All,
CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals, etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of "the news media." I don't know how much material we might have that could fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from their use. But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
-k
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html
Katefan0 wrote:
All,
CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals, etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of "the news media." I don't know how much material we might have that could fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from their use. But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
-k
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html _______________________________________________
... Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
... I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good number of believers...
Weird
ant
I'm not sure about the particulars, but my feeling is that the Vatican is suggesting that it's always been copyrighted, and now they're just going to enforce it.
Wikipedia/Wikisource doesn't make a profit itself, but in this situation I don't see the Vatican agreeing to the commercial redistribution portion of GFDL.
-k
On 1/25/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Katefan0 wrote:
All,
CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals, etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of "the news media." I don't know how much material we might have that
could
fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would
consider
Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar
with
Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing
to
grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically
from
their use. But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
-k
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html _______________________________________________
... Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
... I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good number of believers...
Weird
ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthere wrote:
... Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
... I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good number of believers...
The Holy See is a sovereign nation and therefore can make whatever it likes legal. :)
Chris
On 1/25/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Anthere wrote:
... Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
... I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good number of believers...
The Holy See is a sovereign nation and therefore can make whatever it likes legal. :)
Chris
However, if they go outside the Berne convention, we don't need to worry about it until we set up mirrors in the Vatican. I have a feeling that this will be some time in any case.
Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthere stated for the record:
Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
... I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good number of believers...
Weird
ant
The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.
- -- Sean Barrett | A book should serve as the ax for the sean@epoptic.org | frozen sea within us. --Franz Kafka
On 25/01/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.
The British Crown holds letters patent to control the printing and import of the Authorised Version, and the Book of Common Prayer, yes, in such jurisdictions as this is held to be legal - which is only the UK and possibly related territories.
"Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you know, actual law in a real country.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 1/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you know, actual law in a real country.
That law is also covered by copyright though.
-- geni
On 1/25/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you know, actual law in a real country.
That law is also covered by copyright though.
In those countries in which this applies, this over-rides the normal rule of copyright. It does not, however, affect dealings wholly outside the UK or its dependents.
-Matt
All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
-k
On 1/25/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you know, actual law in a real country.
That law is also covered by copyright though.
In those countries in which this applies, this over-rides the normal rule of copyright. It does not, however, affect dealings wholly outside the UK or its dependents.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
On Wikipedia: absolutely not. We are not including whole texts within Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which is well within the normal scope of fair use.
We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
-Matt
This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how it comports with their announcement:
Publishers will have to negotiate a levy of between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of the cover price of any book or publication "containing the Pope's words". Those who infringe the copyright face legal action and a higher levy of 15 per cent.
The Italian publishing house that got slapped with a $18.4k suit only contained 30 lines of papal decree. Obviously a Wikipedia article would never have even that much verbatim verbiage, but it does seem rather a small amount for an almost $20k suit. It then begs the question of what the quoted cutoff might be. I think regardless we would be all right as long as we were paraphrasing. But ... quoted matter may be a different story.
On 1/25/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every
quote
from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
On Wikipedia: absolutely not. We are not including whole texts within Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which is well within the normal scope of fair use.
We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25 Jan 2006, at 22:16, Katefan0 wrote:
This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how it comports with their announcement:
Publishers will have to negotiate a levy of between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of the cover price of any book or publication "containing the Pope's words". Those who infringe the copyright face legal action and a higher levy of 15 per cent.
The Italian publishing house that got slapped with a $18.4k suit only contained 30 lines of papal decree. Obviously a Wikipedia article would never have even that much verbatim verbiage, but it does seem rather a small amount for an almost $20k suit. It then begs the question of what the quoted cutoff might be. I think regardless we would be all right as long as we were paraphrasing. But ... quoted matter may be a different story.
Sounds like a lot of Papal Bull to me.
Sorry..... ;)
Justinc
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how it comports with their announcement:
Never trust a copyright holder to accurately inform you of the law.
We have exactly the same rights under US law to quote and reference as we do with any other source.
Note that Italian law may differ; I have no idea.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
On Wikipedia: absolutely not. We are not including whole texts within Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which is well within the normal scope of fair use.
We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic. On English Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris". I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been published without permission. That may be enough to allow the doctrine of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even be able to afford 15% of our cover price! We should at least give the issue a little time to develop.
Ec
On the safe side, we should remove "Pacem in terris", as it would seem to be still eligible for copyright under US law (was issued 1963).
But anything which would be safe under US law we should keep. Just because the Vatican says they have the right to assert copyright on 16th century publications doesn't make it true, at least in US jurisdictions.
FF
On 1/26/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
On Wikipedia: absolutely not. We are not including whole texts within Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which is well within the normal scope of fair use.
We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic. On English Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris". I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been published without permission. That may be enough to allow the doctrine of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even be able to afford 15% of our cover price! We should at least give the issue a little time to develop.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, nevermind the 16th century bit -- I see they're only asserting copyright on the last 50 years, which is more reasonable and doesn't do anything too terribly different than US law would allow.
But "fair use" of such text still applies, copyright or not, so with the exception of "Pacem in Terris" we're fine, in the US anyway.
FF
On 1/26/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On the safe side, we should remove "Pacem in terris", as it would seem to be still eligible for copyright under US law (was issued 1963).
But anything which would be safe under US law we should keep. Just because the Vatican says they have the right to assert copyright on 16th century publications doesn't make it true, at least in US jurisdictions.
FF
On 1/26/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
On Wikipedia: absolutely not. We are not including whole texts within Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which is well within the normal scope of fair use.
We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic. On English Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris". I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been published without permission. That may be enough to allow the doctrine of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even be able to afford 15% of our cover price! We should at least give the issue a little time to develop.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sean Barrett wrote:
Anthere stated for the record:
Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
... I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good number of believers...
Weird
ant
The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.
And the Académie française claims perpetual copyright on all editions of its dictionary because it was written by immortals.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sean Barrett wrote:
The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.
Legally, the Crown /wrote/ the Authorised Version; having yet to die (in the way that all un-natural persons die - that is, through dissolution of the body corporate), and yet being a continuous natural person in who it actually "is" at any one time, its copyright claim continues to be valid to this day under the Berne Convention's standard elements (but is invalidated by said Convention's limits, and by the bounds that other countries wish to place upon themselves through international law).
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
You can't have a GFDL or PD "exception" for Wikipedia -- if it is licensed GFDL, then it becomes GFDL for life; ditto with PD (but especially with GFDL).
FF
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
All,
CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals, etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of "the news media." I don't know how much material we might have that could fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from their use. But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
-k
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l