Vatican is asserting copyright

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Vatican is asserting copyright

Katefan0
All,

CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert
copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals,
etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of
"the news media."  I don't know how much material we might have that could
fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider
Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with
Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.

I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to
grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said
that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as
encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from
their use.  But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.

-k

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Florence Devouard-3
Katefan0 wrote:

> All,
>
> CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert
> copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals,
> etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of
> "the news media."  I don't know how much material we might have that could
> fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider
> Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with
> Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
>
> I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to
> grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said
> that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as
> encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from
> their use.  But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
>
> -k
>
> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html
> _______________________________________________

...
Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?

...
I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
number of believers...

Weird

ant

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Katefan0
I'm not sure about the particulars, but my feeling is that the Vatican is
suggesting that it's always been copyrighted, and now they're just going to
enforce it.

Wikipedia/Wikisource doesn't make a profit itself, but in this situation I
don't see the Vatican agreeing to the commercial redistribution portion
of GFDL.

-k


On 1/25/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Katefan0 wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert
> > copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals,
> > etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of
> > "the news media."  I don't know how much material we might have that
> could
> > fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would
> consider
> > Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar
> with
> > Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
> >
> > I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing
> to
> > grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said
> > that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as
> > encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically
> from
> > their use.  But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
> >
> > -k
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html
> > _______________________________________________
>
> ...
> Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
>
> ...
> I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
> point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
> number of believers...
>
> Weird
>
> ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Chris Jenkinson
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
Anthere wrote:
> ...
> Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
>
> ...
> I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
> point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
> number of believers...

The Holy See is a sovereign nation and therefore can make whatever it
likes legal. :)

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
[hidden email]

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Sean Barrett-2
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anthere stated for the record:

> Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
>
> ...
> I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
> point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
> number of believers...
>
> Weird
>
> ant

The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A book should serve as the ax for the
 [hidden email] | frozen sea within us. --Franz Kafka
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD17oxMAt1wyd9d+URAs3ZAJ9a1D5aftR5qk0nwJy4on7wBgivOQCcC/c0
G7UFG0vZibJwiMeqwnK7QQE=
=yhlk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Andrew Gray
On 25/01/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.

The British Crown holds letters patent to control the printing and
import of the Authorised Version, and the Book of Common Prayer, yes,
in such jurisdictions as this is held to be legal - which is only the
UK and possibly related territories.

"Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you
know, actual law in a real country.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

geni
On 1/25/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you
> know, actual law in a real country.

That law is also covered by copyright though.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Matthew Brown-5
On 1/25/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > "Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you
> > know, actual law in a real country.
>
> That law is also covered by copyright though.

In those countries in which this applies, this over-rides the normal
rule of copyright.  It does not, however, affect dealings wholly
outside the UK or its dependents.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Katefan0
All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?

-k


On 1/25/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 1/25/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 1/25/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > "Claims to own" is a slight misrepresentation, given that this is, you
> > > know, actual law in a real country.
> >
> > That law is also covered by copyright though.
>
> In those countries in which this applies, this over-rides the normal
> rule of copyright.  It does not, however, affect dealings wholly
> outside the UK or its dependents.
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Matthew Brown-5
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
> from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?

On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
is well within the normal scope of fair use.

We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Katefan0
This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how it comports with their
announcement:

Publishers will have to negotiate a levy of between 3 per cent and 5 per
cent of the cover price of any book or publication "containing the Pope's
words". Those who infringe the copyright face legal action and a higher levy
of 15 per cent.

The Italian publishing house that got slapped with a $18.4k suit only
contained 30 lines of papal decree.  Obviously a Wikipedia article would
never have even that much verbatim verbiage, but it does seem rather a small
amount for an almost $20k suit.  It then begs the question of what the
quoted cutoff might be.  I think regardless we would be all right as long as
we were paraphrasing.  But ... quoted matter may be a different story.


On 1/25/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every
> quote
> > from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
>
> On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
> Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
> is well within the normal scope of fair use.
>
> We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource,
> however.
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Justin Cormack

On 25 Jan 2006, at 22:16, Katefan0 wrote:

> This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how it comports with their
> announcement:
>
> Publishers will have to negotiate a levy of between 3 per cent and  
> 5 per
> cent of the cover price of any book or publication "containing the  
> Pope's
> words". Those who infringe the copyright face legal action and a  
> higher levy
> of 15 per cent.
>
> The Italian publishing house that got slapped with a $18.4k suit only
> contained 30 lines of papal decree.  Obviously a Wikipedia article  
> would
> never have even that much verbatim verbiage, but it does seem  
> rather a small
> amount for an almost $20k suit.  It then begs the question of what the
> quoted cutoff might be.  I think regardless we would be all right  
> as long as
> we were paraphrasing.  But ... quoted matter may be a different story.
>

Sounds like a lot of Papal Bull to me.

Sorry..... ;)

Justinc

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Katefan0
On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how it comports with their
> announcement:

Never trust a copyright holder to accurately inform you of the law.

We have exactly the same rights under US law to quote and reference as
we do with any other source.

Note that Italian law may differ; I have no idea.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
Sean Barrett wrote:

>Anthere stated for the record:
>  
>
>>Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
>>
>>...
>>I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
>>point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
>>number of believers...
>>
>>Weird
>>
>>ant
>>    
>>
>The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.
>
And the Académie française claims perpetual copyright on all editions of
its dictionary because it was written by immortals.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Matthew Brown-5
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
>>from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
>>    
>>
>On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
>Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
>is well within the normal scope of fair use.
>
>We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
>
We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic.  On English
Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris".  
I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been
published without permission.  That may be enough to allow the doctrine
of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even
be able to afford 15% of our cover price!  We should at least give the
issue a little time to develop.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Nathan Russell-2
In reply to this post by Chris Jenkinson
On 1/25/06, Chris Jenkinson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
> > ...
> > Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
> >
> > ...
> > I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
> > point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
> > number of believers...
>
> The Holy See is a sovereign nation and therefore can make whatever it
> likes legal. :)
>
> Chris

However, if they go outside the Berne convention, we don't need to
worry about it until we set up mirrors in the Vatican.  I have a
feeling that this will be some time in any case.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Fastfission
In reply to this post by Katefan0
You can't have a GFDL or PD "exception" for Wikipedia -- if it is
licensed GFDL, then it becomes GFDL for life; ditto with PD (but
especially with GFDL).

FF

On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All,
>
> CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert
> copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals,
> etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of
> "the news media."  I don't know how much material we might have that could
> fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider
> Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with
> Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
>
> I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to
> grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said
> that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as
> encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from
> their use.  But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
>
> -k
>
> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Fastfission
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On the safe side, we should remove "Pacem in terris", as it would seem
to be still eligible for copyright under US law (was issued 1963).

But anything which would be safe under US law we should keep. Just
because the Vatican says they have the right to assert copyright on
16th century publications doesn't make it true, at least in US
jurisdictions.

FF

On 1/26/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Matt Brown wrote:
>
> >On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
> >>from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
> >>
> >>
> >On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
> >Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
> >is well within the normal scope of fair use.
> >
> >We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
> >
> We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic.  On English
> Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris".
> I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been
> published without permission.  That may be enough to allow the doctrine
> of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even
> be able to afford 15% of our cover price!  We should at least give the
> issue a little time to develop.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

Fastfission
Actually, nevermind the 16th century bit -- I see they're only
asserting copyright on the last 50 years, which is more reasonable and
doesn't do anything too terribly different than US law would allow.

But "fair use" of such text still applies, copyright or not, so with
the exception of "Pacem in Terris" we're fine, in the US anyway.

FF

On 1/26/06, Fastfission <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On the safe side, we should remove "Pacem in terris", as it would seem
> to be still eligible for copyright under US law (was issued 1963).
>
> But anything which would be safe under US law we should keep. Just
> because the Vatican says they have the right to assert copyright on
> 16th century publications doesn't make it true, at least in US
> jurisdictions.
>
> FF
>
> On 1/26/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Matt Brown wrote:
> >
> > >On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
> > >>from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
> > >Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
> > >is well within the normal scope of fair use.
> > >
> > >We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
> > >
> > We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic.  On English
> > Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris".
> > I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been
> > published without permission.  That may be enough to allow the doctrine
> > of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even
> > be able to afford 15% of our cover price!  We should at least give the
> > issue a little time to develop.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

James Forrester-5
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sean Barrett wrote:

> The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.

Legally, the Crown /wrote/ the Authorised Version; having yet to die (in
the way that all un-natural persons die - that is, through dissolution
of the body corporate), and yet being a continuous natural person in who
it actually "is" at any one time, its copyright claim continues to be
valid to this day under the Berne Convention's standard elements (but is
invalidated by said Convention's limits, and by the bounds that other
countries wish to place upon themselves through international law).

Yours sincerely,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : [hidden email]
IM (MSN)  : [hidden email]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD2nITd7WnstdBQBkRAn+xAKCMkOmrl/rkGu0v4qpVQT0cYEVgzQCff/QR
XjSqST74bi0R/RPObIvxQn4=
=lr2j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l