Talk:Beasts of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

From VfD:

Move to Wikisource. RickK 21:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep; valid encyclopedic topic, useful parody, but could do with ~2 sentences more. We also have The Internationale in all languages except Klingon. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in present form if no copyright issues. Balance of commentary to source is (marginally) (just barely) OK now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) Move to Wikisource, assuming no copyright issues. Everything that needs to be said about the song is already covered in Animal Farm. If someone can write five good paragraphs about the song I'd reconsider, but the verbatim text of the song plus 1 + 2 more = 3 sentences is not enough. Just add the two more sentences to the mention in Animal Farm Also, I think there could be at least a borderline copyright issue here since a) the entire song is quoted and b) I really think Animal Farm is still under copyright in the U.S., though not, I think, in Australia. I'm basing that on the fact that the text is offered by Project Gutenberg of Australia but not by Project Gutenberg in the U.S.. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource (along with the rest of Animal Farm, if its copyright has expired.) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Write up the specific parodic elements, please. Indicate the mandatory singing, etc., so it isn't just source. If that is not done, then Wikisource and delete. It can be encyclopedic with commentary. Geogre 00:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What do you mean with "specific parodic elements"? If you explain it, I may be able to include this.- B-101 02:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What I meant was that it would be neat to have the commentary that the song provides on The Internationale. I.e. if it's not just "beasts" for "workers," then the ways that Orwell is making a commentary on the socialist view of people is interesting. It's already implicit in the book elsewhere that Orwell thinks that the Soviets thought of the people as sheep -- an inherent class structure implicit in a classless society and intellectuals who argue against distinctions and feel themselves to be a better sort of person for it -- that kind of thing. At any rate, I can be a little literary and lavish, so I'd make it too big and off topic. Geogre 13:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if The Internationale is also transwikied. Either way, it should be mentioned in The Internationale and Animal Farm. -Sean Curtin 02:53, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not transwiki. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Why? It's Wikipedia policy to keep source documents on Wikisource. Why does this deserve an exemption? RickK 21:34, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Because it's short, and its presence in the article clarifies the discussion of metaphors and whatnot. I don't see any good reason to suppose that no source material can exist in Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • So you're saying that any poem or story which is out of copyright can be here, regardless of the purpose of Wikisource? Why don't we have the Declaration of Independence? Because it's SOURCE. So what if the presense of the text "clarifies the discussion"? We have LOTS of discussion of the US Constitution, of the Bible, of lots of out of copyright documents. Let's just dump all of that into here, hmmm? RickK 04:55, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • So you're saying that any poem or story which is out of copyright can be here, ... Let's just dump all of that into here, hmmm? -- I said no such thing, of course. Your deliberate misunderstanding is neither interesting nor entertaining. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • I enjoyed that retort - I'm keeping that one in my head until I have a chance to use it myself. Thanks. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:22, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if copyight issues are resolved. "No source text" is a guideline meant to keep articles encyclopedic -- that is, to encourage explication rather than mere accumulation of facts --, but it should not be mase a strait-jacket: if the source text is brief enough, if including it aids the artcle's explication, or even makes the article more fun to read and thus more likely to be read, we should keep such source text.-- orthogonal 06:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The whole article is a bore. The comparison segment is hardly persuasive and reads like Cliff Notes. Almost everything else is from the book itself. Wikipedia has to change it's idea of what is worth keeping. Mandel 13:38, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If copyright is an issue, edit it to include only those excerpts that are discussed; some verses are redundant in any case. Many people reading the book are likely unaware of the parallels pointed out. Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's encyclopedic enough to warrant an article, and there is a lot of potential for further development. Timbo 19:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Eliminate as a separate article and move the material to the entry on the book itself. PedanticallySpeaking 20:19, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

We need to invite some copyright mavens to attend this discussion.

The U. Penn Online Books page saith: (in part)

Warning! Restricted Access!' The following books are by authors that have died more than 50 years ago, which places them in the public domain in many countries, particularly those outside the US and Europe. However, they remain copyrighted under United States law, where works copyrighted in 1923 or later can remain under copyright for up to 95 years after publication. Many of them are also copyrighted in European Union countries and other countries where copyrights can last longer than 50 years past the author's death. (Europe, for instance, uses a life plus 70 years term.) ... Do NOT download or read these books online if you or your system are in the United States, or in another country where copyrights for authors with the dates shown below have not expired. The author's estate and publishers still retain rights to control distribution and use of the work in those countries.
One of the books listed is Animal Farm. UPenn provides links to online copies in Bulgaria and Australia.

Assuming the book is still under U.S. copyright, what do we do about extended quotations from works that are public domain in some countries, but not all? We shouldn't indulge either in copyright paranoia or in wishful thinking. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would be almost certain we could defend quoting the song in its entirety on a fair use basis in the U.S. if we had to. Alternatively, we could seek out the U.S. copyright holder and ask their permission for use in the context of an encyclopedia article, and I imagine we'd get it. -- Jmabel 05:34, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Does the fair use clause allow quotations of a proportion of the original work? Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Everything about copyright law is complex and fair use is notoriously complex. The only thing that every writer seems to agree about is that the copyright law does not give any "bright line" definition of what is or isn't fair use. (At least some people I know, who are not raving conspiracy theorists, have opined that the complexity of IP law is sort of deliberate and ensures that the balance of power is on the side of large organizations who can afford to retain legal counsel). The universities and university libraries are the biggest organizations with a vested interest in understanding this, because they're big enough to be sued and they need to know what a prof can and cannot photocopy and hand out in class. Take a quick look at University of Texas' guidelines. By my reading, "Beasts of England" is under copyright, so we need to apply the four-factor thingy.
Factor 1: Our use is educational and noncommercial (good); Factor 2: What is the nature of the work to be used? Imaginative (bad). Factor 3: How much? Probably small amount (good), but on the other hand it is an entire poem or song lyric. If this were an actual song in itself that was widely sung as a separate work (e.g. like is-it-Flanders' setting of Tolkien's "The Road") what would be bad, but it isn't. Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions? Now this one is SUPER complicated. It certainly doesn't fall in the category of "Original is out of print or otherwise unavailable; No ready market for permission; Copyright owner is unidentifiable" which would let us off the hook. On the other hand, there's no market for performances of "Beasts of England" and copying it isn't going to affect sales of Animal Farm negatively.
So, I run it through the U Texas system's guidelines and the answer I personally get is... I dunno. Maybe, and then again maybe not.
The U Texas system's guideline are for work that's going to be used in a class handout for a limited time. Specifically, two years. Wikipedia would presumably need to be more stringent because we're reaching a much larger audience and hopefully will exist for far more than two years.
I don't think this one is simple. And I'm not sure about the status within Wikipedia of "used-by-permission." I think Jmabel is right that we are not safe unless we ask permission, but it would need to be permission to release it under the GFDL and I don't think it's by any means certain that they would agree to that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Votes:

  • 5 keep
  • 3 transwiki
  • 1 delete
  • 1 merge
  • + some discussion on whether the full text of the song should be cut due to copyvio concerns

end moved discussion

[edit] Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems

The article consisted originally of the full seven stanzas of Beasts of England, from Animal Farm, and little else. Commentary has since been added. Depending on how the vote goes and how the article develops, it is likely either to be kept or transwikied to WIkisource, if there are no copyright problems. The only thing I would insist on vehemently is that the copyright situation is not simple. See my lengthy note in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beasts of England. The complicating factors are that the work seems to be public domain in some countries but not in others (specifically the U.S.); the work is definitely not out of print or unavailable and indeed has plenty of commercial value; what's being quote is short, but on the other hand is an entire poem, or song lyric; but then again it is not a real song that has any real

existence outside the context of the book (it's not anthologized by itself, don't think it's performed or played except in dramatizations of Animal Farm). It's been suggested by User:Jmabel that the copyright holder be asked for permission; well, what's the current policy on "used-by-permission" with respect to text? Help, help, my head hurts. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see The Internationalle text directly adjacent to the lyrics here to facilitate comparison (and make it more obvious just why the whole of the poem is included) but I don't see a copyright problem here. It's review and commentary and I do think that to compare the whole of two short works (or portions, in this case) you need those works so that those who don't know them can see what you're talking about. I don't see much prospect of an independent market for a poem from Animal Farm and the poem itself certainly can't compete with or replace the book Animal Farm. Personally, I think this article is more likely to make people

curious about the book and cause them to consider reading it... therby helping sales of the book. Jamesday 08:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Song

In the quoted text "between 'Clementine' and 'La Cucaracha'", is "Clementine" intended to mean Oh My Darling, Clementine? — Pekinensis 23:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I dunno - I always read "Beasts of England" to the usual tune of L'Internationale -looks to me it fits that tune decently enough. 61.2.6.209 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)(RATMp)

I guess Orwell is referring to the American folk song "Oh My Darling, Clementine", perhaps to connect to American readers. I prefer the "Clementine" version over "La Cucaracha." Somehow it's easier to imagine a group of farm animals singing to the tune of "Clementine" rather than "La Cucaracha." In reality, Orwell probably had "The Internationale" in mind but did not mention it because he did not want to directly refer to real counterparts of his alleghorical characters anf plot elements. --TantalumTelluride 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/a/Talk%7EBeasts_of_England_f49c.html"