User talk:Lord Scantaethon

Welcome

Hello, Lord Scantaethon, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Help pages, especially for proofreading
 * Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
 * Style guide
 * Inclusion policy
 * For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in Add the code active projects, PotM or CotW to your page for current wikisource projects.
 * Proofread of the Month
 * Community collaboration
 * Requested texts

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either
 * Scriptorium; or
 * Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question.

Again, welcome!

Source and copyright for Lawrence poems
Hi Lord Scantaethon, and thank you for the contributions at How Beastly the Bourgeois Is, Worm Either Way, and Swan.

However, I notice that you have not provided any information about the source of these poems (which edition of which book, magazine, etc.) or licensing (copyright) information. All works on Wikisource must be from an identified source and have a clearly determined copyright status.

We also generally prefer individual works, such as poems, to exist in the context in which they were published and be backed by a scan of that publication. In particular, if your source for these poems is a book our preferred method of adding it here is to first upload a scan of the whole book (provided it is out of copyright), creating an index, transcribing ("proofreading" in Wikisource parlance) the pages, and then finally transcluding the pages that make up each poem into the main namespace. You can find some guidance for this at Help:Adding texts, and you obviously are not required to proofread the entire book.

Please let me know if you have questions or need assistance. You can also post questions at Scriptorium/Help, our central location for asking for assistance from the community. --Xover (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I notice you've added publication and license info for these texts. Thank you!However, now that the publication information is clear this raises a new issue. So far as I can determine, Pansies was first published in the UK in 1929 and as such was subject to the UK copyright protection for 70 years after the death of the author. Its UK copyright thus did not expire until 2000 (1930+70). This means that it was in copyright in the UK on the URAA date in 1996, and thus its US copyright was set according to US rules. In the US, such works are protected by copyright for 95 years after first publication; meaning this work's US copyright will not expire until the end of 2024 (1929+95).Under Wikisource's copyright policy we can some times host works which are in copyright in other countries so long as it is in the public domain in the US. However, we can in no circumstances host works which are not in the public domain in the US (where the Wikimedia Foundation is based). In other words, unless there is an error in my analysis above, we cannot host this work here. Sorry. --Xover (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Xovier


 * The UK copyright Law was only extended from the author’s life plus 50 years to the author's life plus 70 years in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; therefore, Pansies would have entered the public domain in 1980, 50 years after D. H. Lawrence’s death in 1930, and so is in the public domain in the US.


 * Lord Scantaethon (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Lord Scantaethon. I've copied your message from my talk page to here in order to keep the discussion together in one place. I have your talk page watchlisted so I will notice if you reply here; or if you would like to attract my attention specifically you can use on any page (will generate a notification to me).The term of copyright protection previous to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was indeed just 50 years after the death of the author, and expired copyrights were not affected by the 1988 act. However, it was amended by the The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 act which was made retroactive and restored copyright in any work which was protected by copyright anywhere in the EEA (i.e. including any country with 70+-year copyright term and copyright relations with the UK). Thus, when the 1995 act came into force it restored the copyright protections for Pansies until 2000, and this was the state of affairs prevailing on the URAA date (1 January 1996 for the UK). There is a handy flowchart here that can be used for quick and dirty determination of copyright status of UK works. --Xover (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Xovier. My apologies for uploading the copyrighted content. I was originally under the impression that once a work had entered the public domain, it could no longer be copyrighted again. Could you please delete the pages from Wikisource. Lord Scantaethon (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Copyright is hard and often appears to make little sense, so getting it right is a major challenge. In this case, it was extra confusing since normally, as you say, once something has entered the public domain it should be free to use. That the UK made their new terms retroactive in 1995, and the US situation where the URAA restores copyright in works that were previously in the public domain and does not apply the "rule of the shortest term", makes for a very frustrating situation for anyone working within the free culture movement.Instead of deleting these texts outright I am going to list them for discussion at our central community noticeboard for copyright issues (Copyright discussions) just on the off chance that someone will be able to find some factor we haven't considered that will let us keep these texts (and other works by Lawrence that we have previously had to delete). I don't quite see what that could be, but I figure it's worth a shot.Thanks for your contributions, even if we ultimately couldn't keep them, and I hope you stick around! If you're interested in poetry we have some pretty glaring gaps in that area that would be wonderful to fill. And please don't hesitate to ping me if you need help with anything, copyright-related or otherwise! --Xover (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope
Please don't move works like that. We publish editions of works, and if that is the edition which someone says that they were contained, then that is where they stay unless there is a clear error. If you wish to submit an earlier edition of a similar work, then you are most welcome to do so. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , When I originally created Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I/The Partial Muse, Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I/Written at the Close of Spring, and Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I/To a Nightingale and added the source for Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I/To the Moon and Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I/To Sleep, it was my belief that they were first published in Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I; however, I later discovered that the collection was originally called Elegiac Sonnets and Other Essays and published in 1784. The problem is, that although later editions contained most of the original work:


 * in the third edition (1786) the name was changed to Elegiac Sonnets, some sonnets were added and some other poems were removed
 * in the fifth edition (1789) some more sonnets were added
 * in the sixth edition (1792) more sonnets and other poems were added
 * in the eighth edition (1797) the name was changed to Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems
 * So I was wondering how I should display this as creating a page for each one separately would cause duplicates of all the poems? Lord Scantaethon (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was basing off one work from 2005 that is untranscluded. I now see there has been a series of moves, some look to have been prematurely undertaken, as there were many editions. Duplicates are fine, we exist for all versions, there is no one truth. Taking some steps back &hellip; let us work with the edition that we have in front of us as when we work with scans, we work to a truth, whereas some earlier additions were less documented in their origin. I suggest that we work on your scan additions as a root page (edition) with its subpages (edition's versions) and for the moment, ignore the pre-existing versions. I think that we should manage those aside from your work s we have means to disambiguate versions of works. [Bit stretched for time to e more thorough and sort it all now.  For moment I suggest that you proofread/transcribe, nad we can fix the main namespace presentations in a bit. Have a glance at Versions — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have some support required, and some page moves, and I have scant time this weekend. The root page is currently more encyclopaedic than set for versions, so suggest that this more complex situation needs our closer support. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * what are we aiming for here? It looks like we want the following:
 * A list of editions of Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I—this would go at Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems Volume I (or whatever the most common name of the work is)
 * A list of poems that were published in Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems—this would go at Author:Charlotte Turner Smith
 * One or more scan-backed editions of Elegiac Sonnets and Other Poems containing the text of the poems themselves
 * What part of this would you like me to assist with? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, there has been nine editions of Elegiac Sonnets, most of which I have scans of. In subsequent editions, the sonnets in the original were left mostly alone, while others were added. If I was to create a separate page for each edition of each poem, then they would be exactly the same. How should I show this? Lord Scantaethon (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an example:
 * Catholic Hymns is a work which we have two editions of:
 * A First Series of Hymns and Songs/Catholic Hymns is the first edition, published 1853 as part of the book A First Series of Hymns and Songs.
 * Catholic Hymns (1860) is the second edition, published 1860 as its own book.
 * "The last Farewell (Caswall)" is a poem that is published in both editions of Catholic Hymns.
 * A First Series of Hymns and Songs/Catholic Hymns/The last Farewell is the copy of this poem in the 1853 edition
 * Catholic Hymns (1860)/The last Farewell is the copy of the poem in the 1860 edition
 * I also made a list at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Catholic Hymns of all the poems that are in both works, which may be a useful reference for you, but of course you do not have to do this yourself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is another example:
 * Oxford Book of English Verse is a work which we have two editions of:
 * Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900 is the 1931 edition
 * Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918 is the 1940 edition
 * "Alison" is a poem that is published in both editions of Oxford Book of English Verse:
 * Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900/Alison is the copy of this poem in the 1931 edition
 * Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918/Alison is the copy of this book in the 1940 edition
 * —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thank you