Wikisource:Possible copyright violations
From Wikisource
Language domains: en - fr - zh -
The texts below have been cited as possible copyright violations - see Wikisource:Copyright policy. In the interim the texts have been blanked (they are still available via the page history), while the matter is under discussion on its talk page. One may enter {{copyvio|url=}} to describe where the work is from with an appropriate URL. In the absence of a convincing argument for retention, these texts will be deleted after a reasonable period of time. Records of these deletions are to be kept at archives. If you think a text should be deleted for non-copyright reasons, please list it at Wikisource:Proposed deletions. See also: Category:Possible copyright violations.
Contents |
[edit] Táin Bó Cúailnge
Marked as copyrighted by 82.7.115.184. Yann 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there are a lot of people / organisations who claim non sense copyrights, so we need more information than a mention on a web site. CELT seems to be a respectable institution, but I have seen even more respectable institutions saying a lot of non sense about copyright. To make a definitive answer, we need the author of this text, when and where it was first published. Yann 00:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The details about the book are at w:Táin Bó Cúailnge. The book does include translations, annotations, etc. which are all copyright, however the original text comes from one of two manuscripts which are public domain, and our text is only annotated with facts, which are not copyrightable. The only possible claims to copyright that I can see is that 1) maybe there was a large degree of transliteration from the original manuscript, or 2) the sequential arrangement of manuscript fragments is original. John Vandenberg 01:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem that the CELT edition is a modern one, which may have considerably updated the text. I understand that there are older editions which could avoid this problem. Eclecticology 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The text we have contains nothing but the original Middle Irish text and some info on line numbers, folio numbers, and page numbers, none of which CELT can claim copyright on. At worst, we can remove the line/folio/page number information (it isn't really terribly useful in this context anyway). Any emendations the editor may have made to the text that are carried over here are certainly de minimis and do not meet the threshold of originality required for claiming copyright. Angr/Talk 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- A mere "transcription" may not be considered original, but a critical edition based on four fragmentary manuscripts, which this is, is an original work. CELT don't have copyright on it, but the original publishers, the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, certainly do. CELT presumably has permission to use it. Wikisource doesn't. --82.7.115.184 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- If they claim that their arrangement of the four fragmentary manuscripts is accurate, then they have recreated the original edition which is in the public domain. If they claim that their edition is not true to the original (e.g. they have updated the words), then we do not want it. John Vandenberg 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. A critical edition is a reconstruction of a work that no longer exists in its original form, which depends on the talent, skill and judgement of its editor. Scribal abbreviations are expanded, words that run together are separated, interpolations are identified, where the manuscripts differ the editor makes a judgement on which version is likely to be closest to the (lost) original, uncertain or corrupt words and phrases are amended based on the editor's judgement, and punctuation is added. Another editor, attempting to reconstruct the text from the same sources, could produce something substantially different. It is an original work. Copyright is asserted, both on the original print edition and on the electronic version at CELT (which is an academic project owned by University College Cork). Reproducing it on Wikisource without the permission of the copyright holder (in this case the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies) violates that asserted copyright. It's that simple. Delete it. --82.7.115.184 13:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright can be asserted on anything, that doesn't make it defensible, and copyright is limited to original, creative work of an author. That fact that talent, skill, and judgment are required to create a critical edition does not make it copyrightable; it took talent, skill and judgment for Bridgeman Art Library to create high-quality, exact photographic reproductions of old paintings, too, but they still don't get to claim copyright on it. Or to use a better analogue to this case, a modern-day restoration of a painting (e.g. the Sistine Chapel ceiling) is not subject to a new copyright of the restorers. Nothing that you've described above adds enough creative content to the original text to be copyrightable. Both the original print edition and the electronic version at CELT do contain copyrightable material, to be sure, such as commentary and translation, but that copyrightable material is not included here. Angr/Talk 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. A critical edition is a reconstruction of a work that no longer exists in its original form, which depends on the talent, skill and judgement of its editor. Scribal abbreviations are expanded, words that run together are separated, interpolations are identified, where the manuscripts differ the editor makes a judgement on which version is likely to be closest to the (lost) original, uncertain or corrupt words and phrases are amended based on the editor's judgement, and punctuation is added. Another editor, attempting to reconstruct the text from the same sources, could produce something substantially different. It is an original work. Copyright is asserted, both on the original print edition and on the electronic version at CELT (which is an academic project owned by University College Cork). Reproducing it on Wikisource without the permission of the copyright holder (in this case the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies) violates that asserted copyright. It's that simple. Delete it. --82.7.115.184 13:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- If they claim that their arrangement of the four fragmentary manuscripts is accurate, then they have recreated the original edition which is in the public domain. If they claim that their edition is not true to the original (e.g. they have updated the words), then we do not want it. John Vandenberg 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- A mere "transcription" may not be considered original, but a critical edition based on four fragmentary manuscripts, which this is, is an original work. CELT don't have copyright on it, but the original publishers, the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, certainly do. CELT presumably has permission to use it. Wikisource doesn't. --82.7.115.184 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The text we have contains nothing but the original Middle Irish text and some info on line numbers, folio numbers, and page numbers, none of which CELT can claim copyright on. At worst, we can remove the line/folio/page number information (it isn't really terribly useful in this context anyway). Any emendations the editor may have made to the text that are carried over here are certainly de minimis and do not meet the threshold of originality required for claiming copyright. Angr/Talk 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem that the CELT edition is a modern one, which may have considerably updated the text. I understand that there are older editions which could avoid this problem. Eclecticology 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] File Maa na gun
File:Maa na gun.jpg, possible copyvio, see User talk:Ashok modhvadia#Image Maa na gun, -jkb- 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, either it is PD and belongs on Commons, or it isnt. It has no reason to be here. John Vandenberg 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, deleted. Innv 02:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Kurdish songs
Bese lo bira, DİLBER, Şervano, Hunermend, Qelen ê min pir buha ye, Pîroz be, Silav û hurmet, Ewil toxim bû, Gîha di bin kevir de namîn e, Vaye tên, Lo lawiko, Kê çi kirbe wê bijîn e, Dewra Mêhdî hat, Waye tên all by w:ku:Îsmet Dax (alive, born 1965).-Aleator (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- deleted -jkb- 08:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Text in Asturianu
The text Llingua asturiana y drechos humanos comes from http://www.xuristes.as/avisu.htm and says that the pages fit to a CC license, a non-commercial one (Copyleft - Dellos derechos reservaos. Estes páxines acuéyense a una llicencia de Creative Commons), as User:LaosLos reported at Talk:Llingua asturiana y drechos humanos. Creation user was warned one year ago at User talk:VityUvieu. -Aleator (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- deleted -jkb- 07:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Islamic community open letter
The text Letër e hapur përfaqësuesve të qeverive arabe dhe islame, a open letter of the Islamic Community in Kosovo, is obviously no government work. I contacted the user. -jkb- 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No answer yet although the user is active, deleted, -jkb- 09:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Аўтар:Уладзімір Караткевіч
- Belarus has 50 years term of copyrights protection. Karatkevich died in 1984. --EugeneZelenko 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- thanks, done, see Talk:Аўтар:Уладзімір Караткевіч, -jkb- 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
