Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Principia Discordia (1970)

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Principia Discordia (1970)

edit

There is no proof that the book en:Principia Discordia is under a license compatible with that of WCommons. The only thing I found is that at some point in the book it is stated: "(K) ALL RIGHTS REVERSED - Reprint what you like", but this joke obviously does not make a work to loose its copyright. Thus, per COM:PRINCIPLE the copyright is to be assumed and therefore all the work and the reproduction of this work are to be deemed copyrighted and due to this should be deleted.

Also, some images claim to be the work of the US government, but this is obviously false.

Veverve (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"(K) ALL RIGHTS REVERSED - Reprint what you like" is just that: permission to copy what we like. The whole book is a joke, but that doesn't change what it says. If they'd wanted to retain copyright, they could've said s.t. like "all rights eternal - reprint and die."
Also, simple geometric symbols and letters are not eligible for copyright, though IMO the ridiculously large .tiff file should be recreated as .svg. But Hand of Eris.svg at least should be retained, as it's being used to illustrate the history of the planetary symbol for Eris; Sacred-Chao.svg is also widely used.
The other pages might be used for WB; since they're not, I don't know why we should keep them. But that's an argument based on use, not copyright. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: copyright is in force upon fixation unless said copyright is clearly renounced. And a joke is not a valid statement on a work's copyright, otherwise authors could not jokingly pastiche copyright formulas without losing their work's copyright (compare with the wording of e.g. Template:PD-self).
As a sidenote, a widely-used copyright infringement is still a copyright infringement which ought to be removed. The COM:INUSE argument only works if the file is not a copyright violation. Veverve (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is clearly renounced.
And anyway, some of the files you proposed are the creations of Commons editors, not copies of the book, and so would be acceptable even if the book were copyrighted. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you reproduce copyrighted work without the permission of the author and publish it, you are committing copyright theft. Veverve (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Key word here is "if".
We once had a bunch of generic maps deleted as copyright violations by an enthusiastic editor who didn't understand that coloring in a blank Commons map wasn't a copyright violation. That may be why files must now be nominated before being deleted.
If the book is copyrighted, then yes, all of those pages should be deleted. But reproductions of simple symbols would still not be copyvio. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POEE Pope Card.jpg even says, "Reproduce and distribute these cards freely." Kwamikagami (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Reprint what you like" = permission to publish, in whole or part, without qualification. No copyright was ever requested or claimed, therefore it does not have one. You would be hard pressed to find a more conclusive case of de facto public domain material. Popefauvexxiii (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Reprint what you like" sounds like explicit, unconditional permission to me. During the period this was originally published, there was no copyleft nuance, a work was either formally protected by copyright or it wasn't. It has been reproduced both digitally and in print for over 50 years without incident before or after both authors died. The whimsical nature of the declaration only serves to further reinforce the intention of the authors that retaining intellectual control is counter to the spirit in which the work was made. Popefauvexxiii (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ridiculously large .tiff file has now been recreated as .svg at File:Smiley Eye in Triangle.svg. Also, regardless of whether the copyright disclaimer is accepted or not - although I believe the statement as presented is more than clear as to intending to revoke copyright - the images of symbols, such as the smiley eye in triangle are not eligible for copyright as simple geometric shapes and/or textual elements. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 02:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That has now been reduced from an original 4.89 MB to 352 B, or 99%. I suggest we delete the .tiff file as unnecessary, even though it's currently at 300 kB. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Man how I wish the discordianism fanboys would stop trying to be clever with copyright; it only makes these issues much harder than it needs to be.
    As the license tag on File:Principia Discordia (1970).djvu says, the Principia Discordia was first published in the US in 1965 without a copyright notice. The salient point about that "all rights reversed" stuff (see p. 78 of the DjVu file) is that it is not a correctly formed copyright notice, and since a correctly formed copyright notice was required for copyright protection in the US in 1929–1977 this means the work is in the public domain.
    There is no need to argue back and forth about "the meaning of all rights reversed" or the states of mind and intent of Mr. Hill and Mr. Thornley when they wrote it. The Principia Discordia is a straightforward case of {{PD-US-no notice}}, just like a myriad other books published in this time frame. --Xover (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xover: now that I think about it: is there any indication inside the book which indicates said book was indeed published in 1970? If there are not, then what are we relying on to state that this book was indeed published in 1970? Veverve (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veverve: See p. 78. Xover (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Copyright is very clearly renounced — as well as the above argument "the Principia Discordia was first published in the US in 1965 without a copyright notice". ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 09:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renouncing copyright is actually very difficult, both legally and practically speaking.
    There are a whole host of rights that the law simply doesn't allow you to renounce (think moral rights), and laws across the world varies wildly on this. That's why {{CC-zero}} exists.
    In practical terms, you get into tea leaves-reading discussions about "What did they really mean?", and "Did they really understand the consequences of…?" For example, are we sure they intended one of the big publishers exploiting the Principa for crass commercial gain? Did they intend to let someone repurpose the Principa to advocate for Soviet-style social control, or fascist-style repression of dissent? I personally recommend ignoring entirely all such half-baked pseudo-releases as deficient, and instead rely either on hard copyright law (e.g. lack of notice or failure to renew) or an actual legally well-defined license like Creative Commons BY/SA/whatever or CC-zero (which is a legally functioning public domain dedication).
    Hence my point above: ignore the "all rights reversed" stuff, as it has zero meaning or bearing on the legal issue and tells us very little about the authors' "intent". Xover (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your argument oon the lack of copyright notice is sound, Xover.
    By the way, I have noticed a thing about the "reverse" that I have not seen brought up (athough as you have said this is tea leaf reading, and to me the "(K) ALL RIGHTS REVERSED - Reprint what you like" statement has no legal value either for asserting or relinquishing copyright). The book seems to have been sold in the past, so if the right to commercially publish is reversed then this file does not comply with WCommons' policy. Or is the right not to publish something commercially the right which has been reversed, so that the book can get sold? And how is it to be interpreted with the following "Reprint what you like"? As a sidenote, one must keep in mind that reprinting does not necessarily imply commercial purposes for the reprinted material. Veverve (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was published without a valid copyright notice, when it was a strict requirement for US works. As a result this is PD, despite the "all rights reversed" cantinela. {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. Bedivere (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rights have been reversed, these are in public domain. An interesting discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's in the public domain because it was published without a valid copyright notice which was required at the time. The later 4th edition has an afterword by the author where he explains that it was intentionally "published with a broken copyright-- Reprint What You Like" because that would place it into the public domain and the book "was intended to be an underground work and that involves a different set of ethics than commercial work."[1] Rjjiii (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per very clear statement by the author provided by Rjjiii. Skyerise (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe this request is in bad faith. Popefauvexxiii (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned the user for this comment. Veverve (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you Catholic? Popefauvexxiii (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that question is relevant or your business. This is a discussion about copyright, not religion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a reasonable suspicion that a Catholic might take offense at a religious work of satire that declares its adepts to be Popes? Is it possible that such a person might try to remove the offending content by amplifying and misrepresenting the minutae of intellectual property law? Is such agenda-driven censorship of otherwise legitimate and culturally relevant copyright-free resources acceptable per Wikimedia policy? And if not, how might the available evidence be properly contextualized in such a case without discovery by a question such as this? Popefauvexxiii (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Popefauvexxiii: Perhaps. But it is not a reasonable suspicion that a Commons user with no particular history of behaving poorly is in bad faith when they start a discussion of something with a confusing copyright notice. Speaking as an admin, I suggest that you desist from making such ad hominem remarks on DRs. If you truly think someone is acting in bad faith, come to COM:AN/U with some evidence. And if you want to continue discussion of something other than whether this file should be kept or deleted, please do it somewhere more appropriate than this DR. - Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. As said before, in 1970 there did not exist concepts named like "Creative Commons CC0", thus such things had to be expressed in a way which could be understood at that time. "(K) ALL RIGHTS REVERSED - Reprint what you like" was a way to express it in a time where reprinting was the only existing equivalent to today’s online publishing. -- Karl432 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep -- This is like the the Anonymous flag and the 1970s German feminist symbol -- it originated in subcultures deeply unconcerned or disdainful of copyright, but without accompanying formal documentation. Those weren't deleted, so I don;t see why Discordian symbols should be... AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, we have a Wikipedia article on "All rights reversed"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the lede of the article says: "The phrase by itself is not enough; a license must explicitly state the rights that are granted". So indeed this notice has no legal value, as I had stated in my nomination rationale. Veverve (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the unsourced opinion of a single person, dated 2006, expressed in a subordinate clause in a short text on another (albeit related) subject. I really do not understand why someone wants to get information destroyed here which is clearly meant to be reproducable without any copyright restriction by its creators. Sorry, but for me, it gives the impression of being either extremely overcautious or in fact somehow destructive. -- Karl432 (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be reliable as it is from the website of nl:Arnoud Engelfriet.
which is clearly meant to be reproducable without any copyright restriction by its creators: there is a clear difference between stating "I, xxx, owner of the work, hereby relinquish all copyright for this work" and making a pun. Copyright law, especially on WCommons, is something one can never be too cautious about (see COM:PRINCIPLE). Veverve (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is in the language level, not in the meaning. Expressing the waiver in a clearly decipherable pun in a work where such a language level is usual does not mitigate its meaning, and I consider it disrespectful not to take the sentence serious only based on the language level. Do you really expect that any lawyer can successfully deduct from this sentence another intention than an abandonment of all claims to restrict the reproduction and use of the text, only as this is expressed in a language style not commonly ued by lawyers? (If you in fact expect this, please explain.) -- Karl432 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really expect that any lawyer can successfully deduct from this sentence another intention than an abandonment of all claims to restrict the reproduction and use of the text: yes. Since this sentence has no value, I can also write a book whiche states "No rights for this book are in place", and the wook is still copyrighted. Copyright is acquired upon fixation, and can relinquised if a specific and clear language is used to state the cppyright is relinquished. This allows for making parodies of copyright notices without losing the work's copyright. Veverve (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check the history of publication I mentioned below. More than one lawyer has agreed on that interpretation. Alden Loveshade (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Malaclypse the Younger. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: Malaclypse the Younger grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law..Breastone (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... what? Veverve (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is hilarious. A fundamental tenet of Discordianism is that there is no authority.
The concept of things being "official" implies that there is some fundamental bedrock from which authority arises. Discordianism disagrees with this claim.
Therefore trying to argue about the specific wording of copyright legislation is entirely irrelevant. Discordianism not only rejects the idea of copyright, it also rejects the very assumptions that are necessary to have formal definitions of copyright.
In terms that may be understood by greyfaces who have been captured by the magic spells known as laws, the book is not protected by copyright and reproduction is encouraged. 86.3.202.34 09:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can believe you are not subject international agreements on copyrights, but the law is in place regardless of what you think. Veverve (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, a fringe religious belief doesn't generally overrule United States law.
Second, a fundamental tenet of Discordianism co-creator Gregory Hill is that he made the book "Kopyleft" because he didn't want his intentions to be misunderstood--i.e. he didn't want to get sued. The idea that nothing Discordian should be copyrighted is a 21st century idea and was not agreed upon by Gregory Hill, Kerry Wendell Thornley, Robert Anton Wilson, or Robert Shea. Greg copyrighted a short Discordian work before Principia Discordia was produced (that's likely why it's not included in the book). Kerry Thornley contributed Discordian-related material to copyrighted collections. And Roberts Wilson and Shea definitely had Discordianesque The Illuminatus! Trilogy copyrighted.
But.... There have been several editions of Principia Discordia published that note it is public domain. These include an edition posted online since the 1990s by Carnegie Mellon University, a print edition by Loompanics Unlimited, a print edition by Steve Jackson Games, and others. Steve Jackson Games is famous for winning a case against the United States Secret Service. This led to the foundation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation which you can read about on Wikipedia. SJGames is extremely careful about these things.
Disclaimer: I've done work associated with or directly for some of the people/groups/companies I mentioned, have written professionally about more than one of the things I mentioned, have been interviewed and am planned for another professional interview in regard to the above. So I admit my bias. But the facts remain. Alden Loveshade (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. For reasons stated in my rant above. (Although requiring voters to go through dozen of pieces of uploaded material to be able to vote on any of them seems a bit excessive. By comparison, the United States of America doesn't require people to vote either for every Republican or for every Democrat for them to be able to vote in an election). Alden Loveshade (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Principia_Discordia_(1970)&oldid=869797387"