Wikipedia copyright |
---|
Policy |
|
Guidelines |
Advice |
Processes |
Resources |
General Washington's Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, published in 1938
Please could someone tell me if the above book is copyright free in the UK? I think it is copyright free in the US, but what restrictions might still apply elsewhere? I am essentially hoping to quote a letter, written on 29 May 1782, which appears in Appendix 2 of the London publishers edition, but not in the New York edition. Anne (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- A better place to ask this would probably be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Arbil44. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Although the instructions there suggest it's for asking questions about images rather than text, so now I'll less certain. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note that some books first published in the UK that were at some point in the public domain in the US later had their copyright restored in the US. See here and here. I have a book published in the US in the 1960's that has no copyright notice, and I was going to scan it in to the Gutenberg Project, but then I found out it had originally been published in the UK, and that its copyright in the US had been reinstated. So, be careful. - Donald Albury 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- And I see that Katherine Mayo was American. George Washington's Dilemma was published in New York and London in 1938, so US copyright law would apply in the US, and the book probably entered the public domain in 1966. In the UK, before 1995, copyright was for the life of the author plus 50 years. As Mayo died in 1940, the copyright presumably expired in 1990, and the book then entered the public domain in the UK. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on copyright law, so do not rely on my opinions. - Donald Albury 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- So, Donald Albury, do you think I could put Appendix 2 onto Wikisource? Nthep's comments here[[2]] might suggest that I can? I'm itching to get on, especially since Appendix 2 has been omitted from the Harcourt, Brace edition of this book. I am going to assume that the review of this book, appearing in The Observer newspaper, also in 1938, will be classified the same way as Mayo's book. Anne (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I asked one of Common's leading specialists on copyright and this is what we have - the book and the letters are definitely out of copyright in the UK. The book became PD in 2011 (URAA would have renewed the copyright) and the letters because they were well past the UK's 70 years PMA. The US copyright of the book depends on whether copyright was renewed and that needs someone to have more than my cursory look at the Catalog of Copyright Entries (although I haven't found this book in the Copyright renewals database either, so it look like the book is PD is the US also.
- With regard to US copyright status of the letters it depends, as always, when they were first published. From what I've read in the other discussions it looks like Mayo copied the letters from the originals? If the person who had custody of the originals is a descendent of the author then you have publication with permission and as the UK copyright would have expired in 1989 they would also be PD in the US when the 1970 edition was published. If they were used without permission of the copyright holder's descendants - the "I've got these old letters that my descendents received" situation - technically the would remain unpublished in the US and copyright would have expired in 2003.
- So it comes down to the question - had the letters ever been published before 1938? If not, then I think that either way they are now out of copyright in the US and the letters can be uploaded to Wikisource. If they were previously published, it depends when and where. Nthep (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you once again Nthep. This is great news. I do not believe the letters were published anywhere else prior to the two editions of the Mayo book which contain an Appendix 2. At the time Mayo was researching her subject, Earl Spencer (Princess Diana's grandfather) had both the original letters and transcribed them for Mayo. At one time I thought the Wiltshire Record Office now held the originals, but I think not - only a copy from the Appendix. Presumably the originals are still at Althorp in the custody of the Spencer family. One more favour please - I do need to know whether a review of the book, in The Observer, in 1938, is also out of copyright, so I can quote from an article entitled "Only one Hero - Major James Gordon" in full. It would have been a very short section of the entire newspaper. Anne (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- The author of that review, Keith Feiling, died in 1977. If the copyright was in his name, it is still in force (1977 + 50 years = 2027), besides which, in 1995, copyrights in the UK were extended to the life of the author plus 70 years, so the copyright will remain in force until 2047. The copyright might belong to the Guardian, but I doubt the copyright period would be shorter than if the author had retained the copyright. - Donald Albury 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Arbil44: Anne, what was Earl Spencer's connection to the letters? Collector? descendent of recipient? other? Nthep (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you once again Nthep. This is great news. I do not believe the letters were published anywhere else prior to the two editions of the Mayo book which contain an Appendix 2. At the time Mayo was researching her subject, Earl Spencer (Princess Diana's grandfather) had both the original letters and transcribed them for Mayo. At one time I thought the Wiltshire Record Office now held the originals, but I think not - only a copy from the Appendix. Presumably the originals are still at Althorp in the custody of the Spencer family. One more favour please - I do need to know whether a review of the book, in The Observer, in 1938, is also out of copyright, so I can quote from an article entitled "Only one Hero - Major James Gordon" in full. It would have been a very short section of the entire newspaper. Anne (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- So, Donald Albury, do you think I could put Appendix 2 onto Wikisource? Nthep's comments here[[2]] might suggest that I can? I'm itching to get on, especially since Appendix 2 has been omitted from the Harcourt, Brace edition of this book. I am going to assume that the review of this book, appearing in The Observer newspaper, also in 1938, will be classified the same way as Mayo's book. Anne (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- And I see that Katherine Mayo was American. George Washington's Dilemma was published in New York and London in 1938, so US copyright law would apply in the US, and the book probably entered the public domain in 1966. In the UK, before 1995, copyright was for the life of the author plus 50 years. As Mayo died in 1940, the copyright presumably expired in 1990, and the book then entered the public domain in the UK. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on copyright law, so do not rely on my opinions. - Donald Albury 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. My subsidiary questions would be:
- Can a portion of the review be used?
- Can an external link be used?
- Are there any alternative ways of using the review to highlight what an amazing man James Gordon was? Anne (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Summarize the contents of the review in your own words, and cite the review as your source, with a link to the review in the citation (i.e., use the url parameter in Cite news). - Donald Albury 23:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I cannot answer your question Nthep. Mayo states at the beginning of Appendix 2 (caps used there) LETTER OF CAPTAIN THE HON. R. FULKE GREVILLE, OF THE FIRST FOOT GUARDS, TO HIS MOTHER TRANSCRIBED, BY COURTESY OF THE EARL SPENCER, FROM THE ARCHIVES OF ALTHORP, NORTHAMPTON. I can only guess that there is a family connection somehow, for Althorp to have the originals, although the Earl mistranscribed Greville's name - he was actually Henry Greville of the 2nd Foot Guards, not 1st Foot Guards. I suppose a manuscript "H" might look like an "R". All this is dealt with in my transcription in my Sandbox 4. More than that I have no idea since it all happened in or before 1938! Anne (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nthep, given the help you have given me now, and in the past, is there any possibility of you uploading the typed version (faithful copy) of Appendix 2 (my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arbil44/New_sandbox4) to Wikisource? I cannot find anyone to help me, and it is entirely beyond my abilities to do myself. Commencing from: "The following is a faithful copy of Appendix 2 ..." Anne (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- We can't find any reason to say the letters are still in copyright so there's no issue about using them. Regarding Wikisource, I've never edited there and it looks like it needs the pages from the book to be uploaded to Commons and used as a reference point for any text on Wikisource. Do you have a copy of the book? Nthep (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nthep, given the help you have given me now, and in the past, is there any possibility of you uploading the typed version (faithful copy) of Appendix 2 (my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arbil44/New_sandbox4) to Wikisource? I cannot find anyone to help me, and it is entirely beyond my abilities to do myself. Commencing from: "The following is a faithful copy of Appendix 2 ..." Anne (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I cannot answer your question Nthep. Mayo states at the beginning of Appendix 2 (caps used there) LETTER OF CAPTAIN THE HON. R. FULKE GREVILLE, OF THE FIRST FOOT GUARDS, TO HIS MOTHER TRANSCRIBED, BY COURTESY OF THE EARL SPENCER, FROM THE ARCHIVES OF ALTHORP, NORTHAMPTON. I can only guess that there is a family connection somehow, for Althorp to have the originals, although the Earl mistranscribed Greville's name - he was actually Henry Greville of the 2nd Foot Guards, not 1st Foot Guards. I suppose a manuscript "H" might look like an "R". All this is dealt with in my transcription in my Sandbox 4. More than that I have no idea since it all happened in or before 1938! Anne (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Nthep, I'm being presented with copyright obstacles and so would be so grateful if you would kindly comment here: [[3]]. Anne (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Springer Nature copying Wikipedia?
I don't know where else to post this. Can I get some advice on this?[4] ApproximateLand (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
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:
- Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 1. pp. 74–75. ISBN 978-0-7735-9817-1.
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 • Talk∕Contribs 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 - 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)