Wikisource:Copyright discussions

Discussions

Pacem in Terris

Issued in 1963 by Pope John XXIII, many other Encyclicals on the Vatican website say they are © Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The latin wikisource believes it is copyright until 2034 which is 70 years after the death of the pope. Afraid I don't know much about copyright so brought it here. Suicidalhamster 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Papal statements were not originally copyrighted until the last five years, when the Vatican announced a policy shift. As I recall, they hit a stumbling block on the retroactivity of their policy, and I don't recall how it worked out in the end. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: William Lyon Mackenzie King} 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/23/catholicism.religion http://www.zenit.org/article-13176?l=english And finally http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_en.html which appears to be the decree itself. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to say that the Vatican doesn't own the copyright for the past 50 years of papal documents, and can't therefore begin to enforce/transfer it. Jude (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, being asked to look a bit further into this, I found mention that they seem to consider Papal works from 1978 onward copyrighted, which is enough to push me to a Keep. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer} 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced myself... They're just saying that policies have remained unchanged since 1978, not that things weren't copyrighted before then. I've yet to find an actual copy of the 1978 policy, however. Jude (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with Jude's interpretation. Leaning to delete. Giggy (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not a fan of retroactive legal alterations that place formerly public domain works under copyright, it appears that the Vatican has the right to do so. Regretfully leaning toward delete. Durova (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rerum_Novarum is another in this boat. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Shall we write a letter to Vatican asking the Pope for the appropriate licence? I am sure he would do so, if the thing will be explained clearly. Rembecki (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Rerum Novarum dates from 1891, so surely it is ok? Suicidalhamster (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rerum Novarum was published in 1891, and its author died in 1903. At the very least, it would be covered by {{PD-old}}, with +70 and +100, as well as pre-1921. I do not think this could possibly be considered a copyright violation. I will be deleting Pacem in Terris however, as I can't see any proof that it is free for our use. Jude (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The English translation of Rerum Novarum appears to have been created/owned by w:Vatican Publishing House ... but ... a translation appears on the last 30 pages of this. I've not checked whether that text is the same as our text. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Graveyard by the Sea

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept.

I added this translation by Cecil Day-Lewis. I couldn't find any entry in a copyright database. Yann 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And why would there need to be one? It's by an Anglo-Irish author translator (1904-1972) who published his first book of poetry in 1925; I see no real likelihood that it's in the public domain just about anywhere.--Prosfilaes 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright databases can search whether copyright was renewed, a requirement for books published between 1923-1963 that if not met, will result in the book being Public Domain. Also, I believe the author died in 1945, not 1972. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 00:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I was talking about the translator, not the author. Copyright renewal is only the case for certain books; the fact that the translator was Anglo-Irish makes it unlikely that renewal was necessary.--Prosfilaes 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This translation was certainly published in USA. It would be interesting to know how and when. Amazon gives a publication by Martin Secker & Warburg (1945). Yann 21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete This one is clear: even if the copyright on the U.S. translation has been orphaned, the underlying work remains copyrighted under French law. Unless Wikisource follows U.S. copyright law only? In which case the underlying work is pre-1923 PD. Durova (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikisource follows U.S. copyright law only. Yann (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, keep. Durova (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Jude (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Various photos using PD-EE-exempt

This series of photos of Estonian authors may be old, but age is not used as the justification for having these photos. The template lists a long list of exemptions to Estonian copyright, but none seem to apply. In the statute linked from the template Section 4 (2) 17) makes specific mention that photographic works are protected. Eclecticology (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-EE-exempt doesnt show anything like these photos, so the tag is definitely being used incorrectly. I have speedied about half of these photos. Many of these subjects are old; which makes the images likely to be old too. Here is the three left to figure out:

Image:Carl-robert-jakobson.jpg comes from w:Image:Carl-robert-jakobson.jpg, but that image doesnt give sufficient information for me to want to move it to Commons.

Image:Tammsaare.jpg doesnt look PD, and doesnt exist on the Wikipedia article.

Image:Karl Parts.jpg looks PD.

Image:Hannes Walter.jpg ((1952–2004) is almost certainly not PD.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Boer War

Source appears to be the 1959 work, available at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1985516

• Robert Walker Davis
• Reviewed work(s): The Boer War. by Edgar Holt
• Military Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 1959), p. 111 (review consists of 1 page)
• Published by: Society for Military History

I am not finding a PD, rationale. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The book, OCLC:1635534^{all editions} is only listed as being published in London, and Edgar Holt was born in 1900 according to LOC, which means that it is neither w:Edgar Holt nor w:Edgar George Holt which I created because I thought it could be him (if LOC are slightly wrong).

However this text is a review of the book, and the journal Military Affairs is a US periodical, and I cant find renewal records for it. The earliest record of this journal is a registration for 1977. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Society for Military History[1] was the American Military Institute between 1939 and 1990, an important fact to note for copyright searches.

Having searched on the copyright.gov databases, which should include any copyright renewals for this date, I'm not finding any renewals for Military Affairs in this period, or any renewals for David, Robert Walker, or any renewals for this work under the name "[The] Boer War" or "Review: The Boer War". Assuming this was the first publication, and that it was first published in the US (a reasonable assumption, IMO) or that Robert Walker Davis was an American citizen, it should be in the public domain. I have a significant degree of distrust in that answer, however; there are several ways it could be wrong. If I had the original copyright registrations, I could be more certain, but I neither have access to the physical volumes nor any interest in going trawling through them after this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Brigade

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept

This purports to be from a book published in 1986, and thus protected by copyright. The claim that a directory cannot be copyright has no basis in law. If this is meant as a simple list of participants in the brigade rather than a book extract it is not within our scope. to suggest that all the persons on the list are authors defies imagination. Eclecticology (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. No legal basis has been provided for this list being a copyright violation. It can be moved to the Wikisource namespace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Your legal premise is false; everything is presumed copyright. I do admit that it would be relatively less harmful in Wikisource space. Eclecticology (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    • I am not leaning on law when I ask you to provide a more detailed rationale for this being a copyright violation. You are the one who is saying that this page, disclosed in the notes to be a directory/extract, is a copyright violation. You brought it here, so it would be a courtesy to say why you believe it is a copyvio. The page even states that it is not a copyvio, so it seems obvious that you would need to tackle that head on if you wish to list it here. Note that it has already been speedied by Z and I restored it then[2] after waiting for feedback

      Title 17 gives a broad definition, and case law defines the details, as you well know. Copyright is limited constitutionally (US Const 1.8.8) to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" which has led to the threshold of originality. Do you believe that this list is a copyright violation? If so, state your reasoning.

      Please note that I raised the idea of it being moved to the Wikisource namespace 10 months ago; see Talk:Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Is this page any less of a copyright violation if it is in the Wikisource namespace? If so, state your reasoning. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

      Simply being a directory is not enough to free it from copyright protection, and putting a statement to that effect in the header notes does not make it so since anyone could add such a statement as a self-serving tactic. It is claimed to be a part of a 1986 work, and that alone suggests a copyright work. That author chose what contents would be included, and it was presumably that author's original decision to segregate the attendants, nurses, etc. in separate listings at the bottom.

      Yes, there was a discussion about this between you and Zhaladshar, but it's a sad fact of life that many of these private discussions between two Wikisourcerors are not noticed by anyone else until much later. Threshold of originality is not an easy concept, nor is the merger principle which does not allow copyright to prevent the transmission of the information content. Being the only published source may not be sufficient to prevent the use of the list;that was the point of the Feist case, but it does raise the question of whether it was an original compilation where the author used original selection criteria. A complete list might be included, but how are we to know that this list is complete?

      One difference between article space and Wikisource space is our ability to make substantive change to the content. In article space we are saying that this is the work of someone else which (irrespective of the copyright status) needs to have its integrity respected. If I believe that Ernest Hemingway or Errol Flynn (who were both in Spain at the time) should be on the list I cannot add them to the existing list where it is now, but I could add them in Wikisource space. Eclecticology (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

      Your suggestion for why this is less of a copyvio if it is in "Wikisource:" makes sense. We also have other "user created list" in the main namespace, such as NYT, Weird Tales, etc. I dont like them in the "Wikisource" namespace, as that is typically reserved for project pages. I prefer them in the main namespace, and the Portal namespace, so we dont have problems like Wikisource:Copyright and Wikisource:Copyright law being very different types of pages. I have in the past suggested we use a new namespace for these, like "Topic:" or perhaps even "Index:" (after moving the current index pages).

      Oddly enough, a few hours ago, I ran into Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007/02#Relationship of the family of Des Isles with Joan of Arc, which is about a similar type of page that lists people, consisting of "original research". It is much further down the "beyond scope" road, and is making me think about the practicality of keeping Abraham Lincoln Brigade. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

      This seems to be getting us into a much broader discussion than what would be involved in the copyright status of a single page, and probably even broader than the author page question that I have already split off. Even if we develop an "Index:" namespace we would not need to move other pages that begin with the word index without the colon. We would still need to allow for pages whose published title normally begins with the word index. I have myself worked on tables of contents for periodicals in the article namespace, so raising these issues makes me pause to think. Now that the proposal about transcription namespaces has been thrown into the mix we probably need to review the role of namespaces generally to bring their specific uses into focus. Eclecticology (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  So it would be an internal list? Is so, that seems ok. I doubt that duplicating a list for organizational purposes would be a copyright violation since that is not unique. FloNight (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  If it is not unique it should be possible to cite an alternative source for the same list, preferably an earlier one. Eclecticology (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. There will be official records relating to the majority of these people, which will trickle in over time if we encourage it by having these names on our website. We have had a number of new users and anons create author pages, and I know that one of these users came from a historical society in the United States, and they were going to encourage others to participate. Some of the contributions have been good enough to be transwiki'ed to Wikipedia, and other mini biogs listed works by the person, resulting in a typical author page. A few of the author pages dont list works; instead they say "mentioned in Abraham Lincoln Brigade". Those contributions would probably have been deleted on sight at Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  They should be deleted on sight here too. Author pages are for authors, and an absolute minimum for being an author should be that a person has written something, in a reasonably broad sense of that term. That someone was mentioned in a list for a reason other than authorship is no evidence at all, nor is the assumption that he must at some time in his life written a personal letter. To suggest that everyone on that list is an author is wishful thinking, and debases the notion of author pages. Eclecticology (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  We disagree on the scope and purpose of Author pages. I see them as a place to catalog "original works written by or about" a person, which is exactly what the Wikipedia template has said since November 2004. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that Author pages have works about the person as well as works by the person. If I know of works about the person, I include them on the author page. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of how we use author pages was fine here as long as long as it was only incidental to the page nominated for deletion. The discussion thus far on this has shown that a wider discussion is warranted, and I will continue this aspect on Scriptorium. Eclecticology (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would seem to me that to meet the requirements for posting to WS main space it would have to be a perfect copy and paste of the original work, which is a compiling of specific individuals who had never before be categorized together as the sole members of this group. That would make this a derivation work, which would be subject to copyright. The indivial names on the list can not be copyrighted and if used with other references to create a similar list then that would be ok, but not for the WS main space per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Original contributions, Jeepday (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

§ 103—Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

• Simple lists are not copyrightable under U.S. law. Substantial creative input would be necessary to claim copyright. A classic example is the difference between lists of ingredients and recipes. A mere list of ingredients, even with an imperfect transcription, could not be covered by copyright. But a recipe with the same ingredients that includes quantities with preparation and cooking instructions has creative input and would be copyrightable. Regardless of when this list was first published, it is merely a list. It might or might not be within project scope but copyright isn't a problem. Durova (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept. We're discussing whether or not this is a copyright violation. I don't see any evidence that it is. If we're going to discuss whether or not it is appropriate for Wikisource, that should happen at WS:PD. Jude (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Resignation letter of Jogendra Nath Mandal

Hello, The author died in 1956. The date of publication is not mentioned. Yann (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What copyright do you think applies? Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to w:Jogendra Nath Mandal,

“

fleeing to Kolkata, he sent his letter of resignation in October 1950

”

. However, based on the content of the letter, I'm guessing PD-manifesto? Jude (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure if the Copyright Act, 1957 applies or if the earlier 1911 version does, assuming 1957 is retro or 1911 is similar enough on this topic. Not sure if this could be considered a government work, but per Wikipedia "Unlike some countries like the US, governmental works (of India) are copyrighted." so government work would not lead to PD, and the copyright is 60 years dependent on publishing. Unless someone is claiming {{PD-GovEdict}} applies (and I can't see how) the only possible PD might be {{PD-manifesto}} as suggested by Jude. Otherwise it does not come into PD until 2016 with {{PD-old-60}} (or 2010 if you can show published in 1950, sent does not equal published). Can or does anyone want to make a case for {{PD-manifesto}} to apply? Jeepday (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess {{PD-manifesto}} should be appropriate. I think it was an open letter, but i couldn't find any source confirming it.Sumanch (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Zimbabwean power-sharing agreement

I am not sure that this fits under {{PD-GovEdict}}, and I cant find the legal justification for {{PD-ZimGovDoc}}. w:Official text copyright indicates this would be PD, as does the 1966 law. There is a 2000 law, but I cant find that. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• It looks to me like Copyright in Publications of the State indicates that {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} is wrong and that copyright falls to the president on all government works for 50 years (we should probably research and adjust the template). On the other hand one of the authors/signors is w:Robert Mugabe the president of the country so I think {{PD-GovEdict}} would apply, according the w:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and w:Official text copyright "The Convention indicates that it shall be left to the discretion of each member country of the Berne Convention to determine the protection to be granted to such official texts in that country", as we know in each member country the copyright of the nation of use apply, in this case the US (servers being in Florida and all). So I think it is PD per {{PD-GovEdict}}. Jeepday (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The tag {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-ZimGovDoc) is only used on two articles this one and Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia), I placed {{PD-GovEdict}} on Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia), as there is no question it applies. I am going to post {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} at Wikisource:Proposed deletions. Jeepday (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung

I originally tagged this as {{Move to wikiquote}}, but looking at it again, it is actually a well published book: w:Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong. And it is a sufficiently complicated case, as it might even come under the Chinese "official text"? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• My reading of the official text template is that this would fall under it, being Government published etc. Giggy (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WS:COPYVIO(2006-11)#Poems by Mao Zedong covers similar territory, and the opinion of the day was delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: Poems by Mao Zedong John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lean to delete: The first publication was in 1964 by PLA Daily. Critically reading Article 5 of Chinese copyright law in original simplified Chinese, I am afraid that the work does not qualify for {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, so I am asking at the Chinese Wikisource Scriptorium. My doomsday scenario is that if not convinced to be PD-PRC-exempt, the Chinese text will be posted at Canadian Wikilivres since 2015 to bypass American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. For the English translation, having unknown translator further warrants its deletion here.--Jusjih (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Inclined to keep. In the historical circumstances these are as close to government edicts as one can expect, given that the "Little Red Book" was required study at the time. This can easily be distinguished from the poems, which would be of a more personal nature. I would also not give much weight to the lack of identified translator; this was published in several languages by the PRC government itself and freely available as a way of promoting itself overseas. Eclecticology (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The 120 days of Sodom

An anonymous user has confirmed on the talk page that this is a translation by Austryn Wainhouse, and the "date of the copyright is 1966" which would be these editions. However "Pieralessandro Casavini" is an alias of Wainhouse, and there are pre-1964 editions, with no renewals. My guess is that Wainhouse only used "Pieralessandro Casavini" for w:Olympia Press in Paris, and I suspect that this item wasnt published in the U.S. because I cant find these earlier editions in the LOC catalog. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We may be coming down to the definition of published. They probably didn't openly publish it in the US or register it for copyright, which could have made them open to obscenity prosecution. What they did was probably legally publishing, but it would take some serious investigation to establish that copies were sold to a broad enough audience to count as published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Operation Unthinkable: Report by the Joint Planning Staff

UK Crown copyright expires after 50 years in published works, however I am not sure whether this would be considered "published" - possibly not. Unpublished works are protected by copyright for 125 years from date of creation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Letters of the Seer

Recent translation. See [3]. Yann (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The email address kyliea@internet-australia.com no longer works. I have sent a message to "Kylie Hobbs on facebook in case that is the same person. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

InterNACHI page is not a copyvio I have explicit permission from the author to use it and post it. It should not be deleted.

To the IP editor: the problem is that Wikisource operates under a license that isn't compatible with traditional single-purpose 'republished by permission' rationales. If you're in direct contact with the author, suggest you ask for a relicense under Creative Commons CC-by or CC-by-sa. Durova (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that CC-BY or CC-BY-SA were compatible with the terms of the GFDL, or accepted on Wikisource for text. Jude (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

They're sufficiently compatible for images, video, and sound. If that's any different for text, I'm not aware of it. There wouldn't appear to be any inherent reason for such an exception. Durova (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mysterious Island

A new user has noted that this could be a copyvio, and it looks like it is worth discussing. w:The Mysterious Island agrees that the translation by "I. O. Evans" was published in 1959. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• A random check of the this probably PD work, http://books.google.com/books?id=gosoDqvVDN8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22The+Mysterious+Island%22&as_brr=1&client=firefox-a#PPP1,M1 The Mysterious Island By Jules Verne Published by Plain Label Books, 1900 ISBN 1603035206, 9781603035200 493 pages. Looks like a perfect match. The page listed as the source http://www.online-literature.com/verne/mysteriousisland/ did not list a translator that I found. Seems the question is "Is the version on Wikisource PD and if so who is the translator?" Jeepday (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• If it has an ISBN, it's not 1900. Plain Label Books has a habit of just pouring a PG text into print without any concept of reformatting it for print, and other unsavoury habits. I suspect they could grabbed this one from Project Gutenberg.

• In any case, I think the new user was correct. Look at this bibliography of English translations of Jules Verne, which conveniently provides the starting sentences for all the English translations; the Evans book is the first one to start out “Are we rising again?”. Unfortunately, the rest of the text provided is identical, modulo capitalization and punctuation, in the Kingston translation and the Evans translation, and neither exactly matches our text, and one of the Kingston editions ...

• Okay, we seem to be the same as The Gutenberg text, which the author of the above bibliography has on his website as being the translation by Kingston. As the bibliography proves, they start pretty similarly, which makes them easy to mistake for each other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

De Anima (Aristotle)

This was created as On the Soul, and it was discussed at WS:S(2008-08)#Copyright question. There I said it should be speedy deleted, but here we are. ;-) According to the DJVU on archive.org, which is probably also a copyvio, I quoted in the previous discussion that Vol. 3 was first published in 1931, and the title page of De Anima between pages 401b and 402a repeats "1931". Quoting more of the preface.

“

I have to thank Mr. George Brown, Lecturer in Logic in the University of Glasgow, for kindly reading the proof-sheets of the De Anima, as he did those of the Physics.

”

Others suggested that it was first published in 1908, but mostly based on bibliographic records of other works in this volume which are listed at Works of Aristotle. The preface to this volume explains that the various components were written at different times, and it is probable that some where printed prior to the complete volume, however I doubt that Smiths work was. In Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 25 (Jan., 1932), pp. 99[4][5], a G. C. Field reviews "The Works of Aristotle: De Anima by Aristotle; J. A. Smith" saying

“

it is the final volume of the Oxford Translations of Aristotle which were begun nearly a quarter of a century ago.

”

and

“

Those who know the long and profound study that Professor Smith has devoted to this particular work will rejoice that at least this much of its results has been given to the world. They will hope that we may yet see the definitive edition of the work from the same hand.

”

The review seems to clearly come from the point of view of someone recently given the opportunity to review the work, and reads as if announcing the work to those yet unaware of it.

An earlier edition is not found in this Bibliography, and I cant find any reference to an earlier version by Smith.

However, this and others of The Works of Aristotle were republished in the United States as The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941), which is also on archive.org. That work doesnt appear under "Richard McKeon" in the Stanford copyright renewal database, however if we consider the texts within it to not need renewal due to the URAA, Internet Archive is hosting yet another a copyright violation :). On the Soul appears on pp. 535-603 of that work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial

This is senate report, "Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary" and "For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office".

Some exhibits may be found from page 51 onwards, and they were "ordered into the record." Some of this material could be classed as manifesto material, such as this, but where that doesnt cover it, where does that leave these pages? Does the senate report need to be redacted for copyright reasons? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe we came across similar issues in the past, and votes were split on whether or not to "redact" things. Zodiac Killer letters had a letter removed because the killer wrote it on the back of a Rand McNally map, which was deemed to be a copyVio on his part and thus we couldn't host it. But I, being me, of course argued that it's ridiculous, and like saying that if the Presidential Address included a reference such as "In the words of w:Kite Runner, "Freedom exists only where noble men and women are willing to sacrifice their all for it"" - we would have to remove that part of the speech because it falls under Fair Use. It seems like a ridiculously slippery slope, I think we might be better served to come up with a template with params, that says fairUseNote|pages 8-11 and the quote on page 4 are all here reproduced as in the original, with the notion of Fair Use in mind." or something. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock} 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

The source site provides non-commercial permission not good with GFDL. Unless the translation license can be otherwise proven, I would like to suggest deleting it.--Jusjih (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The "UN...English Translation 1993" leads me to believe it was translated by the United Nations, and the frequency with which this translation appears in a search of Google Books as being reproduced in print further suggests that it is a public translation, not one by the University. (I don't see any claim by the University it is their own translation?) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock} 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If able to prove it a UN translation (better with web source) and qualified for {{PD-UN}}, then I am willing to withdraw this.--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The original can be found in Official Document System of the United Nations (ODS) by searching for UN Doc symbol "A/CONF.157/PC/62/ADD.18"; the original is in English, French, and Arabic. It meets {{PD-UN}}.

It was also printed in Human rights : a compilation of international instruments. Volume 2, Regional instruments. (New York, UN: 1997) ISBN 92-1-154124-7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Hypothesis

Hello, Text tagged with "Copyright (C) 2000-2008 by Vernon Nemitz (Copyright shared with all who retain the previous line)". I don't think that is sufficient or equivalent to a free license. I might be wrong through, as the contributor Objectivist claims otherwise. Yann (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, that looks like an assignment of copyright rather than a licence. IANAL, but in many countries, shared copyright may only be exercised jointly. If that is indeed the case here, it is not a free work. For example, in order to make commercial use of the work, you'd have to ask all other copyright holders whether you may do so. Probably, you'd have to share your profits with them.--GrafZahl (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not necessarily the case. Without going too deeply into this, (since Nemitz claims to be the sole author) it has been my consistent reading that any one of joint authors can exercise the rights independently. Part of the confusion seems to be with Nemitz's introduction of the novel term "shared copyright." Eclecticology (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Biggest problem, to me, is that it doesn't seem to be within Wikisource's ambit. It doesn't seem to have been formally published anywhere. As for the license, Objectivist says "as the sole author I most certainly know what it means to share a copyright, which is literally the "right to copy", with all who retain the copyright notice", but it's not merely the right to copy; among other things, it's the right to change the words. As long as he's here, I think it much better for him to provide a license that's clear to everyone; CC-Attribution license would probably meet his needs, if he wants to make it a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The apparent previous publication in Infinite Energy is prima facie evidence of publication unless someone intends to challenge the existence of that publication. He is certainly wrong to suggest, as he does on his user talk page, that we are obliged to accept his works, even if they conform perfectly with our policies. We would probably be quite amenable to including such works, but we would not raise that amenability to the level of an obligation.

The concept of "shared copyright" as Nemitz uses it seems to mean that he would share those rights with those who would use his article in the future. The moral right to attribution is essentially already recognized (perhaps imperfectly) in the GFDL, so in that regard his condition is a redundancy. For our puposes we want to represent an author's work as accurately as we can, so we allow no substantive modifications on our site. That requirement does not extend to downstream users, though those users who make modifications are required to credit the original author, and may receive equal credit for their modifications. This could be interpreted as a "shared copyright", but not an exclusive one.

I don't think that our hosting the article is a copyright violation, but I also don't think that we can accept his redundant and confusing condition. If he wants us to host the article that condition must be deleted. Eclecticology (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we dont permit "invariant sections". Also, we require peer review as well as publication in our inclusion criteria; It looks like Infinite Energy meets that criteria as well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure. This looks like full copyright with generous republication terms, and the essential difference between that and copyleft is that republication permission can be revoked. That hasn't been acceptable to other WMF projects where I'm active. Does Wikisource follow a different practice? Durova (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We only accept free content, so we need the copyright holder to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org to verify that they agree to license it under the terms of one of the "free content" licenses described in that policy page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do that. I just didn't know enough about how to indicate the document was being made available. I also did not see a simple way to specify such a thing when I originally posted the document. (After posting some comments about that, my Log-In Account disappeared. Not nice!) Perhaps the unavailability of a simple way to specify document-sharing was because I, the author of the document, did not log into WikiSource under my own name? Anyway, let me here-and-now clearly indicate what the phrase "Copyright shared with all who retain the previous line" was about: I am sharing the right to make copies of the document with anyone who includes the copyright line in the copy. The result is, no matter where a copy of the document ends up, the I-the-author would remain associated with it. I did not want somebody replacing my name with theirs and claiming credit for the Hypothesis. Simple. Perhaps TOO simple, if this much discussion has been a result! (Perhaps some of the problem is that after entering the text with the copyright statement on one line, and the copyright-shared statement on the next line, the two lines got merged onto one line? I will add a line-break!)

I don't know what you mean by saying your log-in account was deleted. User:Objectivist still exists and doesn't appear to be blocked; you were probably just logged out automatically. Your expanded license doesn't fix one of my major complaints; to be hosted on Wikisource, it must not merely be copyable, it must be editable. For example, someone must have the right to dissect it, rearrange the pieces, and add commentary to show why cold fusion is absurd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to log in and got a message saying the account did not exist. This happened AGAIN, after posting my prior message above, and then logging out. On this particular posting occasion, I took a different tack, first pulled up the account-verification email, clicked the link in that email, and THEN tried to log in. That worked. Could this be related to not checking the "Remember me on this computer" checkbox?

Next topic: When I posted the cold-fusion-hypothesis article, at that time I was under the impression that WikiSource was such that Wikipedia could consider to be a reliable place to hold source-reference articles. In other words, if in Wikipedia a link is created to an external reference, and preferably a Web reference, then WikiSource could hold that reference, such that anyone reading the Wikipedia article could follow the link and read the reference article. HOW CAN THAT BE POSSIBLE IF ANY ARTICLE HERE CAN BE HACKED APART BY SOME VESTED INTEREST THAT OPPOSES IT? (For a more blatant sort of "conspiracy" claim, consider the possibility of some opponent of an idea using "possible copyright infringement" as an excuse to prevent the idea from being visible....) What IS the actual purpose of WikiSource, if it is essentially (as implied by Prosfilaes) another battleground of edit-and-undo, like Wikipedia? Would it not make more sense for an opposing viewpoint to have its own article here, for Wikipedia to reference? Or, what if the original text of some controversial article is locked, but appending to it is allowed, so that the original text can be debated without being edited into more-complete-nonsense than any detractor would claim originally existed in it? Is there ANY place in WikiMedia that can do the thing I thought WikiSource was set up to do???

Wikisource exists to preserve texts, but only free ones, in the sense that they can be edited at will. They can't be changed on Wikisource, but we ask that they can be taken from Wikisource and changed off-wiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand that point, but it still means some opponent of an idea can take an original posting, no matter how preserved here at WikiSource, hack it into blatantly-obvious nonsense, and then post it in umpteen places on the Web with the claim that the edited document is the original document, and no-one should be so foolish as to trust the copy at WikiSource. Consider a case that apocryphally happened once with the text of one printed edition of the Bible, in which the "adultery Commandment" had the word "not" removed from it. In a scenario in which that edition had been deliberately widespread and (obviously) argued-about for, say, a hundred million years, who could at that late time be SURE which version of that Commandment was the original, when no traces of any real originals would have survived? So, why does WikiSource embrace ONLY copying policies that would allow such a thing? What's WRONG about allowing postings that can simply/only be copied freely???? I chose WikiSource as a place to post this, over, say, a Google "Knol", simply because I knew the article could pass the "formally published" test in a way that, if referenced by a Wikipedia article, no anti-idea/vested-interest Wikipedia editor could get away with deleting the reference. Having an INDISPUTABLY original text here is valuable. For WikiSource to insist that such a text must be trash-able, even if only outside of WikiSource, is counterproductive, is it not?

Libel laws will stop people from claiming that you wrote what you didn't better than copyright law, which won't stop completely made up text in any case. Wikisource:Copyright policy makes the demand that text be editable, whether you feel it's counterproductive or not, and here is not the place to argue that it should be changed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent). I see where you're coming from. I think that I can also fairly state that anyone regularly associated with Wikisource consistently supports the integrity of the author's text, some even to an extent that others consider excessive in matters of typography. Nevertheless there exists a basic stratum that all of us support. Wikisourcerors are not in a position to pass judgement, for or against, cold fusion, and, by recognizing that, we have fewer NPOV arguments than Wikipedia. With or without your additional statement about copyright, we have no control over the activities of downstream users. To the extent that a text here is licensed rather than public domain the author retains copyright, and if that text becomes a victim of downstream abuse you retain the right to sue the abuser. There is nothing in the licence by which the Wikimedia Foundation acquires the standing to sue on your behalf. Furthermore, your legitimate concern is about the "moral" right of textual integrity, something which is only symbolically recognised in US copyright law; the provisions there mention it but take pains to insure that the violation of moral rights incurs no penalties.

Supplementary provisions with uncertain and often unintended legal interpretations and consequences, such as "shared copyright" only make the landscape of free licences more difficult. We already witness difficulties reconciling GFDL and CC, even though at the root the same result is sought. Eclecticology (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, let me ask if this can be acceptable; I don't see wording like this in the lists of example licences:

"This work is licensed as follows:
 1. It may be freely copied, in whole or in part.
 2. The author of the copied work must be identified.
 3. Any copied parts of the work may be modified freely, provided:
   A. They are clearly marked as being a modification of the original work.
   B. At least one link to the original work is included."

I think that would adequately address my concerns. Perhaps other authors would like this license, too. Whether or not it is too demanding for WikiSource, though....—unsigned comment by Objectivist (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2008.

Please take a look at the "Creative Commons - Attribution" license, which provides basically what you have described, but it is a license which has been created by lawyers and it is "well known", which means the benefits and weaknesses of it have been discussed to death on forums across the Internet. You can read about it on Wikipedia: w:Creative Commons and w:Creative Commons licenses. And, here is the "Legal code" for you to inspect. I think you will find it meets your needs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty good/close to what I wrote above. However, it is not clear if Section 4c requires a link to be provided to the original work. I consider that to be more important than the requirements of 4d, simply because if the work is labeled as modified, and if the original is easily accessible via a link, then anyone encountering a negatively modified version can quickly compare it to the original, thereby discovering the various ways in which the modified version had been negatively distorted. It seems to me that requiring such a link would provide greater protection against such modifications than Section 4d. What liars want their lies exposed so easily? (And, of course, any such liar who fails to include the link can be sued for violating the license!) Well, let me know if I have misinterpreted Section 4c, thanks.

One reason that requiring a link to the original work is unacceptable is that doing so essentially forbids anyone from creating modified works outside of the internet. A pamphlet derived from your work cannot link to the original copy. Neither can abridged spoken recording for the blind, etc. On the other hand a person that does not speak English would not find mere inspection of the orginal work as much protection from a harmful French version as what is given by the CC license.--BirgitteSB 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's why lawyers get paid to word things very carefully. Here we are on the Web and it is easy to think of accessibility in terms of Web hyperlinks. However, technically, such a link is an address or "access pathway", a kind of road to follow to reach a specific thing. If a modified work published in a pamphlet included a description of the publication information of the original work, then that also is a kind of link. Yes, such would not be a way to rapidly access the original work, but it is better than nothing (and even a printed-on-paper Web hyperlink/address, of, say, the WikiSource copy of the work, is better than nothing). My point is, the person who encounters a modified work should be given sufficient information to access the original "published" version of the work, somehow. (Example: "This work is a modification of a painting known as "The Mona Lisa", by Leonardo da Vinci. The original is located at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France.") Then it is up to that person to choose to investigate the original or not (including not clicking on a Web hyperlink). In the case of a mistranslated work, access to the original version EVENTUALLY means access to a reasonably accurate translation. So, is there no License out there that can meet my preferences in this matter? Thanks in advance! Objectivist (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It all comes down to a question of enforcement. Whatever licensing you or we may designate, it's still only as strong as your willingness to go to court against anyone who violates the terms of that licence. Disney's power of pap does not derive from putting copyright notices on their productions, but from their willingness to be complete jerks when they take someone to court for violating their rights. "Sharing" the rights does not impose any obligation to enforce. Eclecticology (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many many licenses, with lots of minor variations; FAL might be what you want, as it requires:

“

You have the right to distribute copies of this work; whether modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with or without any charge, provided that you: specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the originals, including yours if you have modified the work, specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent).

”

However, I dont think the Wikisource community has agreed to accept documents contributed under FAL. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikisource community has never really formally agreed to accept documents under any specific license. We generally only ask for agreement to delete things. Is there any reason to argue that FAL fails WS:COPY?--BirgitteSB 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)

Other editions listed at Qur'an; we agreed to delete the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation in September

This is also known as the "Free Minds" translation, which is freely given away, however the PDF on their website says "Copyright © 2008 by The Monotheist Group", and it has been published in paperback by Brainbow Press (ISBN 097967154X: February 1, 2008). "The Monotheist Group" is a pen name used by the Free-Minds Organization which is an Islamic reform movement that began in 1997.

It is quite possible that this edition was explicitly put into the public domain, or under a free license, but I cant see that this was ever asserted on Wikisource or elsewhere - everyone just says "free".

Also there are a number of differences, which may be due to divergence by either Free Minds or Wikisource since it was copied (older copies are on Wayback Machine), such as:

“

1:3 The Almighty, the Merciful.. 1:4 Sovereign of the Day of Judgment.[6]

”

“

001:003 The Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. 001:004 Possessor of the Day of Judgment.Q(PMO)/1

”

“

7:206 Those who are at your Lord, they are never too proud to serve Him, and they glorify Him, and to Him they yield.[7]

”

“

007:206 Those who are at your Lord, they are never too proud to serve Him, and they glorify Him, and to Him they submit.Q(PMO)/7

”

These two pages appear to be user created content and/or facts that cant be copyrighted:

• Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)/Topic
• Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)/Index

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• The wikisource version has history going back to 2005, 3 years prior to the suggested copyright above. The 2005 version and the current version list yaqb.org as the source, which does exist but does not list a GNU compatible release or a copyright (or a translator). yaqb.org is registered to an owner in Massachusetts which I beleive means the work is copyrighted by default. It also appears that at least part of the yaqb.org source is http://www.free-minds.org/ which says "Articles and materials on this site may be reproduced, or copied and posted to other sites as long as a link is provided to www.free-minds.org or www.progressivemuslims.org", yaqb.org does not offer the link so would be in violation of the release. I don't think the release at free-minds meets GNU. I am not seeing anything suggesting that this WS version is PD. I am not familiar enough with the subject to know if there is a PD translation available, but it seems like I looked before, I am going to go look again. Jeepday (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many other editions we can put online, inc. one other that is on PG, and we are starting to work on those at Qur'an; I've moved your comment over to Talk:Qur'an#George Sale edition. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Without clear PD status or GNU release, I think we have no choice but to Delete this work from WS. Though there are several clear PD version available at Qur'an, some editor may still want to pursue finding or obtaining a GNU compatible release from free-minds.org for this version. Jeepday (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Principia Discordia

Besides this being utter blithering nonsense, there is nothing here to indicate that the author has complied with any kind of normal licensing process. It even seems that the contributor tried to blank it at one time, but that was reversed. Eclecticology (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Utter blithering nonsense is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I don't know what you mean by "any kind of normal licensing process"--since when has any of the licenses acceptable to Wikisource been part of the normal licensing process?--but (a) I think it's fairly clear that the authors intended to put it into the public domain and (b) as it was in fact first published in the United States prior to 1989 without a proper copyright notice, it has fallen into the public domain whether or not the authors so intended it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the 17th century The Farce of Sodom, or The Quintessence of Debauchery Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCrae} 14:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep, it was published four times before 1971 without copyright registration or notice, so easily falls into the {{PD-US-no-notice}} bucket. LOC still doesnt have a registration of this work! Interestingly, Kerry Thornley has one post-1978 registration, for The Anarch cookbook : a friendly guide to vampire politics OCLC:173318901^{all editions} ISBN 1565040481. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Author:Keith Olbermann

Everything on that page is taken from Olbermann's show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann. There is no evidence that his commentary is public domain or available under a licence compatible with Wikisource. There's a list of Keith Olbermann's special comments on enwiki, and a quick check of one of them shows that it says "© 2008 MSNBC Interactive" at the bottom of the page.--Shanel (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)