Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/archive 1

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page gathers the discussion and record of deletions for copyright violations decided in 2004.

Other archives see Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/archives.

This page has been blanked as a possible copyright violation.

I presume that the John Kerry in question is the person currently seeking the Democratic nomination for the US presidency. He is presumed to have a copyright in everything that he writes.

The text may be re-instated if a right to publish it consistent with US copyright law can be established. The onus is on the contributor to establish that right.

If after a reasonable time, this right is not established the page will be deleted.

Thank you. Eclecticology 22:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


The letter was reprinted by the Boston Globe, which makes it news and part of public domain, does it not?

-- Damion

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Newspaper articles are copyright too. In this case you can go to the Boston Globe's own copyright page to see that they do not give permissions too easily. They would not, however, be the ones to own the copyrights to the letter. That would be owned by Kerry himself, and I see no reason to believe that he would have have abandoned those rights. A major nespaper like the Globe would not make the elementary mistake of violating Kerry's copyrights, and would have sought his permission before appending the letter to the article on him. So, unless you can get permission from Kerry or from somebody with the authority to act on his behalf in such matters, I don't see how we can legally use this letter.

I realize that this is not the most encouraging introduction to Wikisource, but I hope that you will find other material to contribute that is not copyright impaired. If you choose to stay with us please go to the log-in page and adopt a user name. This will entitle you to a user page and an associated user talk page where messages intended for you can be posted. When somone sends you a message on your talk page you will see a notice to that effect when you log in. This conversation would not normally take place on this page, and will be moved to your user talk page when you join up. Thanks. Eclecticology 09:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Ec.. I still think there is a question here due to the fact that John Kerry is a federal government employee. As you know, any work by a government employee is in public domain as long as it's created in his official capacity. In this case, though Kerry wrote the letter before he was Senator, he published it in a newspaper while he was in the Senate, no differently than if he had published a statement on his views of foreign policy, or if the paper had published a Kerry speech about Vietnam. This letter is the statement of a government employee, distributed to the public, and for that reason I think it's very much in the public domain. -- Damion

"Official capacity" is the key expression in what you say. That doctrine would apply equally well if someone were working in the private sector. In that case the copyright would belong to his employer. This, however, does not affect the copyright on material that is clearly not connected with his work. Kerry was in the Navy at the time and was on board a ship when he received notice of Pershing's death; as naval personnel he was a government employee, but it would be difficult to consider a letter to mom and dad as official correspondence.

Eclecticology 05:46, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • from Les Huissiers de justice... leurs origines Européennes, leurs racines Québécoises par Mes Marcel Dymant & André Mathieu, 1984
  • Contributor User:Looxix
  • violation noted by Eclecticology 00:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleted Eclecticology 23:19, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ne serait-ce pas une violation de copyright ? Peut-être provenant de "Les Huissiers de justice : ... leur[s] origines européennes,... leurs racines québécoises / par Marcel Dymant,... et l'huissier André Mathieu,..."

Quelqu'un a le bouquin pour vérifier ? Ploum's 26 mar 2004 à 22:09 (CET)

Suite à votre note, j'ai placé l'ajout de la référence ISBN qui donnait suite à mon texte pour autorisation et publié par moi-même dans Wikipédia ! pour toute information additionnelle: André Mathieu, huissier de justice pour Info justice (Canada) Enrg.- courriel: []

Droits d'auteur
Bien qu'un auteur peut licensier son oeuvre pour être inclus sur Wikisource, je n'aurais pas l'impression que celà a été fait dans ce cas. Je comprends bien que les remarques ci-dessus ont été tranferrés du Wikipédia français (wpfr). Mais, quoi que fût les discussions et ses participants qui y ont eu lieu, c'est Looxix qui est le contributeur du texte ici, et c'est lui qui a transferré le texte de discussion. Je n'ai aucune doute qu'il est satisfait qu'il a reçu la permission qu'il fallait pour wpfr.

L'obligation de vérifier les droits d'auteur devrait appartenir au contributeur. Les autres contributeurs ou même les administrateurs ne devraient pas être obligés de faire les recherches d'un autre. Bien entendu il ne faut pas avoir la tête de cochon là-dessus, et j'arrive souvent à rechercher les droits dans les cas les plus faciles.

À mon avis, il ne suffit pas de simplement donner un addresse de courriel où l'utilisateur peut contacter l'auteur pour vérifier l'information. Le licenciment devrait sans doute venir de l'auteur même, ou d'une personne autorisée par lui, ou de sa succession. En recherchant ce qui est passé au wkfr je trouve que la personne qui a donné l'autorisation d'inclure le texte était un numéro anonyme. Je ne trouve pas que ça peut convaincre que c'est vraiment la bonne personne qui donne l'autorisation.

Ce problème nous pose des questions intéressantes vis-à-vis le transfert de textes d'un projet à l'autre que je devrais poursuivre ailleurs. Eclecticology 01:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also Dao De Jing[edit]

Ah, sorry. I kinda assumed it must be fair game by now. Pity; it's a nice translation.
It strikes me as a bit off that a copyright can be held on a 1400-year-old text. --Eequor 03:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright is held on the translation. If you want to post the original text in chinese, by all means! ;-)
Some of the translations here are freely available, for instance this oneMiguel 21:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about putting it up without thinking through the copyright status. NASA seem to have 'released' the letter here [1]. Does this put it in the public domain or does the family still maintain a copyright? --Prisonblues 00:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've sent the following eMail to NASA, and will act accordingly when I receive a reply.
I am a participant in the Wikisource project of, and I have been reviewing certain contributions to the project in pursuit of due diligence with regards to copyright.
One of our contributors sought to include the quote from Laurel Clark's eMail from your at
Although NASA's usage of this material is clearly within fair use, I questioned whether its usage by our contributor might be a violation of copyrights belonging to Miss Clark's estate.
I understand US Government for making materials freely available, and that any such policy would extent to work done for hire. Had the contents of Miss Clark's eMail related more directly to her work there would be no problem. The contents of this eMail seem to be more in the nature of personal reflections. That suggests that the copyrights belonged to the individual rather than to NASA as her employer.
Your advice on how you view such matters would be appreciated. Should you view this usage as a copyright violation I will be happy to remove it from the Wikisource site.
  • Translated into Russian in 1998 by Konstantin Shepelevich
  • Added by User:
  • Possible violation noted on stub article 2004-05-18
  • No substantive activity since above date. Article deleted. Eclecticology 18:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Written in 1986
  • User:Maio
  • Violation first noted by Eclecticology March 15, 2004 and Maio undertook to get permission.
  • Lack of permission noted. Article will be deleted if nothing happens in one more week. Eclecticology 23:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Eclecticology 19:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Material moved from User talk:Eclecticology:

Could you please check the copyright status of this item. Since it was only produced in 1986 it would be covered by copyright unless the author has explicitly licensed it.

Don't know, I just moved it from Wikipedia since it was marked as VfD. Maybe these Wikipedians could shed more light? --Maio 15:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good news! I found the copyright information; see [2]. Perhaps we could contact the author? His e-mail and name is provided on that page. He probably wouldn't like the idea of the GFDL, but who knows. He states that it is Copyright 1986 by Loyd Blankenship, which I have seen in other websites. See [3] for example; they can claim it under fair use since it is for the University of Dayton (School of Law). --Maio 20:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This was a complicated decision involving not only Hitler's rights but the rights to the translations. The discussions took place on several pages, and are being moved to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/archives/Mein Kampf

Includes La Kaktoj, Balejo ĉe Temporel, Tiu, kiu kantas, La unua, kiu la veron diras, Balejo ĉe Temporel, Kiel diri al li ?, La pluvombrelo, La Aŭverno, Petro

My dissertation was uploaded without my permission, at
I'd like to request that this be removed permanently. Thanks. --Larry Sanger

Deleted on authors request. Also see Larrys comments at Talk:Epistemic Circularity: An Essay on the Problem of Meta-Justification. Christian S 13:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As stated e.g. at this translation is copyright protected by Katholische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart. Only private use is allowed. 12:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

I agree with this one. Of course an older German translation of the Bible would still be fine. The contributor for this was here in August and did not even finish Genesis. It probably won't be missed. - Eclecticology

And from article's talk page

Ich habe jetzt einfach mal das Inhaltsverzeichnis und die ersten 10 Kapitel der Genesis aus der Einheitsüberstzung hier hergestellt, da ich finde, dass die Bibel als ein zentrales Dokument der Menschheit unbedingt nach Wikisource gehört, und dann eben sinnvollerweise in dieser Übersetzung, auf die sich die verschiedenen Konfessionen geeinigt haben.
Das Problem ist, dass rein formal die Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart Rechte auf den Text haben. Da diese Bibelgesellschaft unter kirchlicher Trägerschaft steht und starkes Interesse an der Verbreitung der Bibel hat, wird sie nichts gegen diese Veröffentlichung in Wikisource haben. GeorgGerber 15:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

hast du dort mal nachgefragt? es gibt ja eine ganze reihe freier bibeltextprogramme z.B.. das sword-projekt. die einheitsübersetzung ist dort nirgends dabei - ich vermute mal, dass die bibelgesellschaft sehr wohl etwas dagegen hat, den text hier veröffentlich zu haben!

Die Einheitsübersetzung ist wohl eindeutig nicht GNU-FDL kompatibel. Das Copyright ist von 1980 (also nicht abgelaufen) und z.B. hier steht: "Die weitere Nutzung über den privaten Gebrauch hinaus ist ausgeschlossen." 12:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

  • Author: Queen (?)
  • Posted by: User:Cookiecaper
  • Violation noted by: User: at the talk page of the text, posted here by Christian S 16:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The lyrics of songs by Queen are problably not PD yet.
    • Looks like it will have to go if no support for it.

Ura & omote index and dependent pages[edit]

While it is conceded that the editor put the newsletter into the public domain, there is no evidence that the authors of the individual articles consented. In the absence of such consent the public domain applies only to the material personally written by the editor. Eclecticology 11:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your the boss, but I think this concern is waaay off base. The articles were solicited by, and emailed directly to Liz maryland (see End Notes), with the clear intent that she distribute it freely on their behalf. This was done at a time when this information was hard to come by and very much in demand within the Bujinkan community. It was very generous of the authors of the articles to do so and was widely noted and appreciated at the time. On distribution, these articles were immediately posted on several web sites and no article, once posted, has ever been retracted. I don't see the issue. Paleorthid 19:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not the boss, though I suppose that being so would make life much easier for me. I could take all sorts of dictatorial positions.
Unfortunately public demand for the material is not usually an adequate basis for infringing copyright. Eclecticology 21:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My point re demand is simply this. The material was widely circulated and posted at the time. If the public domain status of these writings were in question, it would have come out at that time.
I only mention this because of the extreme weakness of my position in terms of formal author-by-author documentation. I am asking that the clearly stated intent of public domain status by the editor, in combination with the close-knit collegiality of the Bujinkan community in 1995 - 1998 that was consistent with this intent, be viewed as sufficient evidence that these works are in the public domain.
Paleorthid 22:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have gone through more of the Ura & Omote material, and the clear intent for public domain stated in the first issues does not carry through to the end. Not only is the opening qualifier dropped, but copyrighted material is present. And your point is well taken, regardless. The articles in question should be deleted. My sincere thanks for the help.
Paleorthid 04:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some parts of this material may have been salvageable, notably the material originally written by the editor. If they feel that this material has value when it appears alone, and it can be separated, a case can certainly be made for its inclusion. Eclecticology 20:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this book still protected under copyright? I mean, according to the page itself, it is copyright 1971--far from being public domain. Zhaladshar 23:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is. My bad. Destroy with fervor. its copyright 1996 actually, which makes me feel far worse. Oh, the shame. --flufeemunk 00:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1971 would still be the date to go by for what was originally in the book. The republication does not give a new date, but that still means waiting until 2066. Eclecticology 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the book's talk page[edit]

This is fair game. It was schlepped into public domain after hoffman died. It is in the spirit of the book to have it PD.

The "spirit of the book" is not what determined the copyright status of a book. There must be a specific statement by the author, or by his legal successors. "Schlepping" is not precise enough. Eclecticology 07:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Here is some background info on the status of the book.
"(St. Louis, MO) -- Vintage Vinyl Records in St. Louis is proud to offer Abbie Hoffman’s long out of print Yippie classic, Steal This Book, on its web site. Read it, download it, copy it, distribute it, burn it, whatever you want--at least you can now get it FOR FREE. Before Hoffman died, he gave a copy of his book to co-conspirator Dr. Bill Hartel and instructed him to do with it what he wanted; with the rise of the internet, the book has now found its logical home. In observance of the Democratic National Convention, and in memory of The Chicago Seven, Dr. Bill Hartel has decided that the time is now for Steal This Book’s authorized cyber-debut."
I would say that is fair game for a GPL-ing. 23:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Material moved from the talk page[edit]

I have a Dream Revision history at Wikiquote:

(cur) (last) . . M 10:52, 22 Feb 2004 . . Kalki
(cur) (last) . . 10:51, 22 Feb 2004 . . Kalki (wikiquote > Wikisource)
(cur) (last) . . 19:29, 1 Jan 2004 . .
(cur) (last) . . 03:49, 9 Aug 2003 . . Fonzy
(cur) (last) . . 11:17, 6 Aug 2003 . . Nanobug (permission required)
(cur) (last) . . M 13:01, 11 Jul 2003 . . Fonzy
(cur) (last) . . 13:01, 11 Jul 2003 . . Fonzy
— end of edit list at Wikiquote — Kalki 15:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


This is a copyright violation. From [4]

The writings, documents and recordings of Martin Luther King, Jr. are protected by copyright. None of the documents may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotation embodied in critical articles and reviews. All rights reserved. For reproduction in print or recordings of the works of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. contact the Estate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in Atlanta, Georgia:
Intellectual Properties Management
One Freedom Plaza
449 Auburn Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30312
Fax: 404-526-8969

--Eloquence 00:38 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, let's ask them. Letter is below. It was copied from. Edit as you see fit. I will fax it in a couple of weeks. Nanobug 16:17 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Some of the boilerplate text was inappropriate for the situation and I have changed it. Also, the ability to modify wiki pages is unimportant here, and even a disadvantage from the point of view of keeping an accurate primary source. Perhaps we should say that any non-typo-correction edits will be reverted by Wikiquote policy?

Things like speeches, once they have been formated etc, can be page protected. -fonzy

Once the letter is satisfactory, we ought to create a Wikiquote:Boilerplate request for permission from it. Paullusmagnus 03:10 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Request letter[edit]

Estate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Intellectual Properties Management
One Freedom Plaza
449 Auburn Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30312
Fax: 404-526-8969

To whom it may concern,

"I have a Dream" is an important part of world culture and a primary source that should be readily available to researchers and the public alike. I would like to include it in a project called Wikiquote.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by thousands of volunteers from around the world. Wikiquote is a sister project designed to keep quotations and speeches linked from and to Wikipedia.

I'd like to create a page for "I have a Dream" to be linked from the article To get a sense of the nature of Wikipedia and Wikiquote, you could even add, reorganize, or correct the quotations there without registration right now.

We can only use his materials if permission is granted for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to fix typos or add links. You can read this license in full at: (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)

The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at:

If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to:; please confirm that you license it under the GNU FDL.

Thank you for your time.


Michael Richards

Wikiquote Editor

Status of request[edit]

The request letter was sent (faxed) on Friday, August 29th, 2003.

No reply was received. This can probably be interpreted as no.

Either our request was not persuasive enough, or they are not interested no matter what we say (or there was some technical reason, like we had the wrong fax number or something). If and when we need to request material from another organization in the future, we can revist the wording of the request letter and decide if we wish to cahnge it. Nanobug 13:25, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whoa. Wouldn't King's foundation then be putting it in the public domain for ever. You can't just have one copy of the speech copywritten and one PD. - user:zanimum

I think it's more like we are getting permission to reprint it under copyright. I am personally astonished that the speech (and everything else he did) isn't already PD, or at least under some very complex licence that would allow us to use it with restrictions. LittleDan 21:30, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I would certainly agree with that. But, since our whole project is PD, how do we specify that this is an exception from all the rest of the content? Even this comment right now is PD by the rules of Wikipedia/Wikiquotes. I don't see how we can get around this. - user:zanimum

The speech will pass into the public domain in 2038. Until then, we can only use parts of it under fair use, unless (which seems very unlikely) the estate agrees to license it under the FDL or to put it in the public domain. Zanimum is partially correct -- while Wikipedia/Wikiquote is not technically in the public domain but under the FDL, in effect anyone who wants to contribute material to us has to license it under the FDL or put it in the public domain. More restrictive licenses are incompatible with ours.--Eloquence

Can't we just put an external link to some of these sites:
If there's a problem, these sites will have to deal with them, right? Webkid 16:43, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
We don't want Wikiquote to turn into a list of external links. Plenty of other web sites do that already (e.g. Open Directory Project. If we cannot get permission to reproduce speeches, then I think we just document the fact and leave it at that. Obviously that doesn't mean we have no external links (Wikipedia already has thousands), just that they should be in addition to our content, not replacing it. Nanobug 17:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I noticed that American Rhetoric has the full text of I Have a Dream (and the audio). I have not yet determined if they have been granted permission by the Estate of Dr. Martin Luther King. They also have a large number of other speeches. Does anyone have any idea of what the copyright situation is with these and whether they could be used as source material for Wikiquote? I can't find an FAQ on their site anywhere explaining the licensing, except a note at the bottom of some pages saying Copyright American Rhetoric. Nanobug 21:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

END OF PASTE of Wikiquote Talkpage — Kalki 22:34, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

EDIT HISTORY of Wikiquote Talkpage:[edit]

Talk:I have a Dream Revision history at Wikiquote:

(cur) (last) . . 16:32, 23 Dec 2003 . . Nanobug (American Rhetoric)
(cur) (last) . . 07:32, 14 Sep 2003 . . Nanobug
(cur) (last) . . 08:25, 11 Sep 2003 . . Nanobug (Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no)
(cur) (last) . . 12:35, 2 Sep 2003 . . Nanobug (External links + status of letter)
(cur) (last) . . 11:43, 2 Sep 2003 . . Webkid
(cur) (last) . . 07:50, 29 Aug 2003 . .
(cur) (last) . . 07:03, 29 Aug 2003 . . Nanobug (I will send (fax) the letter today)
(cur) (last) . . M 07:53, 17 Aug 2003 . . Nanobug
(cur) (last) . . 04:12, 16 Aug 2003 . . Fonzy
(cur) (last) . . 07:25, 14 Aug 2003 . .
(cur) (last) . . 16:30, 13 Aug 2003 . . LittleDan
(cur) (last) . . M 20:42, 7 Aug 2003 . . Nanobug
(cur) (last) . . 12:49, 7 Aug 2003 . . Fonzy
(cur) (last) . . M 07:30, 7 Aug 2003 . . Nanobug
(cur) (last) . . 07:22, 7 Aug 2003 . .
(cur) (last) . . 22:10, 6 Aug 2003 . . Paullusmagnus (Some boilerplate text wasn't right for the situation)
(cur) (last) . . 11:36, 6 Aug 2003 . . Nanobug
(cur) (last) . . 11:17, 6 Aug 2003 . . Nanobug (request permission)
(cur) (last) . . 19:38, 1 Aug 2003 . . Eloquence (copyright violation)
(cur) (last) . . 13:38, 11 Jul 2003 . . Nanobug ("Dream" or "dream")

— End of Edit history at Wikiquote — Kalki 22:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to the poster of this piece, the copyright status is not known for sure. Can someone check whether it is in fact in the public domain or not? Otherwise, I'd say play it safe and get rid of it for a copyright violation. Zhaladshar 04:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The lyricist Wilhousky died in 1978. The song was first produced in 1936 in the United States adapted from a previous 1916 work in Ukrainian that had nothing to do with Christmas. See I have no idea whether the copyright was properly renewed when it should have been in 1964. The problem with this kind of material is that it is so widespread; we end up appearing terribly anal when we delete it. Still, the running around to establish the copyright situation should be the responsibility of the contributor. If he finds that too difficult he needs to be reminded that it is just as onerous for an editor to do his homework for him. I would agree with deletion. Eclecticology 20:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have absolutely no clue, either. I know it would seem to be anal, but I just say delete. I've got much better things to do than run around looking for its copyright status. Zhaladshar 23:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Deleted. Eclecticology 08:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious of what the copyright status of this work is. Since it was published in 1968, wouldn't it be violating someone's copyright by having it on this site? If someone could establish its copyright status would be great! Zhaladshar 21:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that it was a manifesto. I'll check up on it before continuing or deleting. DonQuixote 22:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just did a search of the U.S. Copyright Office database, and SCUM Manifesto is under copyright. Here's the information I found.
Registration Number: RE-759-683
Title: Scum manifesto. By aValerie Solanas.
Claimant: cJudith A. Martinez (NK)
Effective Registration Date: 6Jun97
Original Registration Date: 18May67;
Original Registration Number: A954150.
Original Class: A
Zhaladshar 22:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plus and a number of similar items. Eclecticology 09:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I have no clue as to where to begin looking for its copyright status. I am assuming that companies can file for a copyright of their manuals--whether that's true or not, I don't know, but maybe someone else would. If that is the case, I would have to think that this would be a copyright work since computers have not been around for too long and it is highly unlikely that these images would be in the public domain. Zhaladshar 18:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • All deleted. Eclecticology 19:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Copyright Office, this is protected under copyright. It was registered December 22, 1999 by Neal Stephenson. I propose we delete it. Zhaladshar 22:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I propose we ask Neal kindly if we can keep it. If you noticed on the page, it links to the page where you can download this as a .txt file. The fact that it's registered copyright is important, but Linux is also copyrighted to Linus Torvalds, but his copyright is copyleft. Anyway, the point is Neal is a prominent geek who has been interviewed on slashdot, and there's a good chance he'll let us keep it up. The thing I don't like about his site is you must download a zip and can't just read it in the webpage. I think there's a chance we'll get an OK to put it here, but I don't know what to say in an email, so if you have something better to offer in an email, please mention it. --The Inedible Bulk 03:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would agree with deleting the text. When you get a positive response to allow us to reprint the text under GFDL please post that letter, and the text can be restored. Eclecticology 08:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleted. Eclecticology 09:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From article talk page[edit]

This is wonderful! What's your source for this? I've had a lot of trouble finding a Public Domain source for Akkadian transliterated text for Codex Hammurabi. Ben Brumfield 15:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account, I've got some questions and advice to ask you about representing transliterated cuneiform, as well as on naming conventions for articles in Hittite or Akkadian. I suspect that a user talk page would be a better forum than an article-specfic talk page like this. Ben Brumfield 16:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I'm hoping we can break this up into independent texts, rather than everything being lumped in to one article. Not knowing much about Hittitology, the notations used in the sections of the text seem to be as follows:

CTH = Catalogue des textes hittites by Emmanuel Laroche Online copy at the ASOR website [7]


What's the copyright status of this stuff? If it came from the TITUS collection (which is password protected, so I can't check), then it's probably covered by the phrase:

Notice on copyright and etiquette

This server provides teaching materials concerning Indo-European and Non-Indo-European languages. Those materials that can be downloaded via http can be used freely for teaching purposes, provided that they are quoted as sources and the name(s) of the editor(s) and the date of last changes are indicated. The texts must not be used for any kind of commercial usage.

Located here:

I'm uncomfortable spending much time on this until I'm sure it's PD. Ben Brumfield 17:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is very probably the TITUS text, but not necessarily the newest version, since it spent some time floating around the web. The Hittite text itself is undoubtably PD. For most of the TITUS texts, the copyright notice is bogus, since the texts are too old to be protected. But of course the etiquette should still be observed. In the case of cuneiform transcription, however, the interpretation contained in it (i.e. syllable vs. akkadogram vs. sumerogram) may be construed to represent original work, but this is unknown legal territory, and I doubt that there is, or ever will be, a precedent case. I think it will be enough if we acknowledge

based on the 
TITUS version by Jost Gippert (2000), 
based on the 
revised edition by H.C. Melchert (1998)
of the electronical text
prepared by J. Tischler (1993)

without claiming that it is identical to any of these versions. 08:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the text in the original Hittite script is in the public domain. But that's not what we have. We have some kind of romanization that is not explained at all. The references above are all recent. The statement that the material can be used for non-commercial purposes only is not compatible with GFDL The contributor has the burden of establishing that were are legally entitled to use the material. Eclecticology 19:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was deleted a while ago for copyright reasons and has been added again. Zhaladshar 17:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • I'm inclined to agree with deleting this. The fact that copyright was renewed in the US, and that Chesterton died in 1936 support the fact that this is still copyright. New copies of the book are easily available, so the archive exemption may not be of help. The site at has been trying to have all of Chesterton's works, but I can't find a single reference there about copyrights. Eclecticology 21:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't find anything about the copyright status of this work in the US copyright database (I'm not refuting the fact that the copyright was renewed, just that I can't find anything regarding it--probably because I'm searching for the wrong thing) and I just can't plain figure out how to check a work's copyright status in England. Where did you get the information regarding its copyright extension? I only ask because it might be something that would come in handy for me. But I agree; since Chesterton died in 1936, there is a good chance that the work is still copyright. And about that site...I found it a while ago, and it says nothing about copyright status of those works, which leads me to wonder if the guy doesn't know anything regarding it or just doesn't care. Possibly he's posting other works that are copyright, also. Zhaladshar 22:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleted. Eclecticology 20:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All of his works:

According to Chomsky's web site, all of his works are copyright and cannot be reproduced without permission. There is no indication we have permission to publish these materials here. Zhaladshar 20:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing the copyvio thing from the Middle East Policy page since, while you may have overlooked it, the Talk page includes a letter from Chomsky giving approval. Let me know if I'm missing something. AaronSw 21:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not see that. Please do remove the copyvio template. Zhaladshar 15:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Most of the rest of these are at Chomsky's website. The remaining are available elsewhere: one (Liberating the mind...) is published in his book Propaganda and the Public Mind, another (Extending U.S. Dominance...) is on, the last (Hegemony...) is on various websites and is included around 219 in the book Hegemony or Survival. So I don't see much problem with deleting the others. AaronSw 21:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's about my assessment. In due course I expect that I will be deleting all except the article on Middle East policy. Eclecticology 05:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • All deleted except Middle-East policy. Eclecticology 04:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This really looks like it was ripped off some scholarly site. It might not be -- I'd just like to know what the source was before investing significan effort into it. English wikipedia user DBachmann might know more about this. Ben Brumfield 21:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • You might want to leave something on his user talk page. I'm not sure how often he visits Wikisource, but I don't see him here often. Asking him if he knows anything will probably greatly expedite the process of determining the copyright status. Zhaladshar 21:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've put the copyvio notice on the article page. I don't think he understands copyright very much. Eclecticology 19:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This text about the rock star Jethro Tull even begins with the copyright notice, but no indication that GFDL licensing has been granted by the author. Eclecticology 18:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also Philip Emeagwali on the Future of the Internet, Philip Emeagwali on Brain Drain, Philip Emeagwali on Globalization and Slave Trade

  • I believe that these all may be copyright violations. I scoured Philip Emeagwali's web page and could find no indication that his works are in the public domain. Now, I don't know anything about African copyright law, but I would guess that they are somehow protected. Zhaladshar 19:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There are 50+ countries in Africa. In the absence of information about a country the safe presumption to make is that at least the Berne Convention's life + 50 years rule applies. Eclecticology 21:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Right to reprint documented, but it's not GFDL. Eclecticology 05:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • This was first published in 1939. Joyce died in 1941, so this would be protected until the end of 2011. Eclecticology 12:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No date of publication provided for Giacomo Joyce Eclecticology 05:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Giacomo Joyce was originally published in 1968, according to this site. It seems like the date it was published is really late, but the Google search I did never brought up any other dates that were any earlier. I found quite a few first editions of that work dated in the '60s, so I am willing to bet that the date is correct and that this (both, actually) work is still copyrighted. Zhaladshar 14:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleted. Eclecticology 03:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted song lyrics. Tregoweth

No idea where this comes from. Eclecticology 03:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I believe that these are both copyright violations. The site from which they--well, at lease Energy Accounting were taken is here. Energy Accounting was published in 1955 and so is not PD. I do not know the copyright status of Errors in the Price System, but I would hazard a guess that it is still protected under copyright. Zhaladshar 14:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There appears to have been some discussion of the copyright status of this item on Wikipedia, with the result that it was accepted for inclusion there. Nevertheless, this discussion was not transferred with the article, and the transfer was intended to precede the deletion of the material on Wikipedia. Assuming that appropriate permissions were granted to Wikipedia, deleting that material from Wikipedia would have the effect of breaking the copyright chain, and turn the placement of that article here into a copyright violation. Eclecticology 11:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poem, author born in 1949. Clear copyvio. Ed g2s 21:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It should be deleted. Zhaladshar 20:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, it will be if nobody gives information otherwise. I've also commented on the mailing list about using transwiki to transfer possibly copyvio texts. Eclecticology 23:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The author of the work died in the early 1990's. Seeing as he was born in 1912, I find it highly unlikely that this work would be PD. Zhaladshar 22:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Restored on receipt of additional information. Eclecticology 23:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)