Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2008-10

=Kept=

=Kept in part/Deleted in part=

=Deleted=

The Religion of God
This was previously discussed at WS:DEL (Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/09), where it was found to be copyright. It was deleted as follows: 16:36, 31 August 2007 BirgitteSB (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Religion of God" ‎ (Per WS:DEL consensus) (restore).

The submitter previously nominated it for featured text status, with the following discussion: (copied from WS:FTC)

The Religion of God is considered as a very important book of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on spiritualism. Originally this book was written in urdu, however, translated by International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam in many languages including English, French, Hindi, Sindhi, Arabic etc. In this book Gohar Shahi revealed the path to attain Divine Love of God. I have checked in all the aspects and in my view this can be one of the Featured texts on wikisource.--Iamsaa 05:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont see any evidence that this work is covered by the GFDL and the Wikipedia artice about the translator (International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) has just recently been deleted at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. The deleted article did not mention "Religion of God".
 * This work was last discussed at Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/09, where it was deleted. I didn't notice this when I patrolled it being created.
 * Without clear evidence of being GFDL, it can not be featured. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This books is a GFDL and it's been taged on its page as well. Moreover, International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, which was founded by His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, has given permission for all material of ASI to be used however, attribution to the author is a condition. I think this book is one of the most important work of Gohar Shahi and has been translated into many languages. I think it should be considered as one of the featured text on Wikisource.--Iamsaa 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Being tagged as GFDL is not sufficient. We need the copyright holder to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with a clear statement that the work has been released under the terms of the GFDL.  Email permissions@wikimedia.org to begin this discussion.  Also, we need proof that the original work was published in urdu in print.  Does it have an ISBN? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you that it is not yet popular in Pakistan to secure an ISBN, however, here you can see the proof of this books, moreover, you can also see here another evidence that this book was printed. Further, if you want I can arrange an email from International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam to be sent to you regarding GFDL.--Iamsaa 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, now we are getting somewhere. this says "The first edition of the book was published in January 2000 in the United States with the joint cooperation of RAGS International, London, the American Sufi Institute, and the All-Faith Spiritual Movement Northern Ireland."  Do you know what language that edition was written in ?  Could you find out how many copies were printed?  The copyright of the original is owned by the author, and it is only the author (or their estate) who can grant the work under free license. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of this book is Deen-e-Illahi (in English The Religion of God), orignally it was printed in Urdu and the quantity of the book when printed for the first time was 50,000. The RAGS International, London, the American Sufi Institute, and the All-Faith Spiritual Movement Northern Ireland are the sub-branches of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam for missionary activities abroad. International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam holds the rights for this book, which can be viewed here. I hope now you may consider this book as a feature text. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to ask.--Iamsaa 05:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)}}

However, page linked to by the contributor has:

First Edition January 2000

All rights reserved.

On it, and no notice that the text is released under the terms of the GNU Free Document license. I've alerted both User:Iamsaa and User:Jayvdb on their talk pages. Jude (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are waiting for an email to permissions@wikimedia.org. If it does not come, then we do not have a right to redistribute this work. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 05:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bookofjude has told me about OTRS ticket 2007042410006911, regarding an English Wikipedia matter. I have emailed user Iamsaa and also the person that raised the OTRS ticket. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said earlier many times again I would like to say that there's not violation of copy rights as I am the Office Bearer of ASI and I take full responsibility of the contents. I think a reply to John's email has already been sent by our Press & Information Section. Kindly don't remove this book.--Iamsaa (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If, and only if, the following conditions are met,
 * 1) You are the copyright holder of this work and you can prove it.
 * 2) You fully understand what releasing a work under the terms on the GNU Free Document license means. (It means that the work becomes freely redistributable by anyone, so long as the page history is kept intact; and it can be changed and edited by anyone. It can even be sold.)
 * then follow the directions here. They are mainly directed towards Wikipedia users requesting permission, but the "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" boilerplate is appropriate. Email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Jude (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the concerns about this text also apply to Menara-e-Noor? Ha! (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't very clear, but yes; this concern applies to any and all texts by Author:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi that are uploaded to Wikisource. Jude (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A single OTRS ticket should save all the works however, as long as the Press office complies and sends that eMail. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer 09:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted. I have spent considerable time pestering OTRS people to check to see if a permissions form has been emailed through; there has been none, and based on this, and the fact that without such a release, there is considerable doubt that the text is GFDL licensed, I have removed it for the time being. If a permissions form is email and it all checks out, the text (including Menara-e-Noor and other works by the same author) may be restored. Jude (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Catullus 75
A copy of this. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; "© copyright 5-12-1997 by Greg Drudy", no indication of a free release. Giggy (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the assertion of copyright provided by Giggy above. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyright violation. FloNight (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Giggy (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

LDS Endowment
Two new pages: No evidence given that they would be PD. See also this. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LDS Endowment 1984
 * LDS Endowment 1990


 * Agree. Any  document dated 1984 needs to assumed copyright until there is evidence that it is otherwise.--Birgitte SB  00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyright violation. For contemporary works, we need to start from the presumption of the work being under copyright since the letter and spirit of copyright laws around the world make most contemporary works have copyright restrictions. FloNight (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The two ceremonies are certainly copyrighted under U.S. law, and simple wholesale copying of the entire text is almost certainly not a fair use, even though the text has in fact been published by third parties such as here without repercussions, likely because the LDS Church would not want to bring a lawsuit on this issue and subject its ceremonies to full litigation discovery. --COGDEN (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikisource has no fair-use policy on text. The texts are clearly copyrighted. Regardless of whether or not we would have legal action taken against us specifically, we cannot host copyrighted text unless it is freely licensed. Delete. Jude (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Giggy (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

=Withdrawn=