On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Robert Rohde <raro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:52 AM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On English Wikisource, we consider these to be public domain. >> We tag them that as public domain and explain why. >> >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Ethiopia >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iran >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iraq > > I didn't know Wikisource did this. This would seem to imply that > Wikisource is willing to import virtually any text at all from these > countries, which seems like an ethically bad idea to me, for much the > same reason that importing all possible images on Wikipedia seems like > a bad idea. > > However, setting aside the ethical issues for the moment, it is > important to note that these templates are frankly very incomplete, > which makes their conclusions potentially erroneous. > > Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention), > establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of > treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those > templates only address the most obvious one. These requirements are: > > 1) The work was first published in a country that has no copyright > relations with the US. > 2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that > does have copyright relations with the US. > 3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work > was never also published in any other state that does have copyright > relations with the US. > > Currently, those templates only mention the first point. However, the > Berne Convention extends copyright protection to all citizens of the > treaty states regardless of where they publish (point #2), so it is > also important to consider the nationality of the authors involved.
Feel free to update Wikisource templates too ;-) btw, we also have https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Afghanistan And these templates are occasionally discussed. e.g. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2011-08#Template:PD-Afghan_.E2.80.94_its_currency_and_use > The third point is actually the most difficult in practice, since it > requires proving a negative. The Berne Convention and US Copyright > Law consider any publications occurring during the first thirty days > to be effectively simultaneous, and authors will enjoy full protection > under the treaty if their work was published in any country where the > copyright treaty would apply. It is often very difficult to determine > with certainty that a work was never published internationally during > that first 30 day window. This is especially true as technology has > made it easier for works to be widely distributed across international > borders. In Kernal Records OY v. Moseley (US District Court, 2011), > the court held that putting a sound file online for download amounted > to simultaneous publication in all countries where the internet was > available. Following that logic, no work first published on the > internet could be considered as public domain due to non-treaty > status. However, the US case law also contains a largely > contradictory ruling in Moberg v. Leygues (US District Court, 2009), > involving images appearing on a German website. So the issue of > determining national origin in the internet age would seem to be > somewhat unsettled in the US. > > However, the one thing that is clear though is that any claim to > public domain status due to the lack of copyright relations needs to > address all three factors raised above. John, can you raise these > concerns at Wikisource? You can .. ;-) Here is our village pump. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l