Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2007-05

Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms
On the discussion page of this treatise, there is a link to its source, some psychology archive web page. The archive says the translation of Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms into English was first published in 1938 as part of a book, A Source Book in Gestalt Psychology. This source book went through subsequent editions some later than 1967, so in all probability the copyright was renewed in order to retain profits on the editions appearing 29 years later. Therefore I suggest this contribution be removed. 216.165.199.50 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nom. The Stanford index has no record of this book having its copyright renewed, and according to the Wikipedia Copyright law of the United Kingdom, works published before 1988 get a term of no more than 50 years, so the copyright expired at the latest in 1938+50=1988.

Pericles's Funeral Oration
This page, an excerpt from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, gives the translator's name as Rex Warner. Warner's translation is still in copyright and published by Penguin. Unfortunately I can't locate my copy of Thucydides to confirm that this page is a copy of the Warner translation; but if it is this appears to be a copyright violation. Akhilleus 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is clearly the translation by Benjamin Jowett from 1881. :) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Pinocchio
This translation was done in 1926 according to the page. Not likely Public Domain, but the source link doesn't doesn't any info. --Metal.lunchbox 05:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I found 2 english versions of this story on Gutenberg including the one here, so I'll just assume it's PD. --Metal.lunchbox 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Kept as a Gutenburg edition--Birgitte SB  18:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A Vision (Tyutchev)
The translator for this work is Yevgeny Bonver, who according to this site seems to be very much alive and doesn't seem to have released the works into the public domain or licensed them.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Leech
Text appears to be copied from this web site, which includes an express copyright notice at the bottom of the page. —Tarmstro99 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

John Sawers' Iran letter
This is a leaked document, by a living UK civil servant, originally published in the Times. I suspect it is copyvio and falls under crown copyright, though the poster has some justifications on the talk page. AllanHainey 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nutuk
This speech, while given a while ago, was probably translated into English. Either way, I can't discern any license info about it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Brave New World
Has been added again following prior discussion at Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007/04. Perhaps an admin should protect the page? —Tarmstro99 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted and protected. This is the fifth time this page was deleted.--GrafZahl (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Civilization? and Seven Lies About Civilization
Previously deleted as copyvios, see Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007/01. Nothing to indicate that their copyright status has changed since that time or that the original creators have released them under a GFDL-compatible license. That these articles are available on other Web sites proves nothing about their present copyright status. —Tarmstro99 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to indicate that their copyright status has changed Yes it has. The conditions have changed.


 * Regarding the Seven Lies About Civilization you will find in the discussion section the following explanation:


 * This article was previously deleted for lack of the author's permission that indicated this work as of public care. I have since found the following statement in his official website, on section "donate", "I believe that only a gift economy is spiritually sustainable, and I want to feed the gift economy as much as I can, so as long as my expenses are low, I'd rather not "publish" my writing (put it in a form where payment is required), but give it away free and accept whatever payments people feel good about." 85.138.152.7 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons The reason provided for the deletion of this article was the fact that it was not found a declaration in the website of the author, or anywhere else for that matter, that would allow to be considered free to public.


 * Regarding the Why Civilization?, please note that it is not the same text as the one which was deleted. This work is a communiqué found on a public place, with the proper explanation on the top of the page. It is not a copy of the article as it was found on the magazine, where it was published. Since this communiqué was published and was released into public, I thought it was suitable for wikisource.89.155.14.81 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * why were these articles deleted without any discussion?... Can someone please address the arguments above?89.155.14.52 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for deleting these without discussion; they were tagged for speedy deletion, so I was not aware that there was a new discussion. For the record, the discussion pages stated the following:


 * Note that availability from publicly accessible locations does not automatically void copyright, that many websites do not have consistent or honest copyright policies, and that texts must be published in a notable form (independently reviewed books, magazines, important speeches, et cetera). Wikisource requires that works be explicitly released under a license compatible with the Copyright policy, or that they fall into the public domain. The statement on the donation page is not an explicit release, and would not stand up in a court. Further, it merely implies reading, not any of the other required freedoms. — {admin} Pathoschild 01:17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the communiqué of public domain? The authors have left it in a public place so that most people could read it. It’s my understanding that communiqués and manifestos from political groups, such as this, can be broadcast publicly. And since a magazine with worldwide circulation has paid attention to it and published it, isn’t the communiqué suitable for wikisource?89.155.14.52 11:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not. The situation you describe implies that it may be distributed freely, but does not release any other required right such as use, modification, and exploitation by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed by the copyright policy). — {admin} Pathoschild 19:15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But isn't that what I am doing? Aren't I "distributing freely" the communiqué? I did not modify the text, I am not exploiting it for commercial benefit or any other. I am just making a text that was made available to public to be even more available.89.155.14.52 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. By placing the work on Wikisource, you agree that the work has all the required freedoms and that it is compatible with the Gnu Free Documentation License, under which anyone can use Wikisource content. — {admin} Pathoschild 20:17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Silken Tent, etc.
A few inches above, someone flagged "A Road not Taken" as a possible copyvio. The Silken Tent was published in 1942. I don't agree with the reasoning made by User:Tarmstro99 that a work only gets 56 years. Wasn't Winnie the Pooh copyrighted in the 1920s, and then had its copyright extended 28 years, then an additional 28 years, then another 19 years? If I'm right, Frost's 1923 works don't belong on Wikisource either (even though they are here), because all pre-1978 works got extended another 20 years in 1998. 216.165.199.50 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A work published in 1942 would most likely still be under copyright in the United States, assuming a proper renewal application was filed after the expiration of the initial 28-year term (in 1970). The rule in the U.S. is not that copyright in pre-1978 works always lasts 56 years, and I apologize if my comments above left that misimpression.  Indeed, I think I stated in my comments that the second copyright term had actually been extended beyond the initial 28 years.  (But the 56-year total — two terms of 28 years each — did apply to The Road Not Taken, which was published in 1916).  Works published before 1978 are subject to the two-term framework; the first term is always 28 years, but the length of the second term has been extended twice by Congress.  For works still in copyright as of 1/1/1978, the second term was lengthened by 19 years (from 28 to 47).  And for any of those works still in copyright in 1998, the second term was lengthened again, by 20 years, to a total of 67.  The effect of all of this, once you work through the math, is that
 * copyright in works published in the U.S. in 1921 or earlier ran out 56 years after publication; they came too soon to benefit from the 19-year extension adopted effective 1/1/1978.
 * Copyright in works published in the U.S. in 1922 ran out in 1997 (=1922+28+47); they came too soon to benefit from the further 20-year extension adopted in 1998.
 * Copyright in works published in the U.S. in 1923 or later may still be valid, depending on whether a timely renewal application was filed.
 * (A renewal application is no longer needed for works published 1964-1977; those are automatically renewed. Works created on or after 1/1/1978 aren't subject to the whole first-term/second-term framework at all — instead, copyright in those works lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years). —Tarmstro99 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's surprising to me, because I thought the 1978 19-year extension applied retroactively. Well it's a moot question now.

This helpful clarification by Tarmstro strengthens the case for the removal of Frost's 1923 works as well as the 1942 work because it's absolutely inconceivable to me that a poet who won four Pulitzer Prizes would not renew his copyrights, anticipating continued earnings based on a well-established reputation.

So please permit me to list Frost's works with the well-grounded suspicion of retaining their copyrights:

In Hardwood Groves -                 1930 Design                               1923 Fire and Ice                         1923 In a Disused Graveyard               1923 Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening 1923 For Once, Then, Something            1923 Nothing Gold Can Stay                1923 The Hardship of Accounting           1936 The Silken Tent                      1942

216.165.199.50 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The copyright term extensions enacted effective 1978 and 1998 were retroactive — that is to say, they applied to previously published works, not only to works published after the respective legislative enactments. But what they did not apply to were works that had already fallen into the public domain as of 1978 and 1998, respectively.  They retroactively extended the duration of existing copyrights, but they did not restore copyright in any work that had already lost it.


 * Checking the Stanford Copyright Renewal database for the cited works shows the following:


 * {|class="wikitable"

! Collection !! Date !! Poems Included !! Renewal status !! Renewal ID number
 * New Hampshire || 1923 || Design, Fire and Ice, In a Disused Graveyard, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, For Once, Then, Something, Nothing Gold Can Stay || renewed 1951 by Robert Frost || R83504
 * A Boy’s Will (revised) || 1934 || In Hardwood Groves || renewed 1962 by Robert Frost || R291387
 * A Witness Tree || 1942 || The Silken Tent || renewed 1969 by Lesley Frost Ballantine ||  	 R464848
 * }
 * A Witness Tree || 1942 || The Silken Tent || renewed 1969 by Lesley Frost Ballantine ||  	 R464848
 * }
 * }


 * I could not find publication information for The Hardship of Accounting, but the others would appear to be clear copyvios and should be deleted. —Tarmstro99 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, back in 1989, I was wanting to make photocopies of Frost's works from 1916, but didn't because I thought that since the term was 75 years, I would have to wait until 1991. Thanks Tarmstro for your explanation and research.  I checked the Stanford Database myself and found "Hardship of Accounting" from the book A Further Range (1936) here.  (Renewal Status:  renewed 1963 by Lesley Frost Ballantine, Renewal ID number:  R317269) 216.165.199.50 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted --Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Right to Read
Transwikied from en:Wikipedia, but not a free text as defined under WS:WWI. It includes an express copyright notice (dated 1996) and authorizes only verbatim copying, not the preparation of derivative works. —Tarmstro99 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Amr Khaled’s Message to the World regarding the Danish Cartoons
This work includes an express copyright notice and the following text: “This Article may be published and duplicated freely for private purposes, as long as the original source is mentioned. For all other purposes you need to obtain the prior written approval of the website administration.” Issuance under the GFDL (which allows commercial, not merely private, use) would appear to exceed the scope of this license. —Tarmstro99 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, agreed, he mentions that in some cases you need written approval, thus it's too narrow to include here. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Doctrine and Covenants:Explanatory Introduction
Appears to be taken from this page, which includes an express notice “© 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.” The accompanying license page states that only “personal, noncommercial use” is allowed and also provides, “You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission.”  This “explanatory introduction” page appears to be a more recent, still-copyright work than the actual text of The Doctrine and Covenants, which is (properly) hosted here under PD-1923. —Tarmstro99 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard mcbeef
Leaving aside the question of poor taste, the copyright issue here is open-and-shut. This is a work created in the U.S. after 1/1/1978 by an author who died in 2007. Under, copyright will expire 70 years after the author’s death, in 2077. —Tarmstro99 20:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Yup, definitely a copy-vio where Seung-hui's family could launch an injunction with ease. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Silken Tent, etc.
A few inches above, someone flagged "A Road not Taken" as a possible copyvio. The Silken Tent was published in 1942. I don't agree with the reasoning made by User:Tarmstro99 that a work only gets 56 years. Wasn't Winnie the Pooh copyrighted in the 1920s, and then had its copyright extended 28 years, then an additional 28 years, then another 19 years? If I'm right, Frost's 1923 works don't belong on Wikisource either (even though they are here), because all pre-1978 works got extended another 20 years in 1998. 216.165.199.50 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A work published in 1942 would most likely still be under copyright in the United States, assuming a proper renewal application was filed after the expiration of the initial 28-year term (in 1970). The rule in the U.S. is not that copyright in pre-1978 works always lasts 56 years, and I apologize if my comments above left that misimpression.  Indeed, I think I stated in my comments that the second copyright term had actually been extended beyond the initial 28 years.  (But the 56-year total — two terms of 28 years each — did apply to The Road Not Taken, which was published in 1916).  Works published before 1978 are subject to the two-term framework; the first term is always 28 years, but the length of the second term has been extended twice by Congress.  For works still in copyright as of 1/1/1978, the second term was lengthened by 19 years (from 28 to 47).  And for any of those works still in copyright in 1998, the second term was lengthened again, by 20 years, to a total of 67.  The effect of all of this, once you work through the math, is that
 * copyright in works published in the U.S. in 1921 or earlier ran out 56 years after publication; they came too soon to benefit from the 19-year extension adopted effective 1/1/1978.
 * Copyright in works published in the U.S. in 1922 ran out in 1997 (=1922+28+47); they came too soon to benefit from the further 20-year extension adopted in 1998.
 * Copyright in works published in the U.S. in 1923 or later may still be valid, depending on whether a timely renewal application was filed.
 * (A renewal application is no longer needed for works published 1964-1977; those are automatically renewed. Works created on or after 1/1/1978 aren't subject to the whole first-term/second-term framework at all — instead, copyright in those works lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years). —Tarmstro99 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's surprising to me, because I thought the 1978 19-year extension applied retroactively. Well it's a moot question now.

This helpful clarification by Tarmstro strengthens the case for the removal of Frost's 1923 works as well as the 1942 work because it's absolutely inconceivable to me that a poet who won four Pulitzer Prizes would not renew his copyrights, anticipating continued earnings based on a well-established reputation.

So please permit me to list Frost's works with the well-grounded suspicion of retaining their copyrights:

In Hardwood Groves -                 1930 Design                               1923 Fire and Ice                         1923 In a Disused Graveyard               1923 Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening 1923 For Once, Then, Something            1923 Nothing Gold Can Stay                1923 The Hardship of Accounting           1936 The Silken Tent                      1942

216.165.199.50 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The copyright term extensions enacted effective 1978 and 1998 were retroactive — that is to say, they applied to previously published works, not only to works published after the respective legislative enactments. But what they did not apply to were works that had already fallen into the public domain as of 1978 and 1998, respectively.  They retroactively extended the duration of existing copyrights, but they did not restore copyright in any work that had already lost it.


 * Checking the Stanford Copyright Renewal database for the cited works shows the following:


 * {|class="wikitable"

! Collection !! Date !! Poems Included !! Renewal status !! Renewal ID number
 * New Hampshire || 1923 || Design, Fire and Ice, In a Disused Graveyard, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, For Once, Then, Something, Nothing Gold Can Stay || renewed 1951 by Robert Frost || R83504
 * A Boy’s Will (revised) || 1934 || In Hardwood Groves || renewed 1962 by Robert Frost || R291387
 * A Witness Tree || 1942 || The Silken Tent || renewed 1969 by Lesley Frost Ballantine ||  	 R464848
 * }
 * A Witness Tree || 1942 || The Silken Tent || renewed 1969 by Lesley Frost Ballantine ||  	 R464848
 * }
 * }


 * I could not find publication information for The Hardship of Accounting, but the others would appear to be clear copyvios and should be deleted. —Tarmstro99 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, back in 1989, I was wanting to make photocopies of Frost's works from 1916, but didn't because I thought that since the term was 75 years, I would have to wait until 1991. Thanks Tarmstro for your explanation and research.  I checked the Stanford Database myself and found "Hardship of Accounting" from the book A Further Range (1936) here.  (Renewal Status:  renewed 1963 by Lesley Frost Ballantine, Renewal ID number:  R317269) 216.165.199.50 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted --<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Right to Read
Transwikied from en:Wikipedia, but not a free text as defined under WS:WWI. It includes an express copyright notice (dated 1996) and authorizes only verbatim copying, not the preparation of derivative works. —Tarmstro99 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Amr Khaled’s Message to the World regarding the Danish Cartoons
This work includes an express copyright notice and the following text: “This Article may be published and duplicated freely for private purposes, as long as the original source is mentioned. For all other purposes you need to obtain the prior written approval of the website administration.” Issuance under the GFDL (which allows commercial, not merely private, use) would appear to exceed the scope of this license. —Tarmstro99 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, agreed, he mentions that in some cases you need written approval, thus it's too narrow to include here. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

John L. Spivak
This page consists includes two works: a short excerpt from a book published in 1998, and a much longer excerpt from a magazine article published in 1935. The book excerpt is clearly still under copyright. The magazine excerpt may still be under copyright also, provided that a renewal application was filed. No license information appears on the page. Although it may not be necessary to delete the entire page, at least the excerpt from the 1998 book likely should be. —Tarmstro99 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any comments on the magazine portion in particular?--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted.—<font style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">Zhaladshar <font style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">(Talk) 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A rose for emily
1930 short story by William Faulkner --<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this source, "A Rose for Emily" appeared in Faulkner collection called These 13 published in 1931. According to the Stanford copyright database, the copyright for the collection was renewed in 1959 (Renewal ID R234908), making it not eligible to enter the public domain until 2026.  216.165.199.50 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Deleted.—<font style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">Zhaladshar <font style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">(Talk) 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard mcbeef
Leaving aside the question of poor taste, the copyright issue here is open-and-shut. This is a work created in the U.S. after 1/1/1978 by an author who died in 2007. Under, copyright will expire 70 years after the author’s death, in 2077. —Tarmstro99 20:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Yup, definitely a copy-vio where Seung-hui's family could launch an injunction with ease. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Doctrine and Covenants:Explanatory Introduction
Appears to be taken from this page, which includes an express notice “© 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.” The accompanying license page states that only “personal, noncommercial use” is allowed and also provides, “You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission.”  This “explanatory introduction” page appears to be a more recent, still-copyright work than the actual text of The Doctrine and Covenants, which is (properly) hosted here under PD-1923. —Tarmstro99 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

On the Use and Disadvantage of History for Life
This translation is copyrighted including the following imcompatible language: Commercial publication of any of the material in book form is prohibited, without the written permission of the author or translator. --<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can be copied to Wikilivres.info. Yann 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I copied the text to http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/On_the_Use_and_Disadvantage_of_History_for_Life Yann 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hanged Men Dance
Translation under copyright Source: ''Rimbaud, Arthur. "The Hanged Men Dance" as translated by Paul Schmidt, "Arthur Rimbaud Complete Works." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. New York, NY. 1975. (p. 26-27).--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB '' 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * omg, I wrote Paul Schmidt's wiki article ages ago...I wonder if this is the same (translator) Schmidt? Anyways, that's kinda cute :)  Oh, and delete Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted.—<font style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">Zhaladshar <font style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">(Talk) 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)