Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations § Template:Copyvio-revdel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations § Template:Copyvio-revdel. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Sufficiency of public domain declaration

I'm drafting an article on the Bagot commission, a royal commission investigating the Indian Act. One potentially useful source is:

On the copyright page (page iv of this PDF) for this part of the TRC's report (as well as every other part), the TRC says:

This report is in the public domain. Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce all or part of this report.

The report was published in 2015 and would otherwise be subject either to ordinary copyright for written works in Canada or Crown copyright. Is the PD declaration sufficient for our purposes to consider it usable like any other public domain text? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Discussion at Template talk:Copyvio-revdel § Changing the wording

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Copyvio-revdel § Changing the wording. — Berrely • TalkContribs 16:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Assistance tracking revision IDs at Young Dolph

Hi all - I've been going through Category:Requested RD1 redactions and come across Young Dolph. I can see that potential copyright violations were removed here and here. According to WikiBlame, part of this was added in 2017, but I'm struggling to track down the rest! I wonder if any of you awesome people fancy tracking down the revision IDs and adding them to the {{copyvio-revdel}}? Courtesy ping to Yappy2bhere who very kindly removed the violations and tagged the article Face-smile.svg - TheresNoTime 😺 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

TheresNoTime, the stuff from the Charlotte Observer was added with revision 780595133 on 16 May 2017; the stuff from trapworldhiphop.com was added with this edit on 25 December 2016. I suppose the big question is whether there's more to be found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

"Bibliography of ..." articles

In Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210531, quite a few of the large articles are "Bibliography of ..." articles (for example Bibliography of the Reconstruction era)- basically listing books etc about the subject. How should these articles be treated with respect to Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, when we don't know if they are a complete list (which would be OK), has been compiled purely by the contributor based purely on their own judgement or have been compiled from some unknown copyrightable source?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Possible Copyright Violation for "The Golden Verses of Pythagoras (Rowe/Firth translation, modernized)"

The user Apaugasma has recently reverted an edit of mine.

The reason Apaugasma gave was:

" Rowe is probably more reliable than Westcott as a translator, given the latter's explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools"

By this reasoning, Apaugasma should delete all Christian edits that have allegiances to Christian theological schools. Similarly with other theologies.

And by the way, Wescott did not translate it. It was translated by someone with the initials A.E.A. Wescott was an editor of the volume the Verse was published in. So Apaugasma's reasoning is incorrect on all accounts.

So the reason for reverting was incorrect.

The reason I edited it in the first place was the doubt I had about a potential copyright breach for the the modernized translation as no reference was given for that, and is still lacking. Usually, modernized versions are copyrighted by somebody. The Rowe/Firth translation currently on Wikipedia is a modernized version of the Rowe/Firth translation of the Golden Verses. The version I replaced it with is not under copyright. The reference provided for the modernized Rowe/Firth version does not state who translated the modernized version.

Can I revert it back? Or should I just leave it?

I hope I have gone about reporting this issue in the correct manner, if not please tell me.

Regards Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

PS. Both Rowe and Firth have "explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools." But we do not know about the translator of the modernized version because that translator is not referenced.

Darylprasad (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

PPS. I didn't notify Apaugasma about this issue because I am new to talk page etiquette. I think I have done that now. Is there any other etiquette required when raising issues with Administrators?

@Darylprasad: The full citation is given in the 'Reference' section: Firth, Florence M. (1904). The Golden Verses Of Pythagoras And Other Pythagorean Fragments. Theosophical Publishing House. For oclc's and other editions, see Worldcat. This is well within the public domain. If you want to spare other editors here some time, you may remove this section (I give you explicit permission to remove this comment of mine along with your own). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Anything published in 1904 is public domain in the United States, so it's not a copyright violation. We don't generally encourage having lengthy exerpts from primary sources in articles though so this would be better moved to Wikisource. Hut 8.5 17:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
To Wikisource and Apaugasma
Thank you for your time and effort.
Maybe I did not make my point clear enough. The reference is from "Firth, Florence M. (1904). The Golden Verses Of Pythagoras And Other Pythagorean Fragments. Theosophical Publishing House."
If that is the case, where is the ISBN number for the 1904 book or some other ID identifying the source of this text?
I see there are a lot of copies of the Verse on the Internet, but they are all under copyright. If it is from a web page, then that needed to be stated in the reference and wasn't. Hence its removal and replacement.
I will repeat again for clarity: Where is the ISBN number for the 1904 book or some other ID identifying the source of this text?
It seems like it was just copied from a book that is under copyright.
I hope I have made myself clear.
PS I know material from 1904 is OK, but I do not think this text was taken from the 1904 book nor from a digitized version on an established archive with an ark reference number.
If an ID is not stated, then the reference is invalid and my edit need to be reverted, as my reference has a valid ID reference and so one can be sure it is not under any copyright.
The earliest version Wikipedia has of the article (Revision as of 20:31, 7 October 2009) had the reference under question, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Verses&diff=prev&oldid=318525000. I have also included Pollinosisss because it appears that the page was created under that user name with the reference under question. Apologies if that is incorrect.
Darylprasad (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
What does the ISBN have to do with anything? ISBNs weren't invented until the 1960s to a book published in 1904 wouldn't have one anyway. The idea that a book citation must have an ISBN to be valid is completely wrong. It isn't possible for a website to claim copyright on something in the public domain just by republishing it and slapping a copyright notice on it. Hut 8.5 11:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
To User:Hut 8.5
My question is: Where did the text from the 1904 book come from?
Even if a book is in the public domain you sill need to state the unique ID (of which ISBN is an example or a website or an ark reference), otherwise how do you know it wasn't copied from a book under copyright?
By the way I did say "or some other ID identifying the source of this text" which you chose to ignore, so I have to write another message. And I noticed also chose to ignore "or other ID" in my citation needed edit and removed that. I will make that more explicit now.
I note that the British Library has the 1905 version. Were did the text from the 1904 version come from? My guess it was from a website that copied it from a book that is under copyright, as the 1904 version is not easy to come by.
All that being the case my edit contained an ark reference for a book not under copyright so you are certain where the text came from.
Again: Where did the text from the 1904 book come from? And how do you know it wasn't copied from a book under copyright?
The only way to know this is by or other ID (which includes websites.) All citations without a verifiable unique ID are potentially in copyright violation.
Even https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/gvp/index.htm does not tell you where they got the text from.
Fro example, if you wanted to copy some text from:
"The Science of Peace" 1904 by Das which was published in 1904 in London by Benares Theosophical Publishing House (actually they were publishing under the name Theosophical Publishing Society in 1904)
you would cite ark:/13960/t59c76j5g as the verifiable unique ID, and so then we would all know that it came from https://archive.org. And we would all know that you hadn't copied from a book under copyright.
I also note that the publisher for the reference in question was publishing under the name "Theosophical Publishing Society" in 1904 and not "Theosophical Publishing House". Which is another clue that the text is not from the original book or a book published in 1904 by the Theosophical Publishing Society of London.
So the edit I made was correct and protected Wikipedia from a possible copyright violation. Can I please revert it?
Regards Daryl
PS Reprints of older books will be assigned ISBNs by the publisher. For more information about ark numbers or Archival Resource Key (ARK) see https://arks.org/, ark:/13960 is reserved for https://archive.org which you can verify at https://n2t.net/e/pub/naan_registry.txt.
Darylprasad (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Darylprasad: please read Wikipedia:Offline sources (an explanatory supplement to our verifiability policy's section on access to sources). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

To Apaugasma
Thank you for that.
It says: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible."
I have very reasonable doubts as to whether the text is from a "reliable source" or is from the original 1904 text. That is why I am writing these messages.

1. The Theosophical Publishing House was publishing under the name Theosophical Publishing Society in 1904 and anybody who had the copy of the book, if they were citing the reference, would have looked on the fist page and seen that.

2. I have doubts whether there is a 1904 version of the book as The British Library and World Cat only have reference to the 1905 version. The page that seems to reference the 1904 version is https://www.sacred-texts.com/ which does not say where it got it from.

3. The reference cites Theosophical Publishing House 1904, while both the The British Library and World Cat cite Theosophical Publishing Society 1905

4. Nobody can answer the simple question: Where did the text from the 1904 book come from? Instead they chose to ignore parts of what I write or point me elsewhere. A sure sign that nobody knows where the text came from.

So again the reference is wrong and is a potential copyright violation should be removed and replaced by my reliable source which protects Wikipedia from any copyright violations.
Surely there is enough doubt to remove it. But I expect to have to answer more messages.
Darylprasad (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Darylprasad: A 1993 reprint of the 1904 edition of the book is available to purchase on Amazon (for one). It maybe that the person who created the article used that reprint in which case, yes, if would have been better that the citation acknowledged this and used some detail such as the ISBN of the reprint. Equally they may have used the inline version at sacred-texts.com (which does state that the text comes from Firth's 1904 book [1]). Again if it is the case that this is where the text came from then it would have been better for the citation to state so. But the citation doesn't say so, so assume good faith that the original editor used the source they claimed.
Neither the reprint nor the website create a new copyright on the text, so he use of either does not raise any possible copyright violations. If you want to edit the article to include details of either the reprint or the sacred-texts webpage in the citation then go ahead and do so, assuming you have looked at either and have verified that the material used is correct. To repeat what Hut 8.5 said there is no need for sources to include unique identifiers if such don't exist. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll add, this is not an opinion on the merits of Rowe v Westcott's translations but only that I do not think that the text as it stands is any sort of copyright violation. Nthep (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This [2] is another reprint, note it says the publication date is 1904 and that the publisher is the Theosophical Publishing House. Nthep (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

To Nthep
1. Amazon and sacred-texts.com say it is a 1904 version but The British Library and World Cat cite Theosophical Publishing Society 1905. I think the latter are more reliable and so would most. RELIABLE is the key word as it promotes good-faith.
2. If they did quote the 1993 reprint then that is not out of copyright so certainly a violation there.
3. You can't assume good faith because of the 4 points I mentioned above. The reference is NOT RELIABLE.
4. If they used the inline version, then they would need to site the webpage in the ref, so again the reference is wrong.
5. sacred-texts.com do not cite a publisher and also says it was published in 1904 while The British Library and World Cat cite Theosophical Publishing Society 1905
6. "assuming you have looked at either and have verified that the material used is correct."
how do we know that if we can't find the book in the public domain and there are real doubts as to whether it was published in 1904. Anyway if they used the inline reference, then the reference is wrong again.
7. The last reprint you cited is just a copy of sacred-texts.com or vise-versa without a bibliography, so NOT RELIABLE.
This UNRELIABLE 1904 version has being doing quite the rounds, hasn't it.
The reference is wrong on many grounds as stated above and needs to be replaced because you cannot be sure it is from the Firth 1905 (not 1904) book. Which is what I did being a conscientious Wikipedia editor.
This is a nice break from reading Proclus...Thanks for that.
Darylprasad (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
1. The 1904 version looks to be a US publication. The BL & worldcat may only be listing a UK edition.
2. The 1993 reprint has no copyright on content copied form an out of copyright publication (i.e. the original Firth book from 1904/5). The only new copyright in the reprint would belong to the author of any additional text or commentary added for the reprint. As the material quoted appears to all be from Frith's work there is no copyright violation.
4. I already acknowledged that ideally the citation should have acknowledged sacred-texts.com if that was the source used. But as we don't know what version of the text (original book, reprinted book, sacred-texts.com) the person adding the source used, you can't say it's wrong just because it doesn't agree with what you are second guessing about another editors intent.
5. It is true that sacred-text.com doesn't cite the publisher but this page from UPenn edited by John Mark Ockerbloom cataloguing the sacred-text.com site does restate the date and publisher.
6. The book doesn't need to be in the public domain to be used as a source, it does need to be verifiable and enough information about the book looks to be given for someone to go out and locate a copy if they wish to check the accuracy of transcription for themselves. If someone can't track down the 1904/5 version then they could find a later edition to check against and update the source as appropriate.
7. No evidence that it a reprint taken from sacred-texts.com or vice versa. In any event I wasn't quoting it as a source merely another example of the use of the 1904 date.
8. You are quite right that unreliable sources should be removed. However Wikipedia works on consensus and there is currently no consensus to remove this source, with at least three editors, including me, satisfied that until shown otherwise that the source is reliable and meets the required standard for verification. Nthep (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
To Nthep
Thank you for taking the time and effort to research this issue.
Have a lovely day.
Darylprasad (talk)


Apologies for deleting topics from this page.

I thought something would stop me if I wasn't allowed.

I am not used to Wikipedia.

It will not happen again.

Have a lovely day.

Regards Daryl

PS I will not be writing on any Wikipedia Talk pages again.

I would rather not have that experience. The above was enough.

If one of my contributions is reverted, then so be it.

Saves everybody, including me, a lot of time.

Time to get back to reading Proclus.

Darylprasad (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]