Talk:Charge of the Goddess/Archive 1

Copyright issues

Is this text covered by copyright, sumbitted under the GFDL, or in the public domain? -- The Anome Yes it is the

copyright belongs to John Belham-Payne valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Doreen Valiente put it into public domain. --Dmerrill

She did not, please do not use wikipedia to falsify this information valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoring my post that was deleted by User:Valientesite:

We've had a couple of attempts by User:Valientesite to claim that the copyright to the prose version is owned by John Belham-Payne. He offers the website doreenvaliente.com as evidence. As I expected, there is nothing on this website to support his ludicrous statements. For the prose version to be copyright, it would need to have had a copyright notice attached the first time (and all subsequent times) it was published. So if Doreen Valiente didn't stick her copyright notice in the Book of Shadows, then any person to whom that has been distributed has free use of it. Distribution of the Book of Shadows has now extended to large-scale publication (for better or worse), so the Charge is well and truly in the public domain. I'm sure it was never Valiente's intention to reserve rights to the Charge in this manner — she seems more generous than that — and it's shameful that someone would attempt to disgrace her memory in this way. It won't do them much good, though, because the cat's been out of the bag for nearly half a century. Fuzzypeg 11:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is not completely true, in regards to HOW something is copyrighted. From the US Copyright Office "Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.'" What works are protected?--Vidkun 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; that's not what I had expected. However it looks like this has been the case only since 1989. Previous to that (and for works created previous to that) it seems a copyright notice was required. I'm just implying that from Notice of Copyright and Omission of Notice and Errors in Notice – I haven't read through the Uraguay Round Agreements Act or the 1976 act (or earlier acts), so I'm not certain. Fuzzypeg 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the libellous post by Fuzzypeg, and I have consulted with the legal adviser for John Belham-Payne, we are in the process of constructing a statement to the owners of wikipedia.valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove posts from discussion pages unless they really are libellous. I merely said that I disagreed with you and found your claims ludicrous and shameful. I agree my wording was probably stronger than it should have been by Wikipedia rules of conduct (assume good faith), and I have amended it, but I don't see how this is libel. Now if you remove comments from discussion pages, we can't very well discuss things, can we? Fuzzypeg 10:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "winging" it around the copyright laws, why dont you ask an expert for their input? That way you won't get yourself into any trouble. valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And who is the expert? Is your "legal adviser" a lawyer? I have neither the time nor the money to go chasing "legal advisers". Fortunately I'm smart and can generally figure these things out myself. (I think Valiente shared something of this attitude!) Now, when challenged that the copyright claim was dubious, you offered the website as evidence (or at least I thought that was what you intended by adding the link in the article; if not, then please don't repost a controversial edit without giving further supporting evidence). I assumed the link was to substantiate your claim, so I followed it, and as I expected found no information supporting a claim of copyright, merely the information that Doreen Valiente wrote the Charge. Of course the book Charge of the Goddess may be copyrighted, and that copyright may belong to John Belham-Payne, but as regards the Charge itself, you have yet to show us the smallest smidgeon of evidence for this. Rather that acting all heavy-handed and making angry noises about legal action, why not just state what your reasoning is, and then we can at least have a two-sided discussion on the matter (or even come to immediate agreement). I would also suggest that you post your legal adviser's letter here, before you bother the people running Wikipedia. They are a very small team with a big job to do, and you could save them some time. We're good people here, and ultimately interested in truth, and if your claim holds water it will be accepted. I also urge you to post the letter with your evidence here, because I want this matter to be decided by truth, rather than by intimidation of individual editors with threats of legal action. Truth is a high principle in Wicca, and one which Doreen Valiente strove to uphold. Fuzzypeg 10:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

--Fuzzypeg, I also do not want this page to spiral into arguments based on false conceptions of the history of Doreen's work. Here is my opinion based on first-hand knowledge: 1) Doreen never published her Book of Shadows and it has remained unpublished until this day. Any BOS published was either from someone downline, who published an altered copy, or, as in the case of "The Charge of the Goddess," it was republished, with some changes and with express permission, by the Farrars. 2) Valiente retained all rights to her published and unpublished works, including "The Charge." She did not want her work floating around in the public domain out of concern that people would, as they have when "The Charge" is published without copyright notice, take it as an ancient text. 3) When Valiente died, she willed all of her magical estate, including all of her writings published and unpublished, to John Belham-Payne. This means that Belham-Payne now owns the copyright to all of her work, including "The Charge" and has the sole right to grant permission for its publication or use. This is of no dispute, I have read the original will. 4) As Valientegirl has been trying to say, this does not mean that the public is not able to use her work in their own personal, private and not-for-profit BOS. It does mean that if someone is wanting to post any of Valiente's work on the internet in a not-for-profit and non-altered manner, they must post a copyright notice. If they are going to republish her work for profit, they must seek the permission of Belham-Payne. 5) The fact that there are other current listings of "The Charge" without copyright or permission in other places do not change these basic facts. The Belham-Paynes have been engaged in an ongoing process of trying to contact all of those who have, over the years, neglected to credit Valiente's work properly. 6) The Doreen Valiente site is under permanent construction, as the Belham-Payne's work to develop the museum in her honor. Once the updates are complete, you will be able to see Valiente's will for yourself.Onuava13 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. I've added that to the article.

But what about this version, attributed to 'Starhawk'? Is it a substantial derivative work with copyright of its own? -- The

Anome

I've replaced it with Valiente's original, partly because of the copyright uncertainty of Starhawk's version, but mostly because I think it's

more relevant to the article. —Ashley Y 12:36, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

This is a clear case of "move to Wikisource:" (the article text is of course encyclopedic, but the "Charge" text itself is inappropriate, as long

as it is not discussed paragraph-by-paragraph). dab 12:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's already at Wikisource. I think the text is short enough to remain here, and I'd like to leave it open to a possible paragraph-by-paragraph

discussion in the future. —Ashley Y 03:05, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC) I have removed the text from Wikisource. If you really feel the need for a "Charge of the Goddess" why dont you use Starhawk version? valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

well, why don't we just link to wikisource, then? it's just a click away, and that is really the whole point of Wikisource. I added the link, and

removed the unwikified part of the text (which can be very easily re-introduced for discussion). dab 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the libellous post by Fuzzypeg, and I have consulted with the legal adviser for John Belham-Payne, we are in the process of constructing a statement to the owners of wikipedia.valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't alter other editor's signed comments and refrain from charges of libel. Neither helps reasonable conversation to progress. For more information see Wikipedia:No legal threats. Jkelly 21:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers J Kelly, I have sent you an email. Perhhaps you could let me know if you receive it, if you dont receive it then could you tell me how to contact you? Thanks valientegirl 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As of this timestamp I am not yet in receipt of your email. If I do not receive it shortly I will leave a message at User talk:valientegirl. Jkelly 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Great I think this is my page - User_talk:Valientesite - not valientegirl look forward to hearing from youvalientegirl 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

As a courtesy, previous comments have been archived. Jkelly 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank everyone ahead of time for the collegial, friendly conversation about improving this article that I look forward to seeing develop. Jkelly 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to Eko Eko Azarak

Thanks for this link: I just thought I'd raise it here as I wasn't sure a bald link was the right way of connecting the two articles: after all Eko Eko isn't part of the Charge. Arguably each article could be see-also'd to Book of Shadows, or maybe we need to establish a new category called something like 'Wiccan texts' (which could also incluide Aradia for example. Any ideas? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I created the Eko Eko article while looking for sources for the use of the Carmen Arvale as a Wiccan text; I found that we had an article under the title, but it was about an anime series. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Text of the Charge

I added the text of the Charge of the Goddess, and it was removed by an editor who claimed it must be under copyright. It is in common use throughout the Pagan community, and it is ridiculous to have an entry about it and not include the text of the Charge itself. --Morgaine Swann (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Morgaine, it was me who removed it. Unfortunately Wikipedia is rather constrained by the copyright laws (those of Florida, I believe, where Wikipedia has its servers!) You have found the text of your Charge from one of two sources: either your own Book of Shadows (in which case it is not a reliable source, as well as being a questionable disclosure) or from a published source such as one of the many versions of the BoS. Whichever published source it is, needs citing and if the author died less than 75 years ago (from memory, will check this) then the text is still copyright. I believe Doreen Valiente wrote the Charge in the mid-late 1950s and therefore her version, or anyone else's later re-writing, are still copyright. I know it seems odd that something so well known can't be cited here but there it is. Have a look here for more details of the copyright policy. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While scholarship may strongly suggest that Lady Doreen wrote the charge, as far as copyright is concerned, it is in the public domain. When Gerald Gardner first published it he claimed to be transmitting the words of an ancient folk tradition. These are not covered by copyright. When I can confirm this and cite the source properly, I will restore the words of the charge to this article.

John Elder (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And I will revert it - don't play around when there ARE groups who are currently enforcing the copyright, namely the legal heirs of Doreen Valiente. Don't take the risk - it's been looked at here on wikipedia before, and consensus was NOT to list the full text. Essentially, the full text of the Charge of the Goddess is claimed by the estate of Doreen Valiente, and wikipedia is not a court. Therefore, the status of the full text is suspect, in which case, we should err on the side of caution, and not publish it.--Vidkun (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If indeed there is consensus, I will respect that consensus. Can you please point me to the discussion or talk pages where this was achieved? I would like to read what has already been discussed. John Elder (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be based on the assumption that the Charge was originated by Doreen Valiente, which is nonsense. She may have written the version that is most widely known, but her version is simply an rewrite of one written by Gardner, which itself was compiled largely from Aradia and Crowley's Gnostic Mass (which itself is copyright O.T.O. I believe). See any number of sources to verify this, including Rankine & D'Este's Wicca: Magickal Beginnings, and my own article in the latest Pentacle magazine cited on the page. Couldn't we quote some "fair use" sections from Gardner's Charge and thus sidestep the entire issue? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be based on the assumption that the Charge was originated by Doreen Valiente No, it's based on the fact that there is a written version which can be directly traced to having been written by Doreen Valiente, regardless of the sources she may have based it off of. That written version published by Doreen is her intellectual property, and that of her heirs, until copyright expires. If you want to quote portions of GBG's version, fine, use only enough that it counts as fair use (meaning, not most of it). As for Doreen's work - the part that she wrote and published, regardless of anything she may have based it on, is still HER writing, and her published material, ergo, subject to copyright issues and the enforcement of them by her legal heirs - which has happened here on wikipedia in the past - see the archives for discussion.--Vidkun (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm a Wiccan historian - who wrote a thesis on the history of Wicca to gain my MA - I can add to the discussion regarding who wrote it. Nobody can prove a thing. Basically it's widely understood that Gerald wrote a frankly crap version, then Doreen rewrote it as the basis of the various versions of the Charge used today. However, Doreen's original version is largely seen as the biggie and we know exactly what the copyright status is there. It's on her official website, with is overseen by her estate (namely John). You can read it here. Basically, it's fine to add Doreen's Charge of the Goddess to Wikipedia. You can do what you like with it, as long as you credit her and you're not selling it commercially. I hope this helps. JoHarrington (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources of the Charge

Vidkun asserts that Ali Puli is not cited by Serith in the referenced article on the sources of the charge: He clearly is several times, albeit in a less than complete attribution. I.E:

"I have used these abbreviations for the sources:

AL: The Book of the Law (Liber AL vel Legis).

AP: Alipilli"

; and

"The line attributed here to Alilpilli, ("That if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee thou wilt never find it without thee") has been attributed by Kelly (p. 115) to L. A. Cahagnet's Magnetic Magic, where it appears on the title page.

There are a total of 498 words in the version given by Kelly. The following table shows how many came from each source:

Valiente: 174 - (34.9%) Gardner: 66 - (15%) Crowley: 83 - (16.7%) Crowley (edited by either Gardneror Valiente): 40 - (8.0%) Gardner (edited by Valiente): 12 - (2.4%)

Alipilli: 18 - (3.6%)"

The seat of the confusion may be that Serith uses the contracted form 'Alipilli', instead of 'Ali Puli', and does not specify the work which the quote is taken from. The fact that both names refer to the same person is clear from the link to Ali Puli, and from the references on that page. Josephus (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections.--Vidkun (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of italics for title

Note that the Wikipedia Manual of Style (and other style guides) recommend against italicizing titles of revered religious texts or scriptures. Thus this article does not use italics for Charge of the Goddess. Nosferattus (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)