Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 October 25

25 October 2020

 * Massive copyright violation. Especially this whole large section copy pasted from a book from 1957 which is protected by copyright. Wareon (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you assert this as under copyright protection? There is no copyright notice on this work, and it appears to be a reproduction of a work centuries old. It is possible that this work can not have a copyright associated with it at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Copying any translations which are less than 80 years old without permission is a violation. Pinging User:MER-C who is actively patrolling copyright infringements. He can confirm too. Wareon (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it seems clear it's a modern translation, both from the details on archive.org, as well as the fact Hariprasad Shastri is I think the author and I assume they didn't complete it by the age of 6. If it's a human translation the it would probably be eligible for copyright protection in the US [//www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf] [//www.translatorsbase.com/articles/42.aspx] and UK [//www.cblesius.co.uk/articles/CopyrightAndTheTranslator-WhoOwnsYourTranslations.html] [//blogs.ucl.ac.uk/copyright/tag/translation/]. (This comes up a lot with bible translations of course [//billmuehlenberg.com/2017/06/23/bible-copyright-law/].) Indian law sounds complicated on the matter [//www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/801026/unpacking-copyright-and-moral-rights-in-translations], but the work seems to have been published in the UK so I don't think Indian law matters, no matter that the original untranslated work was I assume published in the UK. The lack of copyright notice could be relevant. As I understand it, if it was first published with the permission of the copyright holder in the US in 1957 or 1952, the lack of a copyright notice would mean it would be in the Public domain in the US. But since it appears to have been published in the UK and I don't think copyright notices were required in the UK it gets more complicated [//copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths]. Unless it were public domain in the UK by 1 January 1996, it's probably still protected in the US. Whether the authors have released all right I have no idea, but I think we need greater evidence it's fully released or in the public domain than it being present on archive.org. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that it's likely copyrighted, based on this useful flowchart from the UK National Archives. Regardless, the quoted passage being attempted is inappropriate even if it were in the public domain. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Translations produce a new copyright. MER-C 13:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, usually they do...but not always. That is why I asked my original question here. I made the note about the original to note that the original is obviously public domain, not to support some notion that the original being public domain automatically makes derivatives public domain. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been removed and should stay removed as copyrighted material. I'm closing this. MER-C 18:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)