desk (0870 600 5522) and the young assistant there told me that no copyright exists in material that's not been published. If I want to check it, I should go to OPSI gov uk - this links to Copyright in Public Records which tells me "Unpublished public records and those open for public inspection are reproducible freely under waiver of copyright. This guidance explains how this works in practice."

The only remaining concerns in my mind are 1) I'm not sure if this Report is available for public inspection, and if so, where it is held and 2) whether a new copyright has been created by putting the conclusions (unchanged) into a book and thereby publishing them for the first(?) time.

Can anyone confirm it's OK to publish? (I have blanked the work with {{copyvio}}) as required). PR^talk 09:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's the basis for saying that it's a copyvio? You seem to have answered your own question in speaking of unpublished public records. Was there a problem with the chain of provenance to suggest that there was an illegal act somewhere in that chain? There's no reason to believe that you would be creating a new copyright. Eclecticology 10:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're right - I misread what I picked up - the fact that the material is unpublished renders it OK to publish (PD?) automatically, it doesn't need to be available for public inspection as well. PR^talk 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tagged as a {{copyvio}} since August 2005, but never listed here. Based on Gabriel Marcel it looks like a copyvio. Mystery of Being:Introduction also needs to go. John Vandenberg 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Translated in 1951 in London (not sure if there was concurrent US printing), there is no US copyright renewed. Not sure how European copyright was working at the time of his death, though the "we judge based on his native copyright" vs "we judge based on our servers being in the US" argument could apply. shrugs Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Haile Selassie} 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Delete. Marcel died in 1973. Eclecticology 10:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Isn't death date irrelevant in US copyright law? Publication date and renewed/notRenewed are what matter? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Haile Selassie} 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This isn't actually in the English Wikisource, or in any language's Wikisource, but just under wikisource.org/wiki. I don't know the proper way to get it deleted, but it's definitely a copyvio. It's lifted from CELT with the copyright information removed, but the page at CELT clearly says it's taken from a book published in 1976 which remains "copyright to the Royal Irish Academy and the School of Celtic Studies (Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies)". It also says the CELT text is "Available with prior consent of the CELT programme for purposes of academic research and teaching only". --Nicknack009 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply