Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-06

=Kept=

Tom Swift and His Giant Telescope
=Deleted=

Address to the Saskatchewan Liberal Party
I cannot remember if there are any exemptions for Canadian political leaders, however, my gut instinct is that there is not, and if that is the case, then this work would be covered by copyright. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

=Other=

Customs of possible copyright violations
ResScholar posted the below on my talk page and, so that I can share my response with all, I thought I would post it and my response here.


 * Because of particular circumstances of Wikisource, the customs we have on this website don't correspond exactly with the sense of the deletion page notice. Because we have a large backlog of cases to deal with, the prevailing custom of Possible Copyright Violations is to use the copyvio notice as a warning and to attract the possible violator to the Copyvio page.


 * The copyright violation refers to our website policy of only hosting "free" texts, not necessarily a violation of the law. It is probably not illegal to host them here once warning has been made and they are hidden from view, as the republication would be done by an individual disregarding the warning.  In other cases it is probably even legal to post them openly, as we are, in certain specific cases, only making "fair use" of them in an academic type of setting.


 * Once the possible violator learns about the discussion page, they usually present a defense of their work, and it gets discussed by admins.


 * More often, what occurs is that an admin takes a work from our backlog, thinks about and presents the work along with reasons for deleting the work, though sometimes with the reasons implied through a sort of understood shorthand if the case is less difficult. This makes the case easier to archive since we don't know ahead of time in what month the case will be decided, and each case or whether one work or a series of similar works, can be understood independently of other cases.


 * Finally, we generally don't delete works immediately as there are factions on Wikisource who want to host more than "free" texts, and so they sometimes take the opportunity to stretch the "free" definition as far as possible. If we give them time to object, it prevents them from being able to complain later if the results aren't to their liking.


 * I hope this helps explain some of the behavior you may see at Possible Copyright Violations, and that it soothes your irritation if that is what I am seeing from you.


 * I personally appreciate the work you have done to find the works you have found that may violate the terms of "what Wikisource includes". The only other delay I should expect, apart from the one I described, is that of notifying the contributors of the removal if they wish to make a defense.  ResScholar (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you ResScholar. There is a lot to take in there. The procedure of hiding pieces from view is one I am familiar with. The concept of making "fair use" of copyright-protected pieces is something I am not familiar with.
 * On this - "More often, what occurs is that an admin takes a work from our backlog, thinks about and presents the work along with reasons for deleting the work, though sometimes with the reasons implied through a sort of understood shorthand if the case is less difficult." I hope this does not mean that the burden is on me (or other editors) to prove that a piece is in breach of copyright? Surely this should be the job of the editor who puts the material up?
 * Re ":Finally, we generally don't delete works immediately as there are factions on Wikisource who want to host more than "free" texts, and so they sometimes take the opportunity to stretch the "free" definition as far as possible. If we give them time to object, it prevents them from being able to complain later if the results aren't to their liking." My experience, for example, in respect of a good number of pieces that I previously published, was that AdminBillinghurst 'hid them' in the usual way, and then it was left for me to raise their discussion on this page. I have absolutely no problem with that approach. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate. As publisher, the work should be on me to establish the copyright position. In a few cases now, with the help of others, I have now done that. In one or two other cases, I have conceded that material I published is not copyright free and should be hidden or deleted. I am personally following AdminBillinghurst's approach in a number of other pieces where I have now 'hidden them' and am waiting for editors to raise their status on this page if they want them to be 'unhidden'.
 * Thank you for your encouragement for my work in identifying pieces that are not copyright free and then following the standard approach (like that used by Billinghurst with my own pieces in the past). You mention notifying contributors. I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. I certainly received no notification from AdminBillinghurst about most of the articles I had contributed that he had 'hidden'. Is it a requirement that before I 'hide' a piece and post a 'potential copyright violation' tag etc, that I also leave a message on the related user's talk page to that effect?
 * This is ResScholar: Allow me to interject briefly.  Unless your work was a PD-Manifesto, where a hundred works were hidden simultaneously recently, I am willing to bet that although Billinghurst placed a notice on some of your works, he did not begin a process to have them deleted here at Possible copyright violations.  We are especially careful to delay proceedings if the contributor is thought to be active, and likely to return in the near future.  Once listed here, however, an effort is usually made to contact the contibutor on their user talk  page. ResScholar (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to your interjection - what I said was "AdminBillinghurst 'hid them' in the usual way". I never said he sought to delete them. I do not know if he did or not but expect you are right and beyond hiding them, he probably proposed to take no other action (Billinghurst can presumably clarify what was his intent). Any way, he hid the articles. Thereafter, they were no longer accessible save if you go into the history log of the page and dig them out. As I say I have no problem with what Billinghurst did (and I have started helping out vis-a-vis copyright duties in a similar fashion). The tag he put on my articles reads "The contents of this page may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. The contents have been hidden and are being discussed [although they were not in fact being discussed there....but I agree with Billinghurst's approach that if a discussion is to start, it should be the publisher who starts it...the burden is on them] at Possible copyright violations, where you may add your comments. A contributor has the primary responsibility [the logic of this (in italics) is in fact that is for the contributor to start the copyright discussion] for establishing that a work may be legally included in Wikisource under the terms of its Copyright policy. Other users may make efforts to establish the validity of the text's inclusion, but they are under no obligation to do so. Failure to establish validity may result in the deletion of the text."
 * Re. "I hope this helps explain some of the behavior you may see at Possible Copyright Violations, and that it soothes your irritation if that is what I am seeing from you." Thanks again ResScholar. I appreicate your thoughtfulness and your taking the time to communicate with me. It is apprecited. Generally, I am very content with the principles (as I currently understand them) concerning how copyright rules should operate on this Website. I respect the law and have no problem with my or other person's pieces being 'hidden' (as many of my pieces were) or removed (as at least one of my pieces - currently still under discussion was). However, I am hoping for a level playing field around here. I have identified a few pieces now where I cannot 'hide' them because technically, only Admins can edit them. Yet these pieces most likely violate copyright and most certainly the burden for establishing copyright should be on the editors who contributed them. In the meantime they should be 'hidden' as my pieces were. If the position is otherwise, whether intended or not, there are two standards being applied.
 * Thanks again. Formosa (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the 2006 locked articles are, in fact, part of that ever growing backlog that was mentioned - not the intentional application of a double standard by anyone. In the years that followed, fewer and fewer requests to lock were proposed & granted as moderating and patrolling techniques were refined (eliminating the need for such "locking" I surmise). George Orwell III (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why have the locked articles that Formosa identified as probable copyvio not been tagged and hidden? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding Issues
This is a list of outstanding issues where I have received no response or an inadequate response - I am flagging these here in the hope of focussing attention back on them. Formosa (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * . In this discussion, I have asked Billinghurst why he is applying two sets of copyright rules: One standard for new works and a lower standard for existing works published on this website. Billinghurst has said that the differentiation is justified because old works have been “patrolled”. I asked him to explain on what basis he can say that they have ever been “patrolled”. After all, in many cases they are in clear breach of copyright – hence why are double standards being applied. He has given no response on this point except to say that he will “leave [me] to it.”. This is the most important discussion I have raised here.
 * – I do not know if this work is an “Edict of Government” either. Carl Lindberg thought it might be but given that Billinghurst has ‘tagged and hidden’ other similar works, I do not know if it is or is not an “Edict of Government”. Can any one answer whether it is or is not an "Edict of Government"?
 * – Whether this work is copyright-ok or not hinges, once again, on whether it is an “Edict of Government”. Billinghurst indicated that it was not but his responses contained contradictions. Can any one answer whether it is or is not an "Edict of Government"?
 * – I identified these “locked” articles as being in copyright breach. User: JeepdaySock has asked "[w]hy have the locked articles that Formosa identified as probable copyright breaches not been tagged and hidden?" He has received no response whatsoever. The articles have not been "tagged and hidden" or deleted.

Edict of Government

 * – I asked whether for something to be considered an “Edict of Government”, it must have ‘legal effects’ and must be made by a Government (i.e. that a Minister’s statement won’t do). Billinghurst says that these questions have been answered. I disagree and say that I still have no answers to these questions. Can any one decipher what the answer is?
 * – This page was “tagged and hidden” by Billinghurst. I listed it here for discussion. He has not given any reasons for why it is in violation of copyright. Whether it is or is not probably depends on whether it is a “Edict of Government”. Can any one answer whether it is or is not an "Edict of Government"?


 * The best guidance on the meaning of edicts of government is in the Copyright Compendium, which was pointed out in previous discussions. It says: Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.  So yes, the emphasis is on documents with legal effect.  Most of the works you mention there are not edicts of government by that definition, which means the U.S. Copyright Office would deem them copyrightable, as they note explicitly in a later section, and that copyright would need to expire before they can be hosted here. For recent stuff, that would not be the case, and most of the above should be deleted.  The Japanese speech is borderline-ish to me, but the rest should be deleted I think.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Carl – Thanks for that – A review should get under way as to when this “Edicts of Government “ tag is used here on Wiki. A lot of works are probably need to come down. I will start the job. Your explanation was clear to me until you said that the Japanese speech is borderline. How can it be borderline. It is not an ordinance of government etc nor does it have any legal effect. Do you disagree? Thanks. Formosa (talk)

Help:Licensing_compatibility to discuss
At this edit (and I revived the deleting edit) there is reference to Help:Licensing_compatibility. At that page it discussed UK laws, and that they do not allow non-derivative works. Now I wasn't here at that time, however, to me we should be able to host acts and regulations under PD-EdictGov. Also I haven't dug into the specific links, however, it would seem interesting if one government alone was able to lay copyright to international regulations, unless of course they are local variations of international components. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If it falls under PD-EdictGov, then yes, we can host it here. UK laws do not trump US laws, in the United States, which is the law we follow.  All Canadian/UK legislation, from whatever era, is fine here.  Commons cannot host that type of work, and non-edict items under Crown Copyright also cannot be here though.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

FINALLY!! Chapter CXXMLVI of All edicts can be a law but not all laws can be edicts released :)

(or restore in this case). - In addition to Carl's point, this UK legislation is akin to it's U.S. sister Title(s) governing the same practices in the U.S. by the United States Code and/or in the Code of Federal Regulations as ratified by the IMO membership (admittedly not 100% clear if International Maritime Organization is U.N. based or not off the top of my head). George Orwell III (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Off the top of Google search) International Maritime Organization – IMO is the United Nations' specialized agency responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships.