Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

27 July 2010

[edit]
Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2010-07-27 Edit

[edit]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]


  • H. P. Lovecraft - editor Donovanloucks and I have a good-faith problem here. The website www.hplovecraft.com has been repeatedly linked to as an external link for this article. My concern is that the copyrights on these stories are under dispute, and my interpretation of our rules is that when in doubt, we must remove the link. There is no intention to violate copyright on the part of Donovanloucks, and the texts are much better than those uploaded to WikiSource; but a dispute does exist outside Wikipedia. Please advise, folks? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donovan and I are in consensus that WikiSource is badly falling down on the job in this matter. Besides, that's irrelevant to the concern for this article. If the site he wishes us to link to has better texts, I'd rather be able to link to it. (Again, he and I are in agreement on this.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then what exactly is the copyright issue here? I'm apparently just not getting it. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's two-fold. 1. Should the external link to www.hplovecraft.com be restored, since the texts there are sound and solid transcriptions; or does the possibility (according to some theories) that the texts are copyright violations preclude our linking there? 2. If the latter, should we also globally remove links to the texts currently at WikiSource, to which the same theory would apply? and 2a. Should those texts also be purged from WikiSource for copyright reasons? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so generally the material is old enough that it would require copyright renewals (as far as I see from a quick rundown, all of it at the Archive falls into this category or is unquestionably PD by virtue of being published pre-1923). From my reading up on this yesterday and today, while there are assertions that some of the material is still copyrighted, no renewal of the original publications (which is what would be required) has been found after repeated searches and there are allegedly legal briefs from the primary claimant that explicitly state the stories are PD. While the second point would be sufficient, it doesn't appear to be available online, so we rely on the first point. A lack of renewal search results provides a rebuttable presumption that they are PD, which should be sufficient, both for Wikisource and for the Archive. Since this is not a guarantee, if a claimant challenges the status then it would have to be revisited, and we would likely err on the side of caution and remove them (stories and links), but personally I don't see an issue with following the lead of Wikisource here and leaving it be until there's at least a challenge which could result in a legal rebuttal of the presumption of public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2a is out of the scope of what any Wikipedia page should be discussing. As for 2, I think that Wikipedia should give Wikisource the benefit of the doubt here; would you delete an iw link because you thought the other WP might be infringing copyright? I'm open to the discussion on en.WS, but the answer is a lot more complex then you argue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not so much which stories are under copyright. Most of the stories in electronic form on The H. P. Lovecraft Archive are already on WikiSource. The primary difference is that those on The H. P. Lovecraft Archive have been corrected by Lovecraft scholar S.T. Joshi using the original manuscripts (whenever possible). Also, note that Mr. Joshi has given his permission to post the stories on The H. P. Lovecraft Archive. Donovanloucks (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another clarification. If the stories on The H. P. Lovecraft Archive are in violation of copyright, then all of those on WikiSource are as well. Donovanloucks (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily I wouldn't even see this for a few more days, since these listings aren't reviewed until after a week, but we had one that closed early and this caught my eye. WikiSource and Wikipedia have different administrations and policies, but you're quite right that if it's copyrighted, they shouldn't be on either website. I will harass my favorite Wikisource admin to see if he can help with this, because he is a genius. I kid you not. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since much of the legal questions about Lovecraft's stories have to do with the modern edited versions versus early published versions that are clearly in the public domain, that's not necessarily true. Derleth or Lovecraft's estate could possibly hold a copyright on any modern edited material that they certainly don't on most of the stuff as originally published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, with regards to the original copyrights, almost of of his works are in the public domain. More information about this is at [1], the Joshi biography and the Wikipedia article has a section about this.
    In regards to the link on the Wikipedia page, the relevant policy is WP:LINKVIO. If the H.P. Lovecraft Archive is providing the edited versions (e.g. OCLC 490004455 without permission from the copyright holder (Arkham House/Necronomicon Press/Mr. Joshi/etc), then we need to remove the links to the site, possibly after talking with the site operator to see if they will revert back to the public domain editions. Donovanloucks, how do you know that S.T. Joshi has given his permission to the H.P. Lovecraft Archive, and doesn't Arkham House have a say in this?
    Finally, with regards to Wikisource, the texts there are mostly of poor provenance, and have had many good faith anon contributors come along and change a word here and there to match the edition they have seen elsewhere, either in print or online. The result is that many are a 'Wikisource' edition: a melting pot of editions. This is true of many other Lovecraft online editions also. Some of the Wikisource texts could include amendments by S. T. Joshi; if this is the case, please advise Wikisource at s:WS:COPYVIO, or let myself or Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) know and we will look into it. If you look at pages like s:Weird_Tales/1924, you will see that where the copyright was renewed, there are only blue links where there was a previous edition which is free of copyright. Wikisource does not want to host the amended editions, by Joshi or random fan; we want to put our hands on scans of the originals. We should add more detail to the header of these pages to explain this, and link to the Wikipedia articles where they exist. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, I'm the webmaster of The H. P. Lovecraft Archive, and S.T. Joshi provided me with the texts. Mr. Joshi is of the opinion (he's no lawyer) that Arkham House has no legal copyright on the texts. As for scans of the original manuscripts, most of these are held by the John Hay Library at Brown University and they're not likely to provide them. Donovanloucks (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clarifying. Has Mr. Joshi said that publicly somewhere? It would be helpful if your website had a 'copyrights' page which describes whose works & new matter are on your website, and stating whether or not you have their permission. Currently the only copyright notice is at the bottom of each page, saying 'Copyright © 1998-2010 by Donovan K. Loucks. All Rights Reserved.'. Maybe you could expand the Mr. Joshi entry on [2] to more clearly indicate that his editions are present on the website with his permission. Alternatively, Mr. Joshi could send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org to say that he has given permission to The H. P. Lovecraft Archive to incorporate his revisions, and a non-laywery-assertion that that he doesn't believe that Arkham House has a claim over them. Then anyone wanting to claim The H. P. Lovecraft Archive website contains copyright violations needs to explicitly state what the perceived problems are.
      While it would be lovely to obtain scans of manuscripts, it would be just as good to have scans of the pulp magazines where Lovecrafts works were published, e.g. Weird Tales. Wikisource doesn't have much content of that sort; some examples of similar content are wikisource:Punch and Judy Comics/Volume 1/1 and wikisource:Jo-Jo/7b. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to everyone for the recommendations, but all this sounds like more red tape than I want to bother with. All I wanted to do was add a link for those interested in reading uncorrupted texts of Lovecraft's works. My original argument still remains: if Wikipedia doesn't allow a link to the texts on The H. P. Lovecraft Archive, then they shouldn't allow links to the texts on WikiSource or Project Gutenberg. As I said to Orange Mike when all of this started, it doesn't matter to me which way you go on this, but please be consistent about it. You make the call. Donovanloucks (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the issues aren't parallel. Project Gutenberg (US) has been anal about the copyright issues here, and all their Lovecraft is from original sources or facsimiles thereof, and carefully checked for copyright. Linking to Wikisource can't be a legal danger, since we're already assuming that legal danger by hosting the material.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are parallel because I've also "been anal about the copyright issues" -- I've consulted both my attorney and the world's foremost Lovecraft expert. Asking me to post a notice to this effect is inconsistent since Project Gutenberg merely has a notice which states, "Our books are free in the United States because their copyright has expired", and WikiSource only states, "This site is a repository of source texts in any language which are . . . in the public domain". Wikipedia is biased in implicitly trusting these sites while not trusting mine, especially given the fact that they are virtually the same texts. Donovanloucks (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've still chosen a riskier course then Project Gutenberg, including works and editions of works they wouldn't touch. There are two items at Project Gutenberg right now, and the in-progress list shows no more will be coming for a while. The United Amateur writings were processed under the rule that pre-1923 works are out of copyright, and The Shunned House was processed under the rule that works by American authors that were not renewed, that were published in periodicals that were not renewed are in the public domain. Both you and Wikisource host works where the periodical was renewed, which requires asserting that Weird Tales only had first publishing rights on them, or that Arkham House has effectively estoppled themselves from enforcing copyrights they do own.
  • As for that notice, Project Gutenberg does not merely have that notice; it has publically posted if arguably internal (whatever internal means in an open project like that) rules about what it will post, and any number of people, including me, can testify as to how these items were processed. As a single proprietor, you are in sole knowledge of certain facts about your website that have been recorded many places and are known to many people about Project Gutenberg.
  • Again, Wikisource is not an external link; it's an internal link. Nobody is going to complain that the Wikimedia Foundation has links on their website to Wikisource; they're going to complain that the Wikimedia Foundation is hosting these files illegally, whether or not other pages controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g. Wikipedia) point to them. I would appreciate anyone who has real concerns about the copyrights on these files to go to s:Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Author:Howard_Phillips_Lovecraft and engage in the discussion, just like I would on Wikisource encourage anyone with problems about a Wikipedia article we link to to go to WP to discuss it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me note also that there's not a Project Gutenberg link on H. P. Lovecraft; there's a Project Gutenberg Australia link. The system is entirely different, and I'm a lot less sanguine about their copyright clearance system. However, they are Australian, meaning that they have no legal concerns about them hosting HPL's texts (since he died more than [s]50[/s] 70 years ago), and I don't know how the editing interacts with their legal system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]






Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_July_27&oldid=1068401203"