Talk:Jarvis Pass

cab-bot was in error
As I was making this page, cab-bot posted a copyright warning due to the boilerplate I lifted from {{BCGNIS|2929|Jarvis Pass]]. BCGNIS historical material is not copyright, in particular in this case because the passages quoted are from journals long out of copyright.Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Investigated the CSB report - The journals are still copyrighted, I can't find any indication that the BCGNIS data is Public Domain, and the quoted text represents a substantial portion of the article as well as the BCGNIS page. Listing this section at WP:CP for further review. MLauba (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. First, I haven't been able to find anything that verifies that BCGNIS is not copyrighted; the general website bears a copyright notice ; that copyright notice says, in part, "This material is owned by the Government of British Columbia and protected by copyright law. It may not be reproduced or redistributed without the prior written permission of the Province of British Columbia." But since they're quoting material anyway, their copyright status doesn't matter. The real question here is whether the material being quoted is in fact PD by age and, if not, whether the quotes meet our WP:NFC.


 * Figuring out PD status for this kind of thing is a pain in the neck (for the full nightmare, see Public domain). :/ First, material is not automatically PD by age in the US unless it was published before 1923. We'll start with the easy one: American Alpine Journal. This is an American publication, and since it was published after 1923, we presume that it is protected by copyright unless we can verify that it was not. Since it was published before 1977 in the US, it would be public domain if it did not have a copyright notice on original publication. If it did, then it would only be PD if the copyright notice was not renewed. Again, we'd need to verify.


 * The other, from Natural Resources Canada, may well be PD. Canadian copyright act protects government works for 50 years after publication. That would have gone PD at the start of 1978. The only complication here would be if it was also published in the US, in which case it may be under copyright in the US, which law governs Wikipedia.


 * As far as WP:NFC is concerned, neither of these quotes is very extensive, but they are also presented baldly, with no context. Without access to the originals, it's hard to judge how extensive they are. The safest thing to do with the first is incorporate it into the article, as proving it is PD is likely to be hard. I think the second one almost certainly is, but will add a bit of context just in case. --Moonriddengirl {{sup|(talk)}} 16:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)