Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/archive 3
This page gathers the discussion and record of deletions for copyright violations decided in 2006 to 2008.
Other archives see Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/archives.
2006
edit2007
editThere is a problem in la.wikisource: you can see here.
Anyone can help to understand the situation is welcome!
Thank you very much!!! --Accurimbono 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Another post on Patrologia: [1]
- --Accurimbono 09:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I made a link in the de.wikisource, too, maybe they see something which is useful; but still I am not sure the company is quite right. -jkb- 12:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- The link is here: de:Wikisource:Skriptorium/Archiv/2006/7#PD-Text digitalisiert - Problem der la.source; they take part in the discussion, so thx. -jkb- 13:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
At the end it is written: ©2003 Azərbaycan Bəhailərinin Milli Ruhani Məhfili. !! -Aleator (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted per your concern. Next time, please tag {{copyvio}} to blank copyvios. Thanks for your report.--Jusjih 02:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
2008
editThis work is taken from Gutenberg. Unlike most GB works, however, this one is still under copyright, according to the title page of the work.| 13:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure. Do we know when the translator died ? Do we know when was the translation first published ? Yann 21:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the translator is still alive since the page shows a copyright of 2002. I think he did a brand new translation for Gutenberg. There is another PD version at [2]. Another unattributed translation can be found at [3]. CSN 23:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- I say we delete this page and replace it with the translation that's definitely PD.| 02:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, if there is another PD translation, definitely. Yann 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The translator of the Project Gutenberg translations of Kafka's 'Trial' and 'Metamorphosis' is alive, and anyone who paid attention to my email address given at the start of 'Metamorphosis' could very easily have asked. David Wyllie.—unsigned comment by 87.115.8.227 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2008.
- This text has since been replaced with a different translation and moved to the English-language project: s:The Metamorphosis. --John Vandenberg 04:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
A lot of pages in Haitian
editHello,
It seems that a lot of pages in Haitian language were copied from [4] on which it is mentioned "© Copyright 2005 Eastern Digital Resources. All rights reserved." Among others, Krengle and all subpages (deleted), Ti Diksyoné Medikal, Kote Ki Pa Gen Dantist... Yann 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Idea : delete this text and put a DP one (eg). Cdlt, VIGNERON 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm working on doing that right now. I've already uploaded the DJVU and am working on moving the text into the Page: namespace, where it can be adapted to that edition. —Angr 21:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, here it is 5½ years later, and we're finally done. Thanks to Prosody's help, Táin Bó Cúailnge now is entirely from an unambiguously PD source, so CELT's copyfraudulent claim is irrelevant, and I'm declaring this issue closed. —Angr 21:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
No author, no source, no licence and no mention of the language. Looks like Russian which has its own subdomain. Yann 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure if it is Russian, but it is a very similar language anyway. It seems to be a translation from Japanese. Very bad formated. In the text there are some references to 1970's. I guess it doesn't belong here. -jkb- 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing to bet €50 it is Russian (it's definitely a Slavic language written in the Cyrillic alphabet, and it's neither Belarussian nor Ukrainian, and it has several words that are spelled exactly like Russian words). But if it is, as it seems to be, a Russian translation of Ring, then it's a copyvio. This is true even if the uploader is the translator and releases his translation under the GFDL or into the public domain, because the copyright of the original version of the novel still applies to translations, which are derivative works. So, delete. Angr/Talk 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not russian, it looks like Siberian. So, delete. --Ooswesthoesbes 09:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no such language as "Siberian", which is why their Wikipedia got deleted. Dialectal Russian is still Russian. —Angr 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not russian, it looks like Siberian. So, delete. --Ooswesthoesbes 09:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing to bet €50 it is Russian (it's definitely a Slavic language written in the Cyrillic alphabet, and it's neither Belarussian nor Ukrainian, and it has several words that are spelled exactly like Russian words). But if it is, as it seems to be, a Russian translation of Ring, then it's a copyvio. This is true even if the uploader is the translator and releases his translation under the GFDL or into the public domain, because the copyright of the original version of the novel still applies to translations, which are derivative works. So, delete. Angr/Talk 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)