Talk:Nobel Lecture Physics 1918

Is the date correct? It is the same as given for the 1919 lecture.PaulinSaudi 05:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)]]

Some of the prices where awarded a year late, and as far as I remember, the 1918 and 1919 prices in physics were awarded the same year. I don't know if the date for these lectures is correct, but I believe they do coincide. Christian S 19:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

possible copyvio?
Didn't want to jump to any conclusions, but as I was checking to see if I could post William Faulkner's (excellent) nobel prize acceptance speech to Wikisource, I found this copyright info page on the official Nobel Foundation web site. Towards the bottom of that page it reads, in part: "To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a Presentation Speech or a Biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation." So this article might be a copyvio.

However, it might be legal to post it here because on another section of their site we learn about their annual publication Les Prix Nobel which contains speeches and lectures etc. given at the awards ceremony. And I'm thinking that if its published annually, then it was published before 1923 and therefore this lecture/speech could be in the U.S. public domain. And then again, maybe the original contributor of this post had a source other than the official nobel website or something... So basically, it looks a little confusing. Any thoughts?

p.s. - to clear up the date questions above, on the same site it tells us that the speech was given June 1, 1920; the prize was announced November 13, 1919; and it was for Physics in the year 1918. It seems that nothing about this thing is very clear :) -  Biggins 05:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * My first impression is that we should be safe under US copyright law to reprint anything published before 1923. Publicly presenting a speech would be a form of publication.  Under German law, since Planck died in 1947 his works would not come into the public domain until 2017.  I have not searched for the death date of the person who made the presentation speech.  Eclecticology 06:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Does the 1923 rule apply to all texts regardless of the country in which it was published, or only to texts published in the US? The Nobel Foundation is located in Sweden, and if the annual publications were published there but not in the US, the death year + 70 rule would apply. In that case we should ask for permission. Christian S 09:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a real hornet's nest, and after rummaging about for the last few hours, I can assure you that I'm not much further ahead. One somewhat helpful site is http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm .  To what extant US formalities may have been followed remains an open question, and it would be difficult to acertain that without seeing it.  There was also an English version published in Oxford in 1922.  Ekstrand (1846 - 1933) is now in the public domain in Sweden.


 * Seeking permissions does not appear to be a productive approach. Their notice suggests that permissions are not given for inclusion on internet sites.  Even if they were given, it is not likely to be compatible with a FDL.  If it turns out that the copyrights are no longer valid we don't need the premission anyway.  We should give ourselves the benefit of the doubt.  This is especially the case with pre 1923 material.  We should, however, develop a copyright impairment notice for use when the copyright status in other countries is uncertain.


 * I would not support a reckless use of this kind of material with an uncertain status, and other users who try to do so should be prepared to make a case. Eclecticology 04:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The page you refer to states that the text is in the PD if US formalities were followed. Does that imply that the text is not PD if these formalities (whatever they are) were not followed? Personally I would prefer not to publish texts here which are not known to be in the public domain in at least one of the countries in which it was published, even if US law states that it is PD in the US. In this case that would mean deletion of the text by Planck, unless it was published in US before 1923. Does anybody know whether or not that is the case? Removing material with an uncertain status until the time when one of the editions becomes PD in the country where it was published, or permission from the copyright owner is granted, is the safest way to avoid any copyright problems. Christian S 18:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've put the issue on the mailing list, and will see what happens there before commenting further. Based on the above discussion, the related articles for physics prizes for 1902, 1912, 1919 and 1921 are also affected.  Zeema's lecture is the oldest affected one for any prize.  Eclecticology