Wikipedia talk:Public domain resources/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While cleaning up links, I removed these:

  • The original 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. Note that only the print edition is in the public domain; the online version at http://www.newadvent.org is copyrighted and can't be used.

This isn't an online resource, so it doesn't seem to fit here. On the other hand, we probably should have some place to record known public domain print works.

I don't see any information here that this is public domain; in fact the site explicitly claims otherwise (which doesn't necessarily mean he's right). If the poster has more accurate information, please advise.

--LDC

About the copyright on scanned in public domain works (see Catholic Encyclopedia above) I asked around in misc.int-property (see [1]) and it seems to be true that by simply scanning and polishing, you don't create a copyright in a public domain work. All you get is a copyright in the mark-up sugar you added, but the text itself can be cut out and used by us.

If we are bold enough, that is. --AxelBoldt

One person who claims to have helped transcribe some of those articles has some comments about the Catholic Encyclopedia here. To wit: "New Advent, the organization that maintains the Catholic Encyclopedia web site, claims the copyrights to the electronic version of the encyclopedia. I never signed away my rights to the articles I transcribed, so legally I do not know how they can claim copyright to my work. Perhaps they only claim copyright to the HTML markup of the header and footer. As far as I am concerned the actual texts of my transcriptions of Catholic Encyclopedia articles are public domain and anyone may copy them as he sees fit."

As various people have pointed out, simply transcribing a work in the public domain does not render it copyrightable, but that at least one of the workers didn't sign away his/her perceived "rights" seems to weaken New Advent's argument further. --KQ

About the Catholic Encyclopedia (Online and in Books) -- I'm fairly sure that the newadvent folks would *like* to have electronic copyright (whatever that means in distinction to page copyright?), but it was an explicit public domain enterprise. All it is is a transcription (scanning, typing, etc. - from personal experience I can tell you how poorly that typeface scanned!). It was all volunteer (I think the archdiocese of Denver pays for the computer storage - Kevin Knight was their computer guy and webmaster). I will point out that I myself never borrow without editing - it needs as much editing as the 1911 Book Whose Name is Never Mentioned. I never even cut and paste. But then I'm only working out of the Cath. Encyc. in areas in which I have enough competence to do the editing myself rather than doing it wholesale. One of my suggestions Kevin didn't take was doing a really comprehensive job of creating hyperlinks; the Cath Encyc online is very inconsistent about that --MichaelTinkler

If that's the case (that the text there is in fact nothing but a transcription of the PD 1911 text), then it certainly does qualify as an online PD resource. "Sweat of the brow" in scanning and editing is not protected by copyright--only original expression. I'm still reluctant to include it here, though, because even if the folks at newadvent have no legal claim of copyright, they can still cause trouble if they want to, and it is possible that listing it here as a resource will encourage someone to copy something from them that is copyrightable, such as their markup or selection or organization. --LDC


Well, Kevin Knight is a really nice guy, so if Larry were to ask, encyclopedist to encyclopedist... Their organization is, as far as I know, PURELY alphabetical. Would that matter to your point, Lee? There is markup, though. (There was talk of making topic pages to guide people through, but nothing came of it.) --MichaelTinkler

What do you suppose I should ask him? Just for permission to use it--or something else? I would certainly like us to feel free to use the Catholic Encyclopedia if it is public domain. --LMS
I think the question was (a) if it was public domain and then (b) if people could import articles from it the way folks are doing from Britannica. Me, I glance at 'em and rewrite, but there were a few things imported wholesale. I'm not sure we would WANT to import it wholesale - though strangely enough lots of the 'saint' entries were written or edited by Jesuit modernists (Herbert Thurston was the section editor's name, I believe), and are quite NPOV! I'm sure someone would be delighted to import the remaining 200 or so papal biographies if Kevin didn't mind. --MichaelTinkler
Right, but is this something that you want me to ask Kevin--(a) and (b), or what? --LMS at your service
I guess ask him both. (A) then (b)? Sorry. It's late (eastern time).
OK, I'm on it! --LMS

Regarding the entry in Wikipedia_NEWS about Andronicus of Rhodes being the last of the "EB" entries to be entered, and that completing the porting of that volume:

When I look at Britannica Public Domain/Status I see a *lot* of articles that have no entries. Granted, *some* of the entries from EB might be entered under different titles, but it strains credulity to say that all articles have been entered.

What is the measure for completeness used in making the claim made in Wikipedia_NEWS?

I don't know who entered the Wikipedia NEWS article. Mr. Millar announced on his own pages that he was done entering all of the ones he personally thought were relevant; perhaps someone mistakenly extrapolated from that. The Status page is accurate. --LDC

The public domain dictionary seems to be truly public domain, despite some confusing comments on the main page. The text seems to be ok for us to use. -- Stephen Gilbert

This is incorrect. Here's a quote from their site:

The only usage conditions are that if the material is redistributed, the content (not the formatting) remain in the public domain (ie free) and that the content be easily accessible in non-encoded plain text format at no cost to the end user. The origin of the content should also be acknowledged, including OPTED, Project Gutenburg and the 1913 edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. If the material is to be included in commercial products, Project Gutenburg should be contacted first. There are no restrictions for personal or research uses of this material.

These requirements are incompatible with our GFDL. We redistribute, but our content doesn't remain in the public domain, so we are in violation of the first condition. We cannot guarantee no cost either, since GDFL allows anyone to charge any amount for our material. Violation of condition two. Acknowledgements of origin can also not be guaranteed by us since anyone can edit out any attribution we might add. Violation of condition three. Material under GFDL may of course be included in commercial products such as Linux distributions, but this is forbidden under the above license. In fact, the above license is considerably more restrictive than GFDL and certainly far from public domain.

I would assume that Ralph Sutterland is willing to reissue the dictionary under GFDL, since the licenses are similar in spirit, but until he does so, we cannot legally use their material. --AxelBoldt

The contents of the 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary itself ARE 100% public domain. Any statements to the contrary such as those on the site listed are so much hot air, and can be completely ignored. You can't put restrictions on the use of something you don't own. The only things he might be able to claim some control over are his markup and presentation, which we won't be using. --LDC
You can put restrictions on anything with shrink wrap or click through licenses: "By contacting this web site, you agree to use the materials you download from here only on Saturday afternoons and only for the following purposes...". I'm not suggesting that Ralph is doing that though. Why not simply ask him? --AxelBoldt
Actually no, you can't. You can ask people to abide by any terms you want--but the law will not enforce any terms you don't have a legal right to ask for. The text isn't his, period. He doesn't have any right to control what anyone does with it, even if they downloaded it from him, and even if he made them explicitly agree to some terms for downloading it. A contract must have a "legal purpose" to be valid--restricting someone's right to use public domain materials isn't a legal purpose. --LDC
I thought the "legal purpose" requirement meant that a contract can't have anything illegal as a purpose. Giving up the right to modify a public domain text is not illegal. Microsoft for example has shrink wrap licenses which require you to give up your right to publish benchmark tests. That's what contracts generally are: both parties give up a right that they otherwise would have. --AxelBoldt
That clause of Microsoft's contracts hasn't been tested in court yet, and will probably fail according to the opinions of lawyers I respect. But I suppose my argument doesn't quite cover all the cases, because you're right that you can voluntarily give up some rights in some contracts. I'm quite sure of the result--this has been well-tested in court; you cannot restrict someone's rights to use public domain works solely as a condition of your providing copies in some form. I'll come up with a cite if I can find it. I suppose "compensation" theory might be better: in the case, for example, of an employer restricting your speech, they are actually giving you something in exchange for your promise to forgo a right, while the site from which you download a text which is already yours as much much as it is his hasn't actually given you anything, so there is no compensation in the contract for your relinquishment of rights. As always, matters of law sometimes vary at the whim of judges, but we are fortunate to have a few good precedents on our side here. --LDC

I just found an online version of John James Audobon's Birds of America at http://employeeweb.myxa.com/rrb/Audubon/. The preface added by the webifier is a bit uncertain, but as far as I can understand this should be in the public domain. Audobon lived 1785-1851, and as far as I know the act of scanning and OCR isn't sufficient to add new copyright. Am I correct here? Should we start using material from this?

Yes, the act of scanning and OCR does not create a copyright; the webifier may have a copyright in the HTML markup he or she added; but if we cut and paste the text and disregard the markup, we are fine. This was discussed in this Usenet thread. However, it would probably still be polite to ask the person first. --AxelBoldt

Hello, I received the following response from nutrition.gov.

It's public domain information as long as it is taken in its entirety and we would appreciate credit given.

Any idea if those kinds of copyright terms (the entire thing is in the public domain; the individual parts are not) are even possible? I suspect that not; it sounds absurd and counterintuitive (though that wouldn't prevent the U.S. government from doing it). --Koyaanis Qatsi

If they used tax dollars to produce and publish the information, then anything they claim about restrictions on use is just hot air. We paid for it, it belongs to us, not them. The United States Government and agencies thereof are not entitled to copyright protection for their works. They are entitled purchase or inherit copyrights, though, so if the material was produced by someone else and sold to the government, they might have some claim, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. --LDC


Question on trademarks in pictures, originally addressed to Alan Millar:

Thank you very much for the picture for the Harp article, but I'd like to put in a more updated one. If I took a picture of my harp and uploaded it, would it be under the copyright of Lyon and Healy, the maker of the harp? I know the company has patents on several of the parts of its harps, but could it have a copyright on the design? thanks! --dreamyshade

I'm not an expert in this area. I've been searching out explicitly public-domain images, to avoid such questions :-) Basically, as I understand it, there are three areas of intellectual property laws to be concerned with: copyright, trademark, and patents. If you use your own camera to take the picture, you are the copyright owner of that photograph and you can do with it as you please, so it is not a copyright problem. Patents would apply to actual manufacturing of a work-alike harp, so patent issues would not apply to pictures here. Trademarks may be a question, though, if the picture shows any logos or labels of the product. Can anyone comment further? --Alan Millar

A photograph taken by you of something you own (or of something in public view) is yours. You are free to explicitly disclaim your copyright, or assign it to Bomis, or to retain and place it here under the terms of the GPDL (which is the default if you don't specify). To be totally safe, you might put a text notice in a comment field of the picture (not on the picture where it's visible), so that even if you went away we'd know the source and could continue using it. Even a trademarked logo is no problem if you're not trying to use it to sell your own harps. The only thing you might ever have a problem with is the likeness of a person (since privacy laws would then come into play), but even then fair use would apply to using the picture on Wikipedia. --LDC

Is there a more structured list of public domain resources somewhere on the net? I don't feel like sifting through the list..

Bibliomania has a Biographical Dictionary of English Literature online at http://www.bibliomania.com/2/3/259/frameset.html . Now, Bibliomania cannily does not distinguish between the various in-copyright and public-domain texts on their site. However, another site I found claims that this Biographical Dictionary is "from the 1910 Everyman edition," which would make it fair game. Is there a way to confirm or reject the source? Some of the biographies of literary figures would make notable additions here - if in the public domain. -- April


There's no need for this To Be Capitalised, but should it be public domain resources or Wikipedia:public domain resources? --Robert Merkel

Good question. This page is really geared more towards wikipedian use, so I say it should be in the wikipedia:namespace. --maveric149


Any idea where there is good public domain stock footage, you know, like quick clips of a Cannon firing. Or a nuke going off. Or a car driving by.--Gamingboy 21:39, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Done:

  • Filed resources under new heading scheme
  • Removed some unused headings, edited others

To do:

  • Check for dead links, fix them if possible
  • Alphabetize entries within categories, for neatness

As these pages do not provide content in the PD per se, I've removed them, but as the contributor noted they provide facts that can be used in articles. Is there any list of fact-providing resources?

--dittaeva

Not quite sure if this is the right place: Gray's Anatomy was released as a public domain hard cover very cheaply produced and sold widely. I think that it might be possible for many people to locate. Why don't we take a look at it? The drawings at least would be a great start on the human body. The text (1907) is mostly descriptive and should be reletively easy to render in npov. The human body hasn't changed that much.  :-) Two16

I've got a 1974 softcover edition handy, but it may not be the best to work from. Also, it mysteriously claims a 1974 copyright on the entire contents, despite being an "unabridged facsimile of the 1901 edition". This is probably just from the publisher's copyright page boilerplate and doesn't really apply to what is presumably the unchanged public domain text... --Brion 20:39 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898) seems like it could be a useful resource, but here it states "The materials on the Perseus Project Web pages (including all texts, translations, images, descriptions, drawings etc.) are provided for the personal use of students, scholars, and the public. Any commercial use or publication of them without authorization is strictly prohibited. All materials are copyrighted and are not in the public domain. Copying of materials on the Perseus Web pages is not permitted."

So, can we use this material or not, like the 1911 EB, the material is old enough, but the question is does this site have the right to claim copyright on the text? Smelialichu 20:06 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Audio files

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

Wikipedia can't upload audio files including songs, national anthems etc. Is there any current project that would do the trick? I am pretty sure that quite a few people have brought this up in discussions but could someone direct me to any current result or conclusion drawn up? Thanx. User:kt2

We can and do have audio files. OGG Vorbis format is preferred (as it is not patent-encumbered, like MP3). Use [[media:somefile.ext]] to link directly to any uploaded file (including images, audio, video, etc). As usual, respect copyright! --Brion 07:54 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Added the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection. The public domain usage statement refers to the collection, but not necessarily to all sopurces. Quote: "If you are using materials that are in the public domain (such as images from the Portrait Gallery or the PCL Map Collection), please use: Courtesy of The General Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin.". Public domain status should be probably be verified, especially with contemporary sources, but there seems to be little ambiguity over the historical maps. -- Mic 08:40 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Two school years ago, I was forced to take extensive reading notes on a textbook of the History of the United States. Does anyone besides me have any copyright claim on those notes? -Smack 17:24 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Images on Library of Congress Country Studies

The Library of Congress Country Studies is free to use, but I have a question about the images. For example, here is a photo with the text "Courtesy Embassy of Finland, Washington". Does this mean that I cannot use this photo, or is it non-copyrighted although it is originally from the embassy of Finland? Den fjättrade ankan 15:18, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Einstein's relativity and public domain

None has commented on my remark/question on "Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein" in any way but deleting it.

Can this be considered a public domain source when the document states in its header: "Copyleft: Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."?

A better answer than blanking my question is wanted.

 — Sverdrup (talk) 23:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I left a small hint in the Summary but it wasn't much of an answer...
Data / documents covered by the GFDL (just as Wikipedia) are not considered part of the public domain. But as they are covered by the same license as Wikipedia, they can be used here. Such web-pages should be listed in the Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources page. Marxists.org is already listed there.
Next time you have a question about a particular webpage it would be better if you put it directly in the talk page. Dittaeva 14:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer! According to the article "This page is intended as a list of only true public domain text resources. For public domain images, see Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." and your answer, I move the link to Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources.  — Sverdrup (talk) 14:34, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Google's working on digitizing Stanford's entire pre-1923 collection of books. See http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=INFOTECH&oid=43909 and ctrl+F to find "ocean"; it's in the paragraph. Koyaanis Qatsi 19:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Awesome source for public-domain woodcuttings & line drawings

I just dug out an old book (The Clip Art Book, 1980; Amazon link. You have to scan in the illustrations, but there are over 5000 pictures of all kinds of things. There are line drawings of probably famous people (not labeled), tons of pages of old tools (many of which I cant' identify), lots of pictures of a wide variety of horse-drawn carriages & all other kinds of older transportation, people doing all knds of things, plants & food, anatomical sketches, architecture, sports, costume & clothing, weapons & hearldry & armour, animals... jeez I could be here for the rest of my life scanning them in. Get it and start scanning! See what I've uploaded for European dueling sword and Tonsure. Elf | Talk 18:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There seem to be more than one book of public-domain images...it would be great if people could get them all online. See also, for example, the appropriately named Scan This Book by Mendenhall (2500 images). —Steven G. Johnson 19:59, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
It *would* be wonderful; two problems: This particular book is nearly 400 pages, and it'll be rare to find someone with that much time; also, the *page layout* is copyrighted, so in theory we cannot scan in an entire page but must do it an image at a time. ("The selection of illustrations and their layout is the copyright of the publishers, so that one page or more may not be photocopie or reproduced without first contacting the publishers." It's possible that someone could contact the publishers, explain wikipedia, & get permission. Elf | Talk 20:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Important distinction being made here. It seems that the images are not individually copyrighted, but the book is. Have a good think about this. It means we can't do what you suggest and scan the whole thing in. What we can do is to use scans of individual images, in appropriate articles. That's what it all means.
And this makes sense. While this particular book may now be out of print, the publishers and the artists they employ still need to eat, and producing whatever clip art books are currently in print is how they do this. To use their work to provide an online alternative is an attractive idea to us, but it's neither fair nor legal. Andrewa 20:59, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Such copyrighting of public domain material is why the free culture movement uses copyleft instead of just public domain. --Roger Chrisman 05:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet pre-1973

If {{sovietpd}} is true (please make it a link), it should be added to the article.

I don't think it's true. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, and note that there's also the identical {{PD-USSR}}. Lupo 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam prevented edit

As the Web transcriber of a large public-domain dictionary of some usefulness (Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities) I wanted to add it to the list of History sources in the public domain. I went thru the hoops, then got a message that the edit wouldn't take prolly because it included a link to "h-i-s-t-o-r-y-o-f-n-a-t-i-o-n-s.n-e-t", which is banned.

Fair 'nuff — except that that "h-i-s-t-o-r-y-o-f-n-a-t-i-o-n-s.n-e-t" item was in the existing list; I didn't add it.

  1. Have I done something wrong? If so, what should I do?
  2. Has "h-i-s-t-o-r-y-o-f-n-a-t-i-o-n-s.n-e-t" snuck in under the wire somehow, i.e., does it need to be deleted from the existing list?

Bill 13:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone else has since been bold and deleted the offending item (and in turn I got my edit in), but if that item was decreed to be spam, I'm still curious how it managed to get in here anyway.... Or rather, I hope the problem gets fixed. — Bill 19:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed Bad Bug source, as it is part of the FDA website. --Eleassar777 09:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain_resources/Archive_2&oldid=1155211011"