Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies

• Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive1
• Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive2
• Talk:On the Jews and their Lies/Archive3
• Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism
• Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews

Merge

The contents of this article have been merged into Martin Luther and the Jews, as the two were largely repetitive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was decided to keep this title instead, so the contents of both are now in here. See Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews for the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone also restore the edit history of On the Jews and their Lies? It contains a lot of references and information that was deleted from the article at various times. Thanks. -Doright 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I like the Martin Luther navigational template -- very useful; thanks Jossi. I would, however, argue for removing the Lutheranism navigational template for two reasons: 1) this is not a link on that template (the reason for the template being to easily navigate between linked articles); and 2) the majority of the worlds Lutherans have rejected this document as not representing them or their views. This is certainly an important treatise for understanding Luther -- less so for understanding Lutheranism. Pastordavid 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pastordavid for these reasons. It should be removed from this article.--Drboisclair 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be appropriate to remove it. First, the article needn't be on the template itself; templates are included where there is any relevance to the topic. Secondly, the list of articles on the templates aren't only about Lutheranism today, but about the movement in general and its development, and that movement did support the way this text was used in the 1930s-40s. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the discomfort expressed by Pastordavid and Drboisclair, and will not be opposed to the removal of that template. Maybe the {{Lutheranism}} template can be split. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out one thing about Lutherans in the 1930s and 40s: Hitler established his own church, which in turn made use of this writing. Major Lutheran theologians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Althaus, Edmund Schlink, Werner Elert, Hermann Sasse, and others opposed the use of this writing in the way that Hitler used it. In the case of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, he was martyred for his opposition. If there were Lutherans who supported Hitler's use of this document, they became "German Christians" and left the Lutheran Church. I would concur with user:jossi's point that perhaps a split could be made. Everything that Luther said and did is not necessarily a part of Lutheranism. Lutherans universally have repudiated this shameful document.--Drboisclair 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it: it may be appropriate to keep the template on this page because this is a document that has been repudiated by the Lutheran Church; hence, it is maybe a good idea to leave it as it is. Lutheran churches have authoritatively repudiated this writing; hence, the Lutheranism template may be appropriate for that reason.--Drboisclair 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Drb, I'm hoping to do a rewrite of this page soon; I'm just waiting for reading material to arrive. Hopefully it'll be possible to discuss the position of the various Lutheran bodies then and now, and try to get a well-rounded, three-dimensional piece written, instead of the claim/counter-claim that we have at present. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First rate plan: We can do it.--Drboisclair 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to full text of American Edition Version of Text

Internet versions of the translation of this work taken from the American Edition of Luther's Works are infringing and according to WP:Copyvio should not be linked to. See discussion at: Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive1#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies. If you would like to verify this, please feel free to check with user Cecropia, who reviewed this some time ago and I believe put his comments on the talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews. Or, at your option, I'm willing to take this to another intellectual property expert in the Wikipedia community for review. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever deals with it, it has to be someone independent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me, of course. Do you have a suggestion beyond Cecropia, or is he acceptable to you? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be guided by Cecropia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll invite him to review the issue again. Do you know where in all the talk pages his prior comments have gone? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look through the archives. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) I found it. It is at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies - An Outside Opinion. I'll ask Cecropia to review it and see if his opinion has changed any. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Which links are involved, and who is the copyright holder? All I could find was one link to what is claimed to be a public domain translation (copyright lapsed) and the other to excerpts on the Fordham University website. Fordham University is violating the copyright laws? --Mantanmoreland 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the links in question for anyone looking at this (we can remove them from here if it's decided they are copyvios): Complete English translation of “On the Jews and their Lies, Fordham University; Ditto, reactor-core.org. The German text is in the public domain; both sites say the English translation is too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It says as follows on the Medieval Sourcebook website: "No representation is made about the copyright status of texts linked off-site. This site is intended for educational use. Notification of copyright infringement will result in the immediate removal of a text until its status is resolved." [1] So in other words, a representation IS made about the text that is on the site. I trust Fordham University, thank you very much, and I do not appreciate the slander that it is engaged in a multiyear pattern of copyright violations. The website was created in 1996 and the counter indicates that it has had in excess of ten million visitors. Something tells me that if there was a genuine copyright issue the page in question would have been taken down sometime within the past eleven years. --Mantanmoreland 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken to both sites and to the copyright holder. You are welcome to make the same calls. Fordham states that they are only the host for the Sourcebooks and that Halsall is responsible for the content. He no longer teaches at the institution, nor any academic institution as best I can determine. If you have other information, I would appreciate it and would be happy to contact him directly. Augsburg Fortress' permissons office verifies that they hold the copyright to the work and that they have never given permission to have the work placed on the internet to anyone. Reactor Core claims the work to be public domain based upon not being able to find a renewal record. However, the Congress of the United States renewed all works published at this time. The specifics are noted in the links above to the last two times we went around this block. If the online documents are not reliable enough, I can provide the names of copyright law experts you can call or you can try the copyright list at the Coalition for Networked Information. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So why has this massive and continuing copyright violation continued for so long - for a decade and then AFTER you brought it to the attention of the publisher? If this was an actual copyright violation, the cease and desist letters would have gone out and the offending material would have been snatched right off by Fordham University and the other site. Oh, and what you say about the Fordham site makes no sense. It is Fordham's responsibility. The fact the prof left is neither here nor there. Frankly I am not prepared to believe that Fordham University just shrugged its shoulders after being told of a copyright violation, said "not my problema" and just let a massive continuing copyright violation to continue to expose Fordham to liability.--Mantanmoreland 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes special care not to violate copyright. Putting this complete translation on the internet is questionable at best. Paul Halsall, at least, has violated the copyright of this document. There is a specific policy against linking to copyright infringed websites. I believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that this link be deleted in accordance to this policy: [2] That is a red flag to Wikipedia. The old law specified that copyright lasted 28 years, renewable once to 56 years. It has not been 56 years since this text was first published in the American Edition of Luther's Works. The new law provides an even longer time.--Drboisclair 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Halsall/Fordham University posting of this translation is in error when it states that the copyright is 1955. That was the copyright of the first volume of the American Edition to be published. On the Jews and Their Lies appears in volume 47, which is copyright © 1971: "LUTHER’S WORKS, VOLUME 47: THE CHRISTIAN IN SOCIETY IV, FRANKLIN SHERMAN, Edited by HELMUT T. LEHMANN General Editor, FORTRESS PRESS / PHILADELPHIA Copyright © 1971 by Fortress Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55–9893 ISBN 0–8006-0347–8. Please take this into consideration.--Drboisclair 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As the publisher and supposed copyright holder has been informed, and as Fordham University, the supposed violator, has also been informed (and the content of their site is their responsibility, not that of a former employee), and yet nothing has been done about it, I would imagine it's safe to assume there is no violation, or if there is, the publisher doesn't care. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mantanmoreland and find his observations very persuasive. Additionally, I can only conclude that the editors' special interest in deleting the link to On The Jews and Their Lies at the Medieval Sourcebook website at Fordham University is the same as for their many earlier attempts to render this article devoid of content. In any case, we are not required to be patent attorneys. Fordham says the material on their site is in the public domain. It has been there for years suggesting the original publisher has not asserted a copyright infringement. That's good enough for me. Even if in the unlikely event that Fordham is wrong, the publisher can always let us know and then at that point we can decide to delete the link. -Doright 05:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this is beside the point. If Fordham University "jumps into a lake", should Wikipedia do the same if the violator has not been caught or taken to task? The Fordham site is inaccurate when it states that the book in question was published in 1955. This in itself should throw up a red flag. You see user:Cecropia's determination. I guess we will have to wait for his decision as impartial. The fact of the matter is that these websites have violated copyright as has been established time and time again. To link to these websites is patently against Wikipedia policy. User:Doright implies that the editors here who are insisting on this have an interest in deleting it. Personally and candidly I wish we didn't have to delete it, because it is a contemporary translation; however, it is a copyright violation, and keeping the link to it violates Wikipedia's policy. If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't a copyvio matter? Think it over. One could post wholesale an entire book that was copyrighted and say that it was public domain. Would that make it public domain?--Drboisclair 05:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Doright makes a good suggestion in contacting the copyright owner and asking them. The question would be: is this text in the public domain? If they say it is, then there would be no copyvio here.--Drboisclair 06:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) See my response below. Wikipedia editors do not run around conducting original resource to disprove what a reliable source states.--Mantanmoreland 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia's current response

This goes back a way and I had to look at my earlier comments in order to refresh my memory.

Please help me out if I am misunderstanding, but it seems the issues are these:

1. We want to link to a copyrighted work, but the link points to a cribbed version that the publisher says is unauthorized;
2. Wikipedia policy remains that we should not link to infringing material;
3. The material in question is a well-founded English translation of the original;
4. The material in question does not include analysis of Luther's work;
5. The text we are quoting is only the accurate translation from the original German(?);
6. It is important to an understanding of the issues involved to be able to quote Luther's words in order to provide a proper understanding of this work.

OK, based on all of the above, my observations are these:

1. Valid copyright assumes that there is some original authorship involved;
2. Original authorship claimed in a simple translation is a little dicey; but
3. If we're linking to the entire book (or even a major portion thereof) the possibility snowballs that the translator had to make some knowledgeable assumptions on the correct translation (this is unavoidable, I could give some examples from translations from Shakespeare, or even the English language opinions on the meanings of Elizabethan era words or phrases);
4. If the Fordham on-line copy is infringing, even if the parts we quote are not, we are still supporting infringement.

But, I don't see why we can't still use the quotations and avoid supporting infringement in one or more of the following ways:

1. The best way would be to have someone skilled in German-English translation translate from a German edition in the public domain. In that case, we can link to the German language text. Id we do it that way, then we should provide the original German in a footnote;
2. Second best would be if someone has a copy of the book in question. Then we can quote from the book clearly as fair use. We can't provide a link, but we can provide a thoroughly valid standard attribution by citing the work in any of the standard formats;
3. Third best would be if someone has access even to a library copy of the printed book. One of us does not have to own the book in order to be able to quote from it as fair use;
4. As a last resort if we can't do the first three maybe we could do this: if we are thoroughly confident that the Fordham text is an accurate representation of the original book, we could quote from the text with a modified attribution in which we would cite the copyrighted work as the source, but with a notation to the effect of: "Quotation was obtained from an academic online source that the publisher of the translation asserts is unauthorized, therefore Wikipedia policy is not to identify or link to that source. We do believe that the web transcription is reliable.

My opinion above is based on the assumption that I am properly understanding the issues as I have outlined them above. Remember, IANAL though otherwise knowledgeable in the IP field. I hope this helps. -- Cecropia 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cecropia, for your opinion. You've stated the issues very clearly. The only spot where your summary of the issues may be inaccurate is I believe that the Fordham text includes the whole of the introduction from the American Edition.

Your suggestions are ones I've made for the last few years, and, in fact, has been the way we've handled this before. There is at the Forham site a collection of excerpts, to which we've linked and used as a quotation source. As you have pointed out, it is both fair use and good to do this.

Slim, in the light of this opinion, please remove the link to the full text of the work. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy any of this. Simple issue. An indisputably reliable source, the Fordham University medieval sourcebook, publishes the full text of the translation of an ancient manuscript and says that this manuscript is in the public domain. No other WP:RS source says otherwise. That ends the issue as far as I am concerned. Original research by editors, particularly those with a proven POV on this issue, is not acceptable to override what a reliable indeed distinguished source states as a fact. --Mantanmoreland 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not original research in that I am not proposing any text for the article at all. This is an attempt to follow WP:Copyvio. Cecropia has reviewed now twice both my reasoning and actions to determine the status of this work. I have documented each step. You are welcome to take exactly the same steps, if you wish. You are also welcome to invite another respected and neutral Wikipedian to examine the issue. So, then, either find another, do the work or remove the link. Your choice. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to prove or disprove the original research of other editors, to prevent them from removing a link to a reliable source. If we did, this project would grind to a halt. This is an indisputably reliable source, a scholarly website run by Fordham University, one notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. Please do not remove links to that website, and please stop your disruptive "copyright violation" campaign. --Mantanmoreland 16:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, while we're at it - while we're besmirching the integrity of this fine website, why don't we fix the article on the sourcebook to say as follows: "Original research by a Wikipedia editor proves that one of its manuscripts is actually under copyright. Fordham knows this and won't remove it." --Mantanmoreland 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another editor will contact Fordham University to clarify the issue. In the meantime, as Mantan says, we have a reliable source saying this is public domain. We have an editor saying that he contacted the university and the publisher last year or even earlier, and neither has done anything to remove the material. It therefore seems clear that this isn't an issue, but we can ask Fordham to explain. There doesn't seem to be anything else to say about it for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I agree. I would add, however, primary, original or unpublished research is neither needed nor persuasive no matter how many editors engage in it. Therefore, I don't think there is a need to contact the university. The published statement is clear enough. -Doright 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, thank you for the opportunity to clarify what seems to be a false assumption from which your analysis proceeds. Your analysis starts by assuming, " We want to link to a copyrighted work, but the link points to a cribbed version that the publisher says is unauthorized." However, there is no agreement regarding that assumption. In fact, that assumption is at the core of the editorial dispute. And, we have a WP:RS that contradicts that assumption. Therefore, I understand your comments to be of the kind that says, even if there is a copyright infringement and even if the publisher says it is unauthorized and even if the publisher objects, "I don't see why we can't still use the quotations..." That is fine but not of present concern, as the objecting editors are no longer deleting quotes from the text. -Doright 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, original research is the basis of all of Cecropia's assertions. It is deeply wrong to eliminate reliably sourced content from Wikipedia because of OR. --Mantanmoreland 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How are my assumptions based on Original Research? -- Cecropia 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Every single one is based on original research.--Mantanmoreland 18:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, that response doesn't answer my question. What is the Original Research you're referring to and who is doing it? Try to remember that I am an outsider to this discussion. -- Cecropia 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cecropia, Mantan is referring to CTSWyneken's research into the copyright status. Some independent verification of that is needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would someone give me the link to the Fordham page? I want to see it for myself. Thanks, Cecropia 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fordham version is at: On the Jews and their Lies. The verso of the title page of the source is here. The U.S. Copyright Office's Circular 22,third bullet under "Some words of Caution" describes the status of the work. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) And here is what it says at the bottom of the Fordham page:

"This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.

"Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

"© Paul Halsall, February 21, 2001"

Note the date on the copyright. NOBODY has raised an issue concerning the copyright status of this document in six years.--Mantanmoreland 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes no difference. An independent decision was rendered above, so the link should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Mr. Halsall can only copyright his own material not that of someone else. Let's follow Wiki policy here.--Drboisclair 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No decision was "rendered," and this "copyvio" red herring is just the latest battle in a Thirty Years edit war. This entire issue was fought out over a year ago.[3]. Enough already. Stop the nonsense.--Mantanmoreland 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, stop slandering Halsall and stop making accusations against the integrity of Fordham University. Halsall is not here to defend himself, and an accusation that he copyrighted someone else's work illegitimately is a serious charge. Fordham University does not sanction copyright violations. Medieval Sourcebook is a reliable source, and it says that this material is in the public domain. If you cannot cite a WP:RS reliable source that says otherwise, not a product of your own original research, please hold your peace.--Mantanmoreland 19:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You can hold your peace too. We have presented reliable sources above, and you choose to ignore them. You will only abide by Wikipedia policy if it suits you.--Drboisclair 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have followed the links provided me, and I see Fordham's assertion about "public domain." I look at the work cited at amazon.com and looked at the copyright notice in the publication. Now can someone point me to where Fordham acknowledges that they used the translation in "Luther's works By Martin Luther, Jaroslav Pelikan, Daniel E. Poellot, Walter A. Hansen, Hilton C. Oswald, Harold J. Grimm, Helmut T. Lehmann, George W. Forell, Philip S. Watson, Lewis W. Spitz, Theodore Bachmann, Abdel Ross Wentz, Martin E. Lehmann, Eric W. Gritsch, Conrad Bergendoff"? -- Cecropia 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I do know that a reliable source has asserted no copyright violation. I understand that if you were taking this material off some antisemitic website you would rightly doubt their claims regarding copyright; indeed, such sites are notorious for reproducing the entire contents of copyrighted works while falsely claiming "fair use". However, this is not at all similar - Fordham University is not Jew Watch. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that Fordham is the "reliable source"? I wouldn't accept that as a legal decision; they are a party at interest. How many reputable teachers and professors at reputable institutions still purchase one copy of a copyrighted work and make copies of a chapter or more for their students in their coursework? Clear copyvio. -- Cecropia 19:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why universities are so sensitive to the issue that they put copyright notices on library copying machines. No university is stupid enough to publish purloined material. At the first inkling of a genuine issue, they react. That is why I know this whole thing is bogus. They are indeed an "interested party." They are "interested" in covering their butts!--Mantanmoreland 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't say that their declaration is a "legal decision", but it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Just as we rely on various other reliable sources to inform our decision about what is libel and what is not, so we can rely on Fordhan University here. It's not a matter of a professor photocopying some pages to hand out to students; as I understand it, they have had this material on their website for 6 years now, asserting their claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) At the bottom of the Halsall page, he gives the source as Martin Bertram. The text of this work matches the Martin Bertram translation in Vol. 47 of Luther's Works, a library catalog record for which is here. The information is in the contents note. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll hire a copyright lawyer for $500 an hour to sort through all these issues. Then, if it turns out that this indeed a copyvio, I'll contact Fordham University, Fordham will remove that from its website and THEN the link can be removed. And not until. Apparently the publisher hasn't even bothered to cough up a 37 cent stamp to write Fordham (where the copy machines have copyright notices) to ask that they take it off. That is an issue, in the unlikely event that there is an issue, between Fordham and the publisher.--Mantanmoreland 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the excerpt page, also at Fordham. Here the source is given fully as volume 47 of Luther's Works. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That has the identical copyright information that I copied above, and a date of 1997. I repeat, 1997. It has been on the Fordham website for TEN YEARS with nobody except one Wikipedia editor making a fuss about it. --Mantanmoreland 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Scroll up the page a bit. The copyright of the translation is 1971. The 1997 date is when the text was posted in electronic form. Cecropia, does the fact the Halsall claims copyright in some else's work a red flag? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Not quite"? Who other than you -- an edit warrior on Wikipedia -- gives a damn? Why doesn't the publisher care about your "red flag"?--Mantanmoreland 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mantanmoreland, you should review WP:CIVIL. CTSWyneken is not an edit warrior. My question is: Who would originate a complaint? The publisher whose work has been infringed would be the one to do this. Wikipedia should be proud of a conscientious editor, who wants to make sure that there is no copyvio. I think that the abuse should stop.--Drboisclair 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Drb, please ... CTSW is the Platonic form of an edit warrior, in addition to which he stands in a clear conflict of interest in relation to this article, because part of his self-described job description is developing online resources about Luther for a Lutheran church. As if that were not enough, he has caused chaos on these articles for years trying to keep out any and all negative material about Luther, to the point of allowing a completely misleading account of Luther's final sermon (an account which made Luther appear to say the opposite of what he did in fact say) to stand in Wikipedia uncorrected for 18 months. I hope that's all I have to say about it, so as not to re-open wounds, but similarly I would ask you not to defend that kind of editing, because if you do defend it, I will respond, and I would prefer not to. The situation is such that I'm considering taking it to the ArbCom if it continues, and sadly it does seem to be continuing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SV, I will not address anyone's motives but, for better or worse this is a copyrighted work. So now it is a question of Wikipedia policy and should be argued in a forum appropriate to that issue. Dare I suggest that someone here contact Fortress Press, the recorded copyright owner, and ask for permission to let us publish the chapter with whatever notice or caveats they specify? We certainly don't have the right to put this in public domain. -- Cecropia 20:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) Nobody wants to publish the chapter. What is at issue are links, which as I understand it are a matter of Wikipedia policy and not the copyright laws. It is just our policy to remove to sites that violate copyright, as the publisher is not I repeat NOT alleging.--Mantanmoreland 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is "just our policy"? So you believe, posting on Wikipedia, that we can ignore Wikipedia policy (which I have quoted above)? Would you consider taking this to ArbCom or other competent Wikipedia review mechanism?

I've e-mailed the university that has published it, and I'll also e-mail the publishers to find out why, if it's their copyright, they've not asked the university to take it down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Slim Virgin, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this. This is the wisest course. I hope that this will settle this once and for all. Please share your findings.--Drboisclair 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good, SV. An unimpeachable solution. -- Cecropia 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia tries again

Please Note: I am simply laying the facts based on what is observable and what we know. We are now arguing about a Wikipedia Policy and whether we should adhere to it. Please don't ask me to judge anyone's motives, but here are some facts:

OK, I have answered my own question.

1. The acknowledgement that they have taken the text from Luther's Works, Fortress Press, 1971, is here.
2. That Fortress Press asserted copyright in the work in 1971 is here (follow the link to page iv).
3. That works copyrighted in 1971 are automatically renewed for an additional 67 years without a renewal registration is covered in this paragraph:

   • Works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977: The amendment to the copyright law enacted June 26, 1992, makes renewal registration optional. The copyright is still divided between a 28-year original term and a 67-year renewal term, but a renewal registration is not required to secure the renewal copyright. The renewal vests on behalf of the appropriate renewal claimant upon registration or, if there is no renewal registration, on December 31 of the 28th year.[4]

4. Finally, "Derivative Works" may be copyrighted if they include "what the copyright law calls an 'original work of authorship.' ” The Copyright Office's Circular 14 explicitly states (in several places) that a translation is a derivative work.[5].

So clearly Fortress Press has a valid copyright in the work. Unless Fordham has written evidence that Fortress has allowed them to use the work, they are infringing, whether or not the infringement has been allowed to continue with the copyright owner's knowledge. You do not lose your copyright because someone is openly infringing it.

OK, now we come to the nitty-gritty. We are not Fortress Press, so it is not for us to decide whether or not Fordham is doing a Bad Thing. This entire argument is now over Wikipedia policy that we should not link to an infringing work. Linking to the work could bring disrepute to Wikipedia. I believe this is a matter for ArbCom, if it is competent to render such decisions on Wikipedia policy. -- Cecropia 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the Wikipedia policy that applies is WP:RS. What is likely to bring "disrepute" to Wikipedia, in my view, is to get out ahead of the publisher and, in effect, accuse Fordham University of a multiyear pattern of copyright violations. That is what is happening here, and it is happening in the context of an editing war, in a campaign to remove links by an editor whose edit warring was succinctly described by SlimVirgin above. What we have here is an editor disruptively pushing his POV, and for the umpteenth time and with the goal of removing material derogatory to Martin Luther. --Mantanmoreland 20:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the editor posting above needs to reply with his civility and erudition here rather than his emotions. I appreciate the contribution of Cecropia, and I would not accuse him of WP:OR if he came down on the other side.--Drboisclair 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am accusing Fordham of nothing. For all I know they have a legal opinion or they actually got permission from the copyright owner, but nobody has shown this to us. We are talking Wikipedia Policy, not judging Fordham. It's not our place to do that. Is this an important and enforceable Wikipedia Policy, or is it not? -- Cecropia 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I seem to be putting words into your mouth. Your posts and communications have been very clear, and I express my appreciation for your work here. I also appreciate User:Where's contribution below. You were being accused by another of original research; however, that prohibition is reserved only for the constructing of articles, which this work is not doing directly.--Drboisclair 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. By my indent I was trying to reply to Mantanmoreland -- Cecropia 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As Slim noted above, by OR I was not referring to you but to "CTSWyneken's research int0o the copyright status." Didn't you see that reply? I'd suggest that you not get dragged into this Thirty Years editing war, of which this is the latest episode (and a repeat episode at that).--Mantanmoreland 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, you state, "For all I know they [Fordham] have a legal opinion . . . ." By this I understand you to be saying a legal opinion different from your opinion. Respectfully, I must say there may be other editors more interested in your legal opinion than I. If I understand correctly, it is your synthesis now, your original research, that the work is not in the public domain. That's fine, you are certainly entitled to it. I too have some familiarity with IP and know enough that the law is quite technical and sometimes even counter-intuitive. From WP I also know that we rely upon WP:RS not editors opinions or their synthesis from purported facts. Do you deny that the published and WP:RS Fordham source asserts that the work is in the public domain? -Doright 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia's trying to help us out here by giving an independent opinion based on the material presented to him. That's all he can do, and I'm grateful that he's taken the time. As I said above, the best thing now is to write to the various parties (a process I've already started) to see what the university and the publishers can tell me about the copyright situation. Once I've heard from them, I'll report back here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, SV. I think some of the passionate editors here don't realize that I don't have a horse in the race. I've already stated IANAL (though my work has involved Intellectual Property for decades) and, even if I were a lawyer I could not give a legal opinion because there would be no lawyer-client relationship between me and Wikipedia. I have supplied all the references to show why the Fordham work is, to appearances anyway, infringing. Has it occurred to anyone that the folks at Fordham may simply be ignorant of the law. That they assume that because the German work is in the public domain, any English translation must be, too? That seems like common sense, but that's not what the U.S. copyright office says in the references I linked to. I am accused of original research--I'll defend that against a partisan's stance that something is public domain for no better reason than they wish it so. -- Cecropia 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that hasn't occurred to me it isn't possible. The Fordham administration is as conservative as exists upon the planet. They would rather be flogged with cat o' nine tails than be caught in any kind of controversy. Additional to that, legal beagles from Fordham Law are available 24/7. --Mantanmoreland 03:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What I have done is research, but it is not "original research" within the meaning of WP:OR which states: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." -- Cecropia 02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, of course you don't have a horse in this race. All agree you are the model of objective reason and analysis. However, you have declined to answer my simple and straightforward question, Do you deny that the published and WP:RS Fordham source asserts that the work is in the public domain? Instead you respond by attacking the editor and positing a strawman. Specifically, you now say, "I'll defend that against a partisan's stance that something is public domain for no better reason than they wish it so." This is certainly not the argument that Mantanmoreland, SlimVirgin, Jayjg [[6]] and others have made. To say so is an unpleasant type of rhetoric that certainly establishes you as one of the lead jockeys in what you refer to as the horse race. Please answer the question and try to bridle the rhetoric. After you confirm or deny that the Fordham source asserts that the work is in the public domain, then you can teach me about the meaning of WP:OR and how your synthesis (i.e., “Clearly Fortress Press has a valid copyright in the work. Unless Fordham has written evidence that Fortress has allowed them to use the work, they are infringing.”) is not a synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Instead, you now posit that Fordham is ignorant. Please. -Doright 04:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fordham (the University) is not the proponent of this work. See my section below. So even if I were to concede Fordham as WP:RS, they don't want to know about any legal problems. Also see below. My "synthesis" is based on four points I enumerated above and provided a WP:RS link for each one. Your position is "Fordham said it. I believe it. And that settles it." Even if that were a valid form of reasoning, Fordham doesn't say it. -- Cecropia 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, you have repeatedly referred to "Fordham," so I too referred to Fordham for consistency. Now, please don't play 3-card Monty with me. Just replace the word "Fordham" with the word "source" and answer the question, please. -Doright 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What? Why are you now saying that "Fordham" is not the issue, and you only used "Fordham" for consistency? You refer to the "WP:RS Fordham source" indicating that Fordham is to be trusted. Are you know saying that "Source" is to be trusted? You say "you now posit that Fordham is ignorant. Please." Again Fordham. Did you mean to say that I am wrong to claim any "source" may be ignorant? I will leave your 3-card monte insult alone. That I don't have your trust is obvious. That you think I'm a partisan in this issue is obvious. You don't have to convince me that you think you "have my number." You babble about my "synthesis." Did you look at my four observations and read the citations? Now please tell me what the question is that you feel I haven't answered. == Cecropia 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but here's my take. Note that currently, the article has a link to the reactor-core website, which has the same information as the Fordham website. It cites the 1955 edition of the book. Wikipedia:Public Domain links to this chart from Cornell university, which says that a 1955 work is in the public domain if its copyright has not been renewed. While some other volumes of this series had their copyrights renewed, Volume 47 (the volume in question), did not [7][8]. So we should be fine to keep the link. -- Where 20:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My proposal: keep the Reactor Core link, which is fine per the above, and remove the redundant Fordham link. We can always recreate the Fordham page (which has excerpts) in a legal fashion by quoting from the Reactor Core site (which has the full text). -- Where 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion but I think that this is yet another reason to simply leave the links alone, and not try to create an issue where none had previously existed. None of the parties directly involved are claiming copyright violation. Let's drop the whole subject and move on, particularly since removing links involve casting aspersions on a respected academic and a noted educational institution. --Mantanmoreland 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.[9] (my highlight)≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia, thanks from me also. I'm content to await the results of Slim's emails to verify my information. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fordham has distanced itself from this work

At the bottom of this page:

The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies.

The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in providing web space and server support for the project.

The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.

Please note: project independent of Fordham University [...] and is not liable as the result of any legal action.

This page also says:

If any copyright has been infringed, this was unintentional. The possibility of a site such as this, as with other collections of electronic texts, depends on the large availability of public domain material from texts translated before 1923. [In the US, all texts issued before 1923 are now in the public domain. Texts published before 1964 may be in the public domain if copyright was not renewed after 28 years. This site seeks to abide by US copyright law: the copyright status of texts here outside the US may be different.]

OK, they mention the magic 1923 date. This is a 1971 copyright. Where do you see an assertion that the below specifically is public domain?

From Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268-293

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.

The last is a broad statement that the Sourcebook (as a whole) is a collection "of public domain and copy-permitted texts." An entire section of Luther's Works is copied verbatim, so there goes "fair use." So that leaves "public domain." Where is this assertion and, more important, where is the rationale (on the Sourcebook site, not Wikipedia). -- Cecropia 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you getting so worked up about this? The publisher hasn't.--Mantanmoreland 04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting change of argumentation. Because I was asked to look at this by someone who is involved in the project, and another editor on the other side of the issue (SlimVirgin) expressed trust in fairness to review this. -- Cecropia 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out why editors on Wikipedia seem more worked up about this than the publisher, despite the latter having known about this horrendous copyright violation atrocity for at least a year. That's all. I'm having problems with that, because it makes no sense. Do you know how easy it would be for the publisher to correct that if there was a genuine copyright issue? This is a MAJOR website with millions of hits. I said it would cost a 37 cent stamp. Incorrect. It would cost nothing. An email to the general counsel would do the trick.--Mantanmoreland 04:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to address a specific question; whether or not we are linking to an infringed work. I have to say yes. If I am challenged on this, than I respond to the challenge. Wikipedia has a policy (which I did not write) which says the following:

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. [...] WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.

I have been an admin and a Wikipedia bureaucrat since 2004 and have made it my business to be as fair and as concise as possible, and not insert my personal feelings into an analysis. My practical (as opposed to ethical) reason for this is that I believe it promotes trust in the process and trust in my fairness. Obviously some here do not want to see this work linked to. Others have reasons that they do want this linked to. My personal (emphasize personal feeling is that more information is always better than less. But I was asked a different question, whether we are encouraging use of someone else's intellectual property, in violation of clearly stated Wikiedpia policy. That is the question I've tried to answer.

As to your last point, I believe Slim Virgin is doing exactly that. Can we see what the responses are? -- Cecropia 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did a Google search. The Medieval Sourcebook alleged copyright violation atrocity is No. 1! [10]Do you seriously believe the publisher was not aware of this? If this is a copyright violation it is a massive one that would cost the publisher significant revenues. It is inconceivable to me that they "didn't notice" since 1997 for one article and 2001 for the other.

In doing the above Google search, I stumbled upon yet another full-text duplication of the translation of this document.[11]. I'm sure there must be others, but this one happened to be on the first page of the search. Again, where is the publisher? Where is the cease and desist letter? Either this publisher is a victim of massive Internet crime and the publisher doesn't care, or this has fallen into the public domain.--Mantanmoreland 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A copyright holders' failure to prosecute infringement does not cause the work to fall in the Public Domain. That this is an "atrocity" and other flamboyant language fails to acknowledge that we are dealing with a Wikipedia policy. I will not lose sleep for even one night if the link stays here, but that is not the issue. -- Cecropia 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that the publisher's inaction is an indication that it has fallen into the public domain. That brings me to something I just noticed, and I don't believe it has been mentioned before. There is another English translation on Amazon from something called the Liberty Bell Press, "copyright 2004." [12]. My question would be if this is a republication of the Fortress Press translation or not? The translator is not stated. If it is, it is more likely to indicate that this is in the public domain than that there is yet another massive copyright violation atrocity.--Mantanmoreland 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep using the silly exaggeration "atrocity." Are you asserting the backup position that even if the work is copyrighted and infringed, and even if Wikipedia policy clearly states that we shouldn't link to an infringed work, that it is "no big deal" and we should just link anyway? -- Cecropia 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And why do you continue to misrepresent my point, which is not that it is "no big deal" but rather that it is likely that there is NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. I keep saying that and you keep using strawman arguments. The 2004 edition is another indication (pending more information on the actual edition) that the book is MAY be in the public domain. Instead of coming back at me with another distortion, why not address that point? --Mantanmoreland 14:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You use, but refuse to explain your hyperbole. How does elevating infringement to an "atrocity" assert that you mean that it is in the public domain? In terms of argumentation you are grasping at straws to claim that the work is in the public domain. Another book? Maybe it's the same text? That suggests it's in the public domain. I have set a case and provided links that the work is not public domain. You are looking for hints and suppositions and wishful thinking that it is. -- Cecropia 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) Because it's not hyperbole. That's your spin. In the very unlikely event that the Medieval Sourcebook has been violating the copyright of a widely known work for many years, it indeed would be an "atrocity" and a significant issue for both parties. It could bring the whole project crashing down and cause financial losses for Fordham as well, its disclaimer notwithstanding. You still haven't explained to me why the publisher would not invest in a 37 cent stamp to ask this major website to stop purloining its work, if that in fact was happening. You still keep dodging my point, which is that the publisher's inaction is evidence that there is no copyvio. This is not "clutching at straws." It is the same point that was raised when this "copyvio" straw man was raised a year and a half ago. --Mantanmoreland 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we are raising the stakes. You assert that, if the work is not public domain it can cause an entire project to come down, cause financial issues for Fordham University. And you use defend your "non-hyperbolic" use of "atrocity" ("the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane"[13]. I think you are not adhering to a Jesuitical precision in your use of language, as I haven't seen anything atrocious in this issue.

Your basic error is that you are looking for secondary and tertiary "indications" that this work is in the public domain. If the publisher hasn't complained (they don't need to), that suggests it is in the public domain. If a 2004 book has the same translation and translator it suggests it is in the public domain. No conclusive evidence at all. Well, how about this If, completely apart from my showings that [WP:RS]] sources like, umm, the U.S. Copyright Office, show the work to be in the public domain. What If:

• The publisher still has the book in print;
• This same book is currently offered on amazon;
• The excerpts from the book by amazon display the 1971 copyright notice;
• Amazon's link (at books.google.com) not only shows the copyright page and has a watermark on each page "Copyrighted Material" but also asserts the following on:

Publisher Info

Published by Fortress Press

Pages displayed by permission

I could respect your POV more if you simply said "Having a link to Luther's original text is invaluable in an understanding of the work and the issue, and we should find a way to make this accessible to the Wikipedia reader." Is that what you meant? I can wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. But I was asked a technical question that bears on stated Wikipedia policy, and this can't be resolved by guesses and wishes. -- Cecropia 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll say it: Having a link to Luther's original text is invaluable in an understanding of the work and the issue, and we should find a way to make this accessible to the Wikipedia reader. ;) I also think we are spinning our wheels over what is probably a public domain text. Where's point, below, indicates that one of the two links is usable, so we seem to be expending this energy over a grand total of one link. And may I conclude by saying sir that nobody has ever accused me of being Jesuitical! If that is our standard of discourse now, this will be a far smaller project and will have to do without me, to the grief of many.--Mantanmoreland 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why, 'tis a loving and a fair reply. Who says that understanding among the academically inclined can't be reached without choosing pistols and seconds? Perhaps now I can go back to doing whatever it is I do when I'm not wrestling arcana. I think all the issues have been laid out pending some definitive conclusion. I apologize if you do not appreciate the Jesuit mantle. I had thought you had gone to a Jesuit school. I have some experience with Jesuits, who are marvelously precise in their word-usage, but they also tend to try to nibble away at others' arguments. At least that is my impression. :) Cheers, Cecropia 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, attending a Jesuit school does not make one into a Jesuit, or even infinitesimally Jesuitical. --Mantanmoreland 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello :). Regarding the lack of enforcement, copyright holders often do not bother to enforce their copyrights on the Internet; it is too vast. Take abandonware, for example. And it is possible that the academic in question made a mistake. I feel that we should not take their word for it.

When it comes to copyright, if I understand it correctly, we are concerned with the work that is cited. If the same work is then published later under a different date, the new date is irrelevant, since it does not affect the copyright on the original work. Also, if a cited book is published as a later edition of an earlier work, we only care about the date of the cited book and not the earlier one, since the later one may have additions created more recently.

In any case, the Fordham website cites a version of the book from the 1970s, so the copyright is still in effect. Please let me know what you think of my logic. Happy editing! -- Where 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that might apply to crackpot websites, such as ones run by neo-Nazis or strident opponents of antisemitism, but not the Medieval Sourcebook. It certainly would not apply to another publisher. I think the translator of the 2004 edition is significant. If it is the same one as Fortress Press, that would indicate to me that this is indeed a public domain translation. No way a publisher would allow another publisher to do that. --Mantanmoreland 14:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS Source asserts that the work is in the public domain?

Cecropia, again, you have not answered the question. Do you deny that the WP:RS source asserts that the work is in the public domain? A simple yes or no will suffice. -Doright 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I deny that. I also will not beg the question that the author (not the University) is a reliable source on the question of copyright. The only assertion I can see is the assertion that the entire project has the goal of using public domain work. Show me where it is asserted that that particular work is in the public domain and show me the justification that a 1971 copyrighted work is in the public domain. You think something passes into the public domain because someone using it says it is? Wow. -- Cecropia 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The burden is not on editors to ascertain if a reputable academical institution is breaking copyright law or not. As long as we are stating that the place we found the material claims that the work is not under copyright, Wikipedia is fine.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but once someone has pointed out the problem, the nature of the issue shifts. Before we know, it's a matter of good faith belief; after it's pointed out, it's a matter of willful refusal. -- Cecropia 15:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait to hear back from the university and publisher, but in passing I do wonder how someone can claim copyright on a translation into English of a 450-year-old German text that is in the public domain, and which was likely translated into English several times during that 450 years. I can see that a new translation would involve some additional labor, perhaps amounting to derivative use, but I'm wondering whether it could be sufficiently different to trigger the right to place a new copyright on it. A new translation is often more like a copy edit than anything else, unless it's something like poetry, which requires creative input, but with a straightforward text like this, I don't see how a new translation could be that different from a previous one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say because the Copyright Office specifically says that a translation is considered a derivative work. A broader question would be if the translator picked up someone else's translation rather than translating "new" from the German. We have no reason to assume that. I will comment on this two ways. First, the concept of copyright is that it protects intellectual property for a certain time, so that those who prepare copyrightable material will want to do so. Why would someone bother to translate a scholarly work (unless he or she has a lot of free time) if the work instantly goes into the public domain? Second, translation requires knowledge of both languages, its structure, nuances and colloquialisms, and one must make decisions on how to translate because the manner of translation affects the understanding of the work. That's why we have "better translations" and so on. One of the Variorum Editions of Shakespeare's plays has a treatise on translation. I'll give you two examples I recall: Iago's curse in Othello:

Not poppy, nor mandragora,

Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world,

Shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleep

Which thou owedst yesterday,

"Drowsy" is a difficult translation because most languages have no direct equivalent, and for a more amusing problem, translating Hamlet, after the Player Queen reads the line that also describe Hamlet's father's death:

O, confound the rest!

Such love must needs be treason in my breast:

In second husband let me be accurst!

None wed the second but who kill'd the first.

To which Hamlet mutters as an aside:

Wormwood, wormwood.

Hamlet is bitter as is wormwood, and the manner of his father's death is at the heart of his bitterness. And "wormwood" certainly has an unpleasant sound to it. But one French translator translated Hamlet's aside as:

Absinthe, Absinthe

Which is a much different association. Absinthe is made from wormwood, but Hamlet was expressing bitterness, not seeking an aesthetic "high." So, in sum, unless you wish us to be trapped into accept machine translations, perhaps you can understand why translations of public domain works can be copyrighted. -- Cecropia 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see that with anything requiring creative input (poetry, plays, some other fiction) that a new translation would be a lot of work and therefore worthy of protection. But for a non-fiction text like this, there's a limit to how much one translation could differ from another. Von den Juden und ihren Lügen can be "on the Jews and their lies" or "about the Jews and their lies," or maybe just "the Jews and their lies." Based on the text that I've seen so far, most of the choices would be of that ilk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if our European editors can tell us a little about European law related to copyright. My understanding is that it is more stringent than American law. In American copyright law translations are new works that are copyrighted. For example a new translation of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales came out recently, and it is copyright 2005. Translations of the Bible, which is a very old collection of documents, are also copyrighted.

The introduction by Bertram to his translation ends with the paragraph: "Our translation is based on the text, Von den Jüden und jren Lügen, as found in WA 53, 417–552. Like Against the Sabbatarians, the present treatise was reprinted in the second Munich edition (1934–1940) of Luther’s works (H. H. Borchert and Georg Merz [eds.], Martin Luther: Ausgewählte Werke, Vol. III of the Ergänzungsreihe [Munich, 1936], pp. 61–228), though it had not been included in the first edition (1922 ff.) and was again omitted from the third edition (1948 ff.). Translation of the treatise into English hitherto has been limited to brief excerpts published in fugitive pamphlets." There has been no full English translation of this document until 1971.--Drboisclair 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All signatories to the Copyright Conventions are now supposed to have normalized their copyright laws with each other in order to secure international protection for their national copyright holders. Perhaps some countries' courts are more willing to entertain some suits than other countries, but the basic law should now be the same. -- Cecropia 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can know it wasn't translated before 1971; I have to say that seems extremely unlikely. Even if it's true, I wonder how much of this translation any of us would have to change before it became a new translation, which we would own the copyright on and could therefore release into the public domain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bertram and I could be wrong as I was wrong on the translation of Vom Shem Hamphoras as "user:Meister Brau" has said. There was that thin pamphlet with that horrible caricature of "The Wandering Jew". That was a translation of bits and pieces, and they did not identify the translator.--Drboisclair 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as older translations into English go, I had a look at the catalogue of the British Library, and there don't seem to be any. An explanation might be that according to Wallmann's survey article the work was never especially popular. Dr Zak 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it almost inconceivable that the Nazis would pay so much attention to this text, to the point of displaying it during the Nuremberg Rally, but neither Britain nor the U.S. would bother to translate it to find out what the fuss was about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And then we have that "Liberty Bell" translation that intrigues me. I would actually buy it to clear up the mystery, but this appears to be a neo-Nazi publisher.--Mantanmoreland 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess people considered it more worthwhile to read those advocates of German nationalism that were quoting M.L. than Luther himself. Dr Zak 22:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)