Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-02

=Kept=

Head of state (Referenda) Bill
=Deleted=

An Allegory about the Rich Man's Son in the Cellar
{{ closed | 1=Duplicate report, no action taken | text=

This is released under a non-derivative licence, as can be seen on the talk page:

"All material on this site is presented by the Bnei Baruch Kabbalah Education & Research Institute, for the purpose of correcting the world and improving life on Earth. Hence, all materials are permitted for use and distribution, provided the content is not changed and its origin is referenced."

The linked PDF claims "Copyright © 2008 by MICHAEL LAITMAN. All rights reserved".

Either way, we can't have it here. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Other works with identical licensing

 * Concerning the Importance of Society


 * Yep, these are all listed in the section above.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't see a copyvio, so I didn't look. Sorry about that. Closing as a dupe. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

}}

Law on Cooperatives
=Other=

Author:Clark Ashton Smith
This is a moved version of an excerpt written by Carl Lindberg, Prosfilaes and myself in another copyvio discussion that has been closed that nominates two works and in particular explains the notion of "vesting" that Carl refers to:

The Empire of the Necromancers
Both of these works first appeared in 1932 editions of Weird Tales. According to the Wikisource page for this periodical, all of the 1932 editions were both copyrighted and renewed. ResScholar (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Arguing against myself now, didn't a court case say that if there are heirs to the originator of the work, only they can renew it, not the publisher? If anyone knows off hand, let us know, otherwise I will do some checking. ResScholar (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the Copyright Office Circular 15 and Copyright_Act_of_1976 and I'm still a bit confused. My best guess, based on those and some other stuff I've read, is that contributors to a magazine can renew their own material separately ("in the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work, the author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author's executors, or in the absence of a will, his or her next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright") but if they don't it will be renewed with the periodical ("in the case of [...] of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof [...] the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work"). However if the copyright was not originally owned by proprietor, if first publication rights alone were sold, then I don't believe they could renew the copyright (source: accumulation of junk knowledge). I know that the Weird Tales files that would tell us what Weird Tales bought the copyright for and what they just bought first publication rights for have been lost.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll never know. If we ask the heirs, they'll say "we already have a preferred public domain outlet on the internet; why are you trying to chisel away at the commercial restrictions we'd like to place on all of them?". .[irrelevant section snipped] . . It's nice that our contributors like to have a complete collection of their favorite author here, but from time to time they're going to have to do their own legwork if they want that.  ResScholar (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The question may be even thornier. Apparently, renewal rights will automatically be "vested" in the publisher if the author is still alive when the initial 28-year term expires; if the author dies before then though, publishers must get the rights re-transferred from the heirs, otherwise their renewal has no effect.  Apparently there was an interesting question if the author died after the renewal application was filed but before the January 1 date where the initial term expired; it seems as though court cases went both ways.  The 1992 copyright law clarified that the rights vested upon the renewal application, but not sure that would affect things before that time.  There is a Patry article on it here giving the history, and another article here, both written because of Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC (a 2007 decision).  Some earlier cases on the basic "vesting" principle are mentioned here.  Naturally, we have this situation here -- I think the author died after the renewal was filed, but before the first term completely expired on January 1, 1962.  Thus, if authors die before the renewal applications are made, it appears that such renewals do not serve to renew the copyright in the original author's actual text, unless rights have been explicitly re-assigned by heirs (difficult to prove).  But if the original author is still alive, then it would appear that publisher's renewals are enough to keep copyright going, although (per circular 3) it may be considered to have an "erroneous name" on the copyright notice thus limiting infringement penalties if they got permission from the publisher. .[irrelevant section snipped] . .  Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then in the case of these two Weird Tales stories by Clark Ashton Smith published in August and September 1932, they were both renewed in 1960, the renewal term expired on January 1, 1961, the rights were then vested in the publisher, and then Smith died later in the year. The rights having vested in the publisher, the renewal is still valid.  Did I understand you right, Carl? ResScholar (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment was originally for another item... yes, it would appear that renewal rights would have vested in this case. Unless there is reason to believe that Smith withheld renewal rights from Weird Tales, it would seem as though this one is still under copyright.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Author:Howard Phillips Lovecraft
If you will read the relevant sections of the H.P. Lovecraft article in Wikipedia, you'll see that the copyright status of these stories is highly disputed. In addition, I am informed that the texts used are corrupt and laden with typos, etc. --Orangemike (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The status of most of his works is pretty clear. Anything published before 1923 is clearly out of copyright. Anything published without a renewal on the story or the periodical is clearly out of copyright. None of Lovecraft's stories were renewed separately; that's easily checkable from Gutenberg's renewals or The Stanford Renewal Database. In the cases where they were first published in a renewed periodical or one of Derleth's compilations, there is an arguable case. Later edited editions are still under copyright, of course; we need to stick with the text as printed in a non-renewed appearance.


 * I don't think it relevant to a copyright violation discussion to argue that the text is corrupt and laden with typos. There certainly could be a situation where a text would be so bad that we would just delete, but the few things I arbitrarily pulled up seemed to be in decent shape.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I replace The Alchemist (Lovecraft) with the first publication, and did a diff comparing that to what we had. I saw a few major single word changes; we had "black malevolence" where the original had "hatred" and elsewhere "piteous" where the original had "hideous", and consistently the original had "Comtes" for our "Count". There were a couple clear errors in our copy: "told" for "tolled", "perpetual dust" for "perpetual dusk". Both editions seem slightly confused, but in different ways, about present/past tense. There's a few preposition changes and other minor function word noise, as well as a few plural/singular changes where it didn't matter (e.g., the original had "was lifted off my shoulders" as opposed to "from my shoulder"). Lots and lots of comma changes. The overall effect isn't much, but there was difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Rats in the Walls and other of Lovecraft's fictional works
This work appeared in Weird_Tales/1924, this bibliography page showing it was copyrighted and renewed. ResScholar (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyright commentary on the bottom of the Author:Lovecraft page is confusing. The second paragraph seems to say Weird Tales was required to renew each of the six tales it owned outright separately, while the third paragraph seems to say they only needed to renew the magazine itself.  ResScholar (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyright commentary at the bottom of the page has more inconsistencies. There are 14 works mentioned by Chris Karr, not just 13.  And according to Prosfilaes, Weird Tales could have renewed the stories through a copyright renewal of the magazine, not just Lovecraft's heirs.  We need to either look at that work by Joshi and see which six were published elsewhere, or else delete any of the 14 that are here. ResScholar (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There may be less than 14, though; Karr didn't check whether Weird Tales had been renewed in each particular month between 1923 and 1926 in which each story appeared. ResScholar (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Distributed Proofreaders has gone through the Magazine Renewals and come up with a list of what was renewed for certain magazines, including Weird Tales. I'll defer to Clindberg on this, and since Lovecraft was dead by the time the renewal was need, the publisher renewal could not have covered it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It might have covered it I suppose if they re-obtained the rights from the heirs... no clue about that though. But given the stuff I read recently, a Weird Tales renewal without any action by the Lovecraft heirs would not have renewed this particular story, as renewal rights would not have "vested" in Weird Tales and would have reverted to the heirs.  And it sounds like the heirs never made any explicit renewals.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to The Black Seas of Copyright: Arkham House Publishers and the H.P. Lovecraft Copyrights, in 1947 Derleth acquired all copyrights to the Weird Tales publications from WT; no matter who you think rightfully held the copyrights at that point, that negates any possibility that Weird Tales had re-obtained the rights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is wonderfully messy. It seems clear per the vesting stuff that WT only held the original 28-year rights; anything beyond that reverted to the estate, so Derleth obtaining those WT rights would not have had a long-lasting effect.  It also means that the copyright renewal listed above had no effect whatsoever on this work -- the copyright is claimed by Weird Tales itself, and if they had transferred the rights to Lovecraft's work, they would have had no right to renew this one specifically anyways.   However... the literary executor of Lovecraft's estate was also working with Derleth it seems, so between the two, they would have had all the rights.  But, it would also seem that a separate renewal would have been required to keep those rights going beyond 28 years.  It would therefore be interesting to know if there were any renewals beyond the Weird Tales one... those would seem to be required.  It does appear that new entities exist which are trying to control publication and claim rights, but, from that article, the author has a follow-up here where he thinks that the works are indeed public domain (he asked for evidence of renewals and apparently never got responses).  There is another paper here which goes into a lot of detail as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I searched the Gutenberg renewals for Lovecraft and add the complete list of renewals for pre-1949 works mentioning HPL to Author talk:Howard Phillips Lovecraft. It's short, mostly compilations of older material and the earliest publication mentioned in a renewal was in 1939. I looked through the renewals at the Copyright Office under the HP Lovecraft name, and found a number of compilations, including Collected Poems, which claimed to renew the poetry first printed there. (Irrelevant to us, but I also saw The shadow out of time, which Brown University filed in 1995 for copyright on the original sheets (#TXu000682452). Why they accepted that, when Brown couldn't possibly have the rights, I don't know.)


 * (Prosfilaes, I have a question about your comments on those compilation renewals at the bottom of the Author:Lovecraft talk page. Perhaps you can answer it there. ResScholar (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

(The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath)

 * What are the rules on posthumous renewals? Would a separate renewal have been needed? The only piece of fiction the 1981 edition of H. P. Lovecraft: An Annotated Bibliography mentions as having been published posthumously by a periodical that renewed was The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath first published in The Arkham Sampler, which was renewed as a whole (R607400, R607401, and the last issue was renewed too). If Arkham House can make a claim on Lovecraft's copyright, then I would think they could renew Dream-Quest along with the rest of the work they owned in the periodical.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Once a valid renewal occurs, I think that is all that is needed. It's just that the renewal cannot be done by the original publisher if the author dies before the 28 years are up.  It sounds like the literary executor for Lovecraft's estate would have had rights to renew, and since he was working with Derleth (or at least letting him do what he wanted), all the Derleth renewals are arguably OK (although if that was a compilation of previously-published works, that renewal would only serve for the compilation itself, and any works first published in that volume).  Does sound like The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath is a copyvio.  There may be some question of Derleth actually having rights (as opposed to simply publishing with permission), and those rights maybe going to Lovecraft's heirs instead of Derleth's heirs, but... does look like Derleth's estate did renew some of those works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I understand this correctly, Carl and Prosfilaes: The fourteen works of fiction published in Weird Tales were not renewable by any Weird Tales renewal, because the rights had already been sold to Derleth; but Derleth may have renewed the separate stories through renewals of the 7 or so compilation volumes listed by Prosfilaes at Talk:Author:Lovecraft to which those stories may have belonged?  ResScholar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They had no rights to renew, because they never had renewal rights in the first place. They only had rights for 28 years after publication, unless they got a re-transfer of rights from Lovecraft's estate after he died (which sounds like it didn't happen).  The fact they sold the remaining portion of those 28-year rights to someone else doubly means they had no standing to renew.  Sounds like the the literary executor of Lovecraft's estate had the rights to renew stuff though.  He was working in concert with Derleth, and I think rights eventually were transferred to Derleth's Arkham House (reading up on the squabbles, it is nothing short of a soap opera).  So, it's at least quite arguable that Derleth had standing to renew.  Certainly anything previously unpublished which Derleth then used would seem to be a valid claim, and quite probably valid renewal as well.  But there has to be a valid renewal of the original WT stories 27 or 28 years after they were published; the fact that Derleth put them in a separate compilation and registered that for copyright wouldn't do it I don't think (such registration is on the compilation itself, not the contents, other than forwards, editorials, and other new content).  And of all the registrations and renewals that Prosfilaes found, none of them are in the right time frame to renew the WT stories it would seem.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These are the 13 other works: The Temple, The Moon Bog, The Outsider, The Horror at Martin’s Beach, The Hound, The Unnamable, Ashes, The Ghost Eater, The Loved-Dead, The Festival, Deaf, Dumb, and Blind, Imprisoned with the Pharaohs and He. ResScholar (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Author:Robert Ervin Howard
{{closed|1=Exported all 22 works to Canadian .--Jusjih (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)|text= I think I've finished cataloguing the copyright renewals for Weird Tales and, to my annoyance, I've found a few Robert E. Howard items that are probably still under copyright. This seemed to be the best place to list them. I am moving these to Wikilivres and listing them here as I find them (and as time allows). I actually found some a few months ago but spent some time unsuccessfully looking for some exception. Individual texts follow. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Howard died in 1936, so the publishers would not have had any renewal rights -- they never vested and reverted to Howard's estate, no matter what rights Howard gave them in his lifetime. Unless they re-obtained renewal rights from Howard's estate, the magazine renewals did not serve to renew copyright, I don't think.  I would suspect the renewals done by Mrs. P. M. Kuykendall (the apparent holder of the estate) to be the most likely valid ones.  Although... those were the ones published posthumously in the first place.  If the estate transferred renewal rights the publishers may still have had them, but given that the estate filed renewals, best guess is they only gave 28-year rights initially.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A Song Out of Midian
This poem was first published in the April 1930 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1958. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Moon of Skulls
This novella was first published in the June and July 1930 issues of Weird Tales. These issues had their copyrights renewed as a whole by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1958. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Hills of the Dead
This short story was first published in the August 1930 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1958. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kings of the Night
This short story was first published in the November 1930 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1958. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wings in the Night
This short story was first published in the July 1932 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1960. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Worms of the Earth
This short story was first published in the November 1932 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1960. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Check with Paul Herman at Robert-e-Howard.org. He has a detailed list of which Howard stories are and are not in the public domain (http://www.robert-e-howard.org/AnotherThought4rerevised.html) based on research at the Copy Right Office archives in Washington DC. It is possible that even if Steinberg filed the renewal notice, and was the owner of the Weird Tales rights, an "original registration" may not have been submitted by the time of renewal as required. Herman should be able to explain why he classified "Worms of the Earth" as public domain. -James McP

The Phoenix on the Sword
This short story was first published in the December 1932 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1960. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Arkham
This poem was first published in the August 1932 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1960. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

An Open Window
This poem was first published in the September 1932 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1960. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Footfalls Within
This short story was first published in the September 1931 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1959. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Gods of Bal-Sagoth
This short story was first published in the October 1931 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1959. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Black Stone
This short story was first published in the November 1931 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1959. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Man
This short story was first published in the December 1931 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1959. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Scarlet Citadel
This short story was first published in the January 1933 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Steinberg Press, Inc in 1960. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Tower of the Elephant
This short story was first published in the March 1933 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Blanchard Press, Inc in 1961. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Colossus
This short story was first published in the June 1933 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Blanchard Press, Inc in 1961. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Slithering Shadow
This short story was first published in the September 1933 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Blanchard Press, Inc in 1961. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Pool of the Black One
This short story was first published in the October 1933 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Blanchard Press, Inc in 1961. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogues in the House
This short story was first published in the January 1934 issue of Weird Tales. This issue as a whole had its copyright renewed by Blanchard Press, Inc in 1961. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Recompense (Howard)
This poem was first published in the November 1938 issue of Weird Tales. The copyright was renewed by Mrs. P. M. Kuykendall (holder of the Howard estate) in 1965, although she may or may not have done so properly (see "Renewal Problems" in Paul Herman's Another Thought #4. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Singer in the Mist
This poem was first published in the April 1938 issue of Weird Tales. The copyright was renewed by Mrs. P. M. Kuykendall (holder of the Howard estate) in 1965, although she may or may not have done so properly (see "Renewal Problems" in Paul Herman's Another Thought #4. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pigeons from Hell
This short story was first published in the May 1938 issue of Weird Tales. The copyright was renewed by Mrs. P. M. Kuykendall (holder of the Howard estate) in 1965, although she may or may not have done so properly (see "Renewal Problems" in Paul Herman's Another Thought #4. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC) }}