[Foundation-l] Wikisource Copyright

Tue Nov 15 23:33:54 UTC 2005

David Newton wrote:

>I've recently been in a discussion on the Wikisource website and I
>would like some definitive answers about the licence that the text of
>Wikisource is under and also about the policy with respect to fair use
>on Wikisource. I've posted this question here as there is no dedicated
>Wikisource mailing list that I can find.
>
In law there is seldom a definitive answer.  If you are looking for a 
simple solution it's not going to happen.  If somebody gives you one it 
is no solution.  Applying GFDL depends on whether that application is 
necessary.  Public domain, fair use and licenses are applied 
cumulatively, and not in a mutually exclusive fashion.  When someone 
puts a copyright notice on a web page or a book it really only means 
copyright to the extent that it is copyrightable; it clearly does not 
mean that everything on that page or book is copyright.  It may very 
well be that the only thing copyright about a page is its general layout 
and format, and that would be reason enough to add a copyright notice.  
The public domain or fair use nature of material is not modified by the 
application of a GFDL statement.  Being in the public domain obviates 
fair use claims.

>The copyright issue has come up over the text of UN resolutions, many
>of which are on the Wikisource website, and also with the British Act
>of Parliament the Hunting Act 2004. The former are placed on the site
>under "fair use" despite the fact that the copyright info page of
>Wikisource says that fair use should not be resorted to for texts
>except in exceptional circumstances, and then only for quotes. There
>are hundreds of resolutions placed on the site, and the UN certainly
>claims copyright over its works if their website copyright notice is
>anything to go by. 
>
I am not familiar with the specific British Act or the copyright status 
of British law on this, so I will not comment specifically on that.

I think that I was the one who added the "exceptional circumstances" 
comment to Wikisource, but I don't remember saying that it should be 
limited to quotes.  Wikisource deals with whole texts not just quotes.  
The discussion is about whole texts.  The fair use issue would not be 
exceptional for quotes; I would suggest looking at how Wikiquote handles 
this.

When considering the copyrightability of UN resolutions, or all UN 
documents for that matter, what law do you apply?  Is there a UN 
Copyright Act?  In the absence of such a law can any UN document be 
copyright?

>The British Act of Parliament is under Crown
>copyright as it was passed in 2004. There is a waiver on copyright of
>British statutes allowing them to be reproduced pretty freely, but it
>does have conditions that are incompatible with the GFDL. On
>Wikisource the rather dubious claim is also made that foreign statutes
>and court decisions are not subject to copyright at all in the United
>States. 
>
Why dubious?  Uncopyrightable in the interests of public policy is not a 
dubious claim

>I agree with them that statute law in the US means federal
>government works are not under copyright and that case law probably
>means local and state government laws and decisions are not under
>copyright, but that does not extend to foreign laws.
>
I don't think that fair use is at all relevant here.  If the material is 
in the public domain, there is no need to consider the applicability of 
fair use.  "Case law" is a technical term referring to totality of all 
judges' decisions.  It is just as applicable to federal law as to state 
and local law.

I don't think that the extraterritorial application of US laws is much 
of a problem here, even though I find such applications to be 
reprehensible.  The law in question would be applicable to the 
publication of foreign statutes in the United States.  Every other 
country would still have the right to do or not do the same thing, or to 
determine whether the putatively offending US publications could be 
imported.  To be sure many of these laws were adopted before the 
internet became so popular, and when importing implied the existence of 
a physical asset.  The politicians are having a hard time grasping the 
implications of the internet.

>Given the above I have two main questions:
>
>1. Is Wikisource subject to the same text licensing rules as
>Wikipedia, ie GFDL, public domain or GFDL-compatible text?
>
To the extent that the GFDL provisions are applicable, yes, but let's 
not read more into this than is there.  What is relevant in particular 
circumstances is a function of the specific facts.

>2. What is the position on fair use at Wikisource?
>  
>
That's for Wikisource to determine.  Ask that question on the Scriptorium.

Ec