Talk:Wikimedia España/Letter to the BoT regarding URAA
Add topicLatest comment: 10 years ago by Rosenzweig in topic "somewhen in the last century"
Thank you for this important letter
[edit]Dear Wikimedia España,
Thank you for your support to our letter, and for making the case for a larger Public Domain. It is our hope that a strong international support will be able to create the needed momentum in the Movement to oppose the URAA norm.
NLIGuy (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WMIL.
"somewhen in the last century"
[edit]That could mean 1999. Is there really any doubt that such a work would most likely still be copyrighted? --Rosenzweig (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The wording from the text in spanish language (the mother tongue of letter writers) has the wording que se puede haber creado el siglo pasado. I think that I don't need to remember you the pre-1923 clause of USA copyright law that releases all printed works in public domain, neither remember you that is fully possible that somebody died more than 70 years ago (ie at the end of ago 1943) was published some works after 1923. In fact, I didn't got the point of your message Lugusto • ※ 02:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I know all that very well. But I "don't get the point" of that particular sentence of the letter. Probably because the English is a bit confusing. "Somebody who came across some anonymous work that could be dated somewhen in the last century, could be required to find that person among the more than seven billion people on Earth, to avoid a violation of some state copyright law.": First a supposedly "anonymous" work is mentioned, then suddenly it's a person who must be found. Which person? What is the relationship of said person to the work that was mentioned in the first part of the sentence? And why is "the last century" (that's the 20th century) mentioned? I could understand the point if the 19th century was used, as a metaphor for works that are so old that they are most likely in the public domain. But the 20th century spans the years from 1901 to 2000. And a supposedly "anonymous" work from 1999 is not a problem at all, as that work is in all likelihood copyrighted and unfit for Commons. So this sentence suffers from a lack of grammar as well as logic. And it seems that this is the case in both the Spanish and English versions, at least as far as I can see. --Rosenzweig (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Surely, it's a language issue. I've got confused also on reading the English version, the main reason that I didn't finished the translation to Portuguese. Anyway this letter at least archivied their intention: BoT finally replied to Wikimedia Israel. Lugusto • ※ 21:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I know all that very well. But I "don't get the point" of that particular sentence of the letter. Probably because the English is a bit confusing. "Somebody who came across some anonymous work that could be dated somewhen in the last century, could be required to find that person among the more than seven billion people on Earth, to avoid a violation of some state copyright law.": First a supposedly "anonymous" work is mentioned, then suddenly it's a person who must be found. Which person? What is the relationship of said person to the work that was mentioned in the first part of the sentence? And why is "the last century" (that's the 20th century) mentioned? I could understand the point if the 19th century was used, as a metaphor for works that are so old that they are most likely in the public domain. But the 20th century spans the years from 1901 to 2000. And a supposedly "anonymous" work from 1999 is not a problem at all, as that work is in all likelihood copyrighted and unfit for Commons. So this sentence suffers from a lack of grammar as well as logic. And it seems that this is the case in both the Spanish and English versions, at least as far as I can see. --Rosenzweig (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- "It's a language issue" alright, but not because of a mistranslation. As I wrote, "it seems that this is the case in both the Spanish and English versions". The Spanish "Si alguien se encuentra, por ejemplo, con un trabajo anónimo, que se puede haber creado el siglo pasado, se puede ver obligado a tener que buscar a esa persona y negociar el uso de la obra, dado que solo así puede garantizar el no incurrir en una violación de derechos de autor." is just as confusing and illogical as the English version, first mentioning a trabajo (work), but then suddenly referring to a persona (person) and also using "el siglo pasado", which if I understand this correctly means not just any former century, but the last one that has passed, i. e. the 20th century. --Rosenzweig (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)