Wikisource:Possible copyright violations: Difference between revisions
→[[Manual do Bixo]]: clarification |
Mon combat |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
* Noted by [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 23:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
* Noted by [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 23:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
* It's not a publication. It's a colaborative document created by me and some of my friends intended to be public domain. It just seemed to be the right place to work on it. If it isn't please direct us to the correct WikiMedia project. Thank you. - [[User:Ekevu|Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena]] 17:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
* It's not a publication. It's a colaborative document created by me and some of my friends intended to be public domain. It just seemed to be the right place to work on it. If it isn't please direct us to the correct WikiMedia project. Thank you. - [[User:Ekevu|Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena]] 17:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
== [[Mon combat]] == |
|||
"Mein Kampf" is copyright protected by the German state of Bavaria. So all translations are copyright protected too. [[User:80.133.90.111|80.133.90.111]] 15:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:09, 25 October 2004
The texts below have been cited as possible copyright violations. In the interim the texts have been moved to the historical record for the page, while the matter is under discussion on its talk page. 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 Wikisource:Copyvio archives. If you think a text should be deleted for non-copyright reasons, please list it at Wikisource:Proposed deletions.
I know the first edition of this is public domain, but I believe the more recent ones are copyrighted. Eric119 04:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Only to the extent that material has been added. The copyright on Joseph Smith's original work is not affected by having a new edition. Eclecticology 06:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The question is then, which portions are copyrighted and which aren't? The Book of Mormon as published today is not completely identical (in wording or content) to that originally published by Joseph Smith. Eric119 19:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In answering that question we need to consider how much creative work is involved. It doesn't need to be completely identical to stay in the public domain. Fixing typos or updating spellings are not acts that will give rise to a new copyright. Having a text that is substantially different from the original could lead to Mormons doubting the validity of the text. I don't think that the LDS Church would want that kind of situation, and they are smart enough to avoid it. What IS likely to be covered by a new copyright includes new introductory or historical material, annotations, special formatting and original indexing. Eclecticology 00:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The changes that have been made are almost all very small, mainly involving punctuation. A few words have been changed, not to alter meaning but to clarify. As the note at the end of the introduction says:
- About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
So it's my understanding that it should still be in the public domain. - Biggins 16:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Anon user posted the following at Talk:Book of Mormon, Introduction:
"biggins,
the 1830 public domain version of the book of mormon is here: http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/17
the 1981 version of the book of mormon you have put on wikipedia is under copyright.
i think you may have inadvertently done something illegal."
- Christian S 15:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think that we can attach much weight to anonymous comments from someone who has probably not read the discussion on this page. I'm sure that if the LDS Church has concerns about copyright violation they are big enough that they won't send someone to speak anonymously for them. Eclecticology 22:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Apparent publication of Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
- Contributor: various
- Noted by Eclecticology 23:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a publication. It's a colaborative document created by me and some of my friends intended to be public domain. It just seemed to be the right place to work on it. If it isn't please direct us to the correct WikiMedia project. Thank you. - Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 17:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Mein Kampf" is copyright protected by the German state of Bavaria. So all translations are copyright protected too. 80.133.90.111 15:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)