Wikisource:Possible copyright violations

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.

---

The Book of Mormon

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)

Manual do Bixo

• 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)

---

Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 13:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) copied from w:User talk:Ekevu:

Thanks for replying at Wikisource about Manual do Bixo. I think that this contribution would be more appropriate on pt:wikibooks than Wikisource. The difference between the two projects is based on whether the contribution has been previously published. (This is perhaps why I jumped to the conclusion that you could be violating the copyrights of the University.) All items on Wikisource should have been published before. Wikibooks exists for people to write collaborative texts as you suggest. If I can be of more help please let me know on my Wikisource talk page. Eclecticology 07:54, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I understand. There seems to be a little official support onto some official server Wiki. I'll look into that. I'll be removing Manual do Bixo from Wikisource within two to three weeks. Thank you. :) Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 15:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The article has been moved to an appropriate Wiki belonging to the University [1]. Please remove the original article by November 10th. Thank you. Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 22:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mon combat

"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)

This is a matter of some dispute. When a Swedish court considered this it concluded that although the German original was still under copyright the State of Bavaria was not the rightful owner, but it couldn't say who was. I already looked extensively into this. See Wikisource:Copyvio archives/Mein Kampf. Admittedly, I only looked at German and English versions, and I have no information on the French translator's rights. The original German copyright is not valid in the United States. Because of an enemy property provision the copyright period was not extended for Hitler in the same way that it was for most other German authors. If a take-down order is issued it would need to be seriously considered, but one of the conditions for such an order is that the person issuing it have a right to do so. Eclecticology 14:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's pretty simple: Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. (GNU-FDL) The copyright of "Mein Kampf" is definitely hold by Bavaria, as far as Germany is concerned. A French translation makes no difference as far as I know. So "Mein Kampf" and "Mon combat" can't be put under the licence of GNU-FDL and so it has to be deleted.

There is a similiar problem with Wikipedia: The English Wikipedia can't be mirrored or published in Germany, because they use "fair use". So they use material that is copyright protected in Germany (and some other countries I think) and copying the English Wikipedia to a German server could be punished. So the German Wikipedia doesn't use "fair use", to ensure that it's content really is in the GNU-FDL and not only pretends to be. 80.133.70.211 21:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My position for this one does not depend on fair use. The GNU-FDL would not matter if the work is already in the public domain, which would be the case for the German version under American law. I am still prepared to delete the material if the question of the French translator remains unresolved. Eclecticology 16:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote about "fair use" only was an example to show the problem in general: In an international project one has to consider the different laws of the countries. If there were a law in Azerbaidschan or wherever, that says that all publications are public domain 5 years after they have been published, then you can't put these works under GNU-FDL, because it is copyrighted in all other countries. The same with "Mein Kampf": It is copyright protected, so you can't allow everybody to use and copy it freely, because you don't have the copyright. If the French translation were free (PD or GNU-FDL) you would have the right to re-translate it into German and then publish it in Germany. But you definitely are not allowed to do anything like that. 80.133.65.126 21:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

Bibel Einheitsübersetzung

As stated e.g. at http://alt.bibelwerk.de/bibel/misc/impress.htm this translation is copyright protected by Katholische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart. Only private use is allowed. 80.133.66.23 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.