Talk:Charge of the Goddess/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Copyright issues

Is this text covered by copyright, sumbitted under the GFDL, or in the public domain? -- The Anome Yes it is the

copyright belongs to John Belham-Payne valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Doreen Valiente put it into public domain. --Dmerrill

She did not, please do not use wikipedia to falsify this information valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoring my post that was deleted by User:Valientesite:

We've had a couple of attempts by User:Valientesite to claim that the copyright to the prose version is owned by John Belham-Payne. He offers the website doreenvaliente.com as evidence. As I expected, there is nothing on this website to support his ludicrous statements. For the prose version to be copyright, it would need to have had a copyright notice attached the first time (and all subsequent times) it was published. So if Doreen Valiente didn't stick her copyright notice in the Book of Shadows, then any person to whom that has been distributed has free use of it. Distribution of the Book of Shadows has now extended to large-scale publication (for better or worse), so the Charge is well and truly in the public domain. I'm sure it was never Valiente's intention to reserve rights to the Charge in this manner — she seems more generous than that — and it's shameful that someone would attempt to disgrace her memory in this way. It won't do them much good, though, because the cat's been out of the bag for nearly half a century. Fuzzypeg 11:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is not completely true, in regards to HOW something is copyrighted. From the US Copyright Office "Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.'" What works are protected?--Vidkun 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; that's not what I had expected. However it looks like this has been the case only since 1989. Previous to that (and for works created previous to that) it seems a copyright notice was required. I'm just implying that from Notice of Copyright and Omission of Notice and Errors in Notice – I haven't read through the Uraguay Round Agreements Act or the 1976 act (or earlier acts), so I'm not certain. Fuzzypeg 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the libellous post by Fuzzypeg, and I have consulted with the legal adviser for John Belham-Payne, we are in the process of constructing a statement to the owners of wikipedia.valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove posts from discussion pages unless they really are libellous. I merely said that I disagreed with you and found your claims ludicrous and shameful. I agree my wording was probably stronger than it should have been by Wikipedia rules of conduct (assume good faith), and I have amended it, but I don't see how this is libel. Now if you remove comments from discussion pages, we can't very well discuss things, can we? Fuzzypeg 10:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "winging" it around the copyright laws, why dont you ask an expert for their input? That way you won't get yourself into any trouble. valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And who is the expert? Is your "legal adviser" a lawyer? I have neither the time nor the money to go chasing "legal advisers". Fortunately I'm smart and can generally figure these things out myself. (I think Valiente shared something of this attitude!) Now, when challenged that the copyright claim was dubious, you offered the website as evidence (or at least I thought that was what you intended by adding the link in the article; if not, then please don't repost a controversial edit without giving further supporting evidence). I assumed the link was to substantiate your claim, so I followed it, and as I expected found no information supporting a claim of copyright, merely the information that Doreen Valiente wrote the Charge. Of course the book Charge of the Goddess may be copyrighted, and that copyright may belong to John Belham-Payne, but as regards the Charge itself, you have yet to show us the smallest smidgeon of evidence for this. Rather that acting all heavy-handed and making angry noises about legal action, why not just state what your reasoning is, and then we can at least have a two-sided discussion on the matter (or even come to immediate agreement). I would also suggest that you post your legal adviser's letter here, before you bother the people running Wikipedia. They are a very small team with a big job to do, and you could save them some time. We're good people here, and ultimately interested in truth, and if your claim holds water it will be accepted. I also urge you to post the letter with your evidence here, because I want this matter to be decided by truth, rather than by intimidation of individual editors with threats of legal action. Truth is a high principle in Wicca, and one which Doreen Valiente strove to uphold. Fuzzypeg 10:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

--Fuzzypeg, I also do not want this page to spiral into arguments based on false conceptions of the history of Doreen's work. Here is my opinion based on first-hand knowledge: 1) Doreen never published her Book of Shadows and it has remained unpublished until this day. Any BOS published was either from someone downline, who published an altered copy, or, as in the case of "The Charge of the Goddess," it was republished, with some changes and with express permission, by the Farrars. 2) Valiente retained all rights to her published and unpublished works, including "The Charge." She did not want her work floating around in the public domain out of concern that people would, as they have when "The Charge" is published without copyright notice, take it as an ancient text. 3) When Valiente died, she willed all of her magical estate, including all of her writings published and unpublished, to John Belham-Payne. This means that Belham-Payne now owns the copyright to all of her work, including "The Charge" and has the sole right to grant permission for its publication or use. This is of no dispute, I have read the original will. 4) As Valientegirl has been trying to say, this does not mean that the public is not able to use her work in their own personal, private and not-for-profit BOS. It does mean that if someone is wanting to post any of Valiente's work on the internet in a not-for-profit and non-altered manner, they must post a copyright notice. If they are going to republish her work for profit, they must seek the permission of Belham-Payne. 5) The fact that there are other current listings of "The Charge" without copyright or permission in other places do not change these basic facts. The Belham-Paynes have been engaged in an ongoing process of trying to contact all of those who have, over the years, neglected to credit Valiente's work properly. 6) The Doreen Valiente site is under permanent construction, as the Belham-Payne's work to develop the museum in her honor. Once the updates are complete, you will be able to see Valiente's will for yourself.Onuava13 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. I've added that to the article.

But what about this version, attributed to 'Starhawk'? Is it a substantial derivative work with copyright of its own? -- The Anome

I've replaced it with Valiente's original, partly because of the copyright uncertainty of Starhawk's version, but mostly because I think it's

more relevant to the article. —Ashley Y 12:36, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

This is a clear case of "move to Wikisource:" (the article text is of course encyclopedic, but the "Charge" text itself is inappropriate, as long

as it is not discussed paragraph-by-paragraph). dab 12:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's already at Wikisource. I think the text is short enough to remain here, and I'd like to leave it open to a possible paragraph-by-paragraph

discussion in the future. —Ashley Y 03:05, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC) I have removed the text from Wikisource. If you really feel the need for a "Charge of the Goddess" why dont you use Starhawk version? valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

well, why don't we just link to wikisource, then? it's just a click away, and that is really the whole point of Wikisource. I added the link, and

removed the unwikified part of the text (which can be very easily re-introduced for discussion). dab 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the libellous post by Fuzzypeg, and I have consulted with the legal adviser for John Belham-Payne, we are in the process of constructing a statement to the owners of wikipedia.valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't alter other editor's signed comments and refrain from charges of libel. Neither helps reasonable conversation to progress. For more information see Wikipedia:No legal threats. Jkelly 21:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers J Kelly, I have sent you an email. Perhhaps you could let me know if you receive it, if you dont receive it then could you tell me how to contact you? Thanks valientegirl 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As of this timestamp I am not yet in receipt of your email. If I do not receive it shortly I will leave a message at User talk:valientegirl. Jkelly 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Great I think this is my page - User_talk:Valientesite - not valientegirl look forward to hearing from youvalientegirl 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)