Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2013-04

=Kept=

St. John's Eve (Kochanowski)
=Deleted=

At Bukovyna
{{closed|delete all works per Administrators'_noticeboard. Jeepday (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |text= Hi. What is the value of such statement (which is present also on other works recently added by the same IP)?
 * (* @ Copyright – free published replication only for English publications or books;


 * for Romanian publications or books, only by a written approval from the translator)


 * translated by M.-M. Khesapeake

I could not find any trace of M.-M. Khesapeake, except here and on Wikipidia as translator of Mihai Eminescu, where the same IP started adding content and reference to these translations [see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mihai_Eminescu&direction=next&oldid=530214856]. Should I speculate, I would say this translator is the IP itself.--Mpaa (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just removed that text from Wikipedia since the license A) isn't verifiable (I don't know how that's handled here at Wikisource, but we generally require OTRS at Wikipedia), and B) isn't free enough. Among other things, we can't accept terms which require written approval from the translator. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the IP is the translator. See this talk at enWP.--Mpaa (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, they claim to be the translator which certainly appears to be supported by their insistence on restoring the information. If the standard here is to just AGF and take them at their word (and honestly I don't know what OTRS would get us since there doesn't appear to be an official webpage for them), then wouldn't the appropriate course of action be to just remove their additional claim of copyright since it's more restrictive than the dual-licensing they already agreed to when they saved the page? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * {{done}} I've boldly removed their claim to additional restrictions, since they agreed to the Terms of Use and freer licensing at the time they created the pages. If they have a problem with that then I suppose they can always recant their claim to being the translator and then the pages can be deleted as copyright violations. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverted removal of copyright claim, and added {{tl|copyvio}}. As it is unclear if the IP adding the work was the owner of the copyright or was reflecting an existing copyright, we can not assume that they have the lawful ability to enter the work on Wikisource with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged the related works as well, clearly a lack of understanding of copyright law exists here.

Related works
Also tagged as copyvio
 * The Vesper
 * What is the Amour
 * Aside_the_No-pair_Poplars...
 * The Tale of Johnny the Stupid
 * Dear little-Sheeple
 * My apologies if my actions were inappropriate. As the other admin had not tagged the translation as a copyvio, I presumed there was a different standard than I am accustomed to on Wikipedia and as I said above -- if the translations are legitimately free and usable then the additional English-only restrictions are invalid. Regardless, has started up a new thread at w:User talk:VernoWhitney, so I'll see if anything comes of that via OTRS or otherwise. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @ VernoWhitney No problem JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note the the conversation at the talk page above includes a link to a previously published work ’The Tale of Johnny the Stupid’ that includes a non-wiki compatible copyright license. Without a completed OTRS ticket the only option is deletion of the works. OTRS can be a long process so currently deletions pending OTRS are deferred for up to 3+ months to allow sufficient time for processing.  The works will remain unpublished here through use of copyvio JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I happened to notice that the copyvio tag had been removed from all of these works, I have restored the tags and protected the pages pending the outcome of these discussions. Jeepday (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User has promptly removed the copyvio tags again and has also removed the discussion from talk page. From this and a few clues here and at VernoWhitney's WP talk page referenced above, I believe what User is trying to do is to change the initial copyright notice and release the English text to the PD. The grammar needs a good going over and some of the word choices indicate dictionary translation to me. These are prime examples of the sorts of translations that are under discussion elsewhere. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Three new works were created on march 8 The Transylvania’s round-dance, Farewell! & Teary-lilies of the valley. They are unlicensed, I have not researched them for potential copyvio status, just listing them here for possible consideration as there is a related conversation at Administrators'_noticeboard. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

}}
 * Restore copyvio Again, discussion at User talk:Khesapeake about the issues and the process. Jeepday (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Democratic National Conventions
=Other=