Talk:Preces (Opus Dei)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Text removal

The text of the prayer was removed by a single purpose account with no editing history save for editing this page. The user also inserted a very strong copyright claim that was unsourced. I'm skeptical of this claim for the following reasons:

  • I'm doubt the prayer is even covered by copyright. For something dating to 1930s, copyrights had to be both explicitly claimed, registered, AND later renewed. Copyright was not automatic (as is the case now), and since copyrighting a prayer would be so unusual, it seems improbable that copyright would have been claimed, and registered, and renewed.
  • A search of the US copyright database fails to find such any such copyright registry.
  • No source whatsoever was given for the copyright claim, and the person making the claim had no prior edit history.
  • Even if the prayer WERE under copyright, its discussion in the encyclopedia would almost certainly be allowed under Fair use-- discussing the text of the prayer for the purposes of scholarly commentary and providing a translation-- that's about as fair use as it gets. Since:
    1. We are a non-profit educational organization.
    2. We are using the text for the purposes of scholarly commentary.
    3. We are not selling the article or making any profit whatsoever off of it.
    4. The very nature of a prayer is such that it's debatable whether a major religion's prayers are subject to copyright.
    5. Our use would have absolutely no effect upon the prayer's commercial value, since the prayer has no commercial value.

So, I've restored the text. If someone still feels its deletion is needed, please discuss it here. --Alecmconroy 11:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ... once again

Alec: User:Cfflorendo reverted the text of this article to the version prior to your fix on november 8: the same unverifiable copyright notice, the same single purpose account, and so on. Let's assume ey is not a vandal or a censor, and let's try to talk to this fellow.

On the other hand, you make a very thoughtful case for this article, although it is not altogether clear to me that you're right on every point. Your source makes a facsimilar reproduction of a leaflet with these prayers, dated October 6, 2002. I don't know if this date makes it qualify to copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976. If so, it should be removed from the Wikipedia, as a Copyright infringement; I don't know whether even the citation of your source should be removed, for I doubt the Foundation has the intention to promote websites infringing copyrights. It may still fall under Fair use, although I must remind you that even "fair use" images are positively discouraged from Wikicommons.

So I think the safest course of action is the following: make a backup copy of the version you deem correct (to restore it later, if possible), edit the article to your taste, making sure you don't reproduce the text or point to the possibly illegal external website, and then ask an admin to protect the page and remove its history (to prevent historical access to the text in dispute), while we figure out what to do next.--- Cheers! Louie 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To respond--
The images found at onesource probably are under copyright. Using them is probably fairuse, but I can't think of any reason to include the actual images on-wiki anyway.
I doubt using these images is "fair" if the source had no right to post them. We should try to find a more reliable source just to be on the safe side. Louie 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We aren't using the images-- we're linking to them. All the difference in the world. And strictly speaking, I suspect the site we link to isn't violating copyright either-- at least, not US copyright law. US protection of speech and religion are fundamental-- I can't imagine a copyright claim being used to stop people from praying. --Alecmconroy 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We, however, are not using the images-- we're quoting a prayer that was composed a long time ago. So, for analogy speaking-- suppose I print a newsletter where I list the full text of the The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe. If I make fancy fonts and layouts, and then take pictures of my newsletter, it's possible that pictures of my newsletter might be under copyright-- but the text of The Raven still would not be.
In fact, we are using these external images as reference; if the source is illegal, we should avoid using it. Maybe the text itself is not protected under copyright; but if the source where we get it from is illegal, we should try to avoid using it (it's like getting the text of The Raven from a doubtfully legal copy: we better try to get it from a less flaky source). Louie 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, but copyright actually doesn't work like that. For one, a usage isn't really "legal" and "illegal" per se, it more breaks down to "If I want to print a copy of this, am I going to owe you money for it or not?" As long as the actual texts of our articles comply with publicdomain/GFDL/fairuse, it doesn't matter who we link to as our references.
For example-- almost every document we link to is copyrighted-- every news story, every book, etc. But our links are not copyright violations.
The ideal link would, of course, be to an official OD site, but they're very private, and apparently have chosen not to include the text of the prayer on their official site for whatever reasons. --Alecmconroy 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OD unfortunately has a lot of enemies-- blame the Da Vinci Code. We see random vandalism like this all the time, so I'm inclined to assume this is more of the same. But I'll post this all the same to the relevant message board to let someone else look at it. --Alecmconroy 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added it back. I also posted to CF's talk, asking him to explain his claim if it's serious.
This actually isn't very much as far as vandalism goes.-- you should see how much stuff gets randomly deleted from Opus Dei and Josemaria Escriva. In any case, I restored the version, and made a report to the higher ups asking one of the experts to come here and double-check my math.
Good!--- Tough I'd rather had left the stub and let an admin or arbitrator check this situation through the page's history.--- Louie 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah-- we're fine. If we deleted stuff every time some vandal shouted Copyright in a crowded theater, there'd be no encyclopedia left. :) --Alecmconroy 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right: edition should be bold, while deletion should be cautious. Louie 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for point[ing] this out to me, Louie-- I never watch my watchlist as closely as I should, and these things can go months with[out] me noticing. :) --Alecmconroy 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem!--- In fact, I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak, and just passed by to see what's happening :-) Louie 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced tag

I removed the unreferenced tag, but now I see it was actually just added within the last day. The tag says the article doesn't cite any sources, which is no longer true-- but it still need a lot lot lot more sources, so totlaly add it back if it's still appropriate. I'll try to dig up some sources for the intro text if I can. --Alecmconroy 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Issue?

A single purpose account has twice deleted the text of a Roman Catholic prayer, claiming its inclusion violates copyright. Opus Dei articles are generally subject to fair amount of vandalism from those who oppose the group, but all the same, I thought it would be useful to ask for a doublecheck from an admin.

I doubt the text of the prayer is covered by copyright:

  • No source whatsoever was given for the copyright claim, and the person making the claim had no prior edit history.
  • For something dating to 1930s, copyrights had to be both explicitly claimed, registered, AND later renewed. Copyright was not automatic (as is the case now), and since copyrighting a prayer would be so unusual, I have seen no evidence that copyright was claimed, and registered, and renewed.
  • A search of the US copyright database fails to find such any such copyright registry.

Even if the prayer WERE under copyright, its inclusion in the encyclopedia would almost certainly be allowed under Fair use.

  • We are discussing the text of the prayer for the purposes of scholarly commentary and providing a translation-- that's about as fair use as it gets. Since:
  • We are a non-profit educational organization.
  • We are using the text for the purposes of scholarly commentary.
  • We are not selling the article or making any profit whatsoever off of it.
  • The very nature of a prayer is such that it's debatable whether a major religion's prayers are subject to copyright.
  • Our use would have absolutely no effect upon the prayer's commercial value, since the prayer has no commercial value.

--Alecmconroy 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some hesitations concerning Alecmconroy's claims:
  • The source makes a facsimilar reproduction of a leaflet containing these prayers; the leaflet is dated October 6, 2002. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright protection is assumed on literary works, even without an explicit claim, after January 1, 1978. So IMO only copies of the prayer prior to January 1, 1978 may fail to receive copyright protection.
The prayer was composed in the 1930s. The date somebody physically printed a copy doesn't affect copyright. --Alecmconroy 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Copyright protection holds regardless of lack of profit by third parties, according to the Copyright Act: the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make verbatim copies or derivative works, like translations.
You're confusing Fair Use and Copyright. If the work really were under copyright (a big if), it would STILL be under copyright regardless of our non-profit status. But quoting it here would be a fair use, because we're not diminishing the text's commercial value (nor making money off it ourselves). --Alecmconroy 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
AIUI, fair use is an exception to copyright, allowing to quote or copy with limitations: one of them is the extension of the quote or copy. We might quote fragments of literary works for scholarly purposes, but not make full copies, which amounts to publication; and thus, to infringement of copyright. (The borderline is indeed very thin: what about quoting a Haiku? :-) Louie 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly true of a for-profit work, but when a work has no commercial value, things are dramatically different. You have to understand that in the US, copyright is not "ownership" of words, it's a limited-duration monopoly on the ability to make a profit off of a work. The whole point is to "promote" the creation of such works by offering authors limited financial incentives, akin to patents.
Now, when a work has no commercial value, there's no motivation for the government to grant a monopoly on it's publication. There's a famous case on this-- I won't bother to westlaw it, but libraries, for example, have been able to reprint entire copies of whole out-of-print books because doing so does not affect the market for that work (since the out-of-print work cannot be purchased from the copyright holder at any price).
IF the text of the prayer were found to be under copyright, we'd be looking at a similar situation here. The text isn't for sale, it has no conceivable commercial value, and its composition was not encouraged by any proposed financial gain at its sale. Our distribution of it would certainly be fair use.
But, my money is actually that it's not under any copyright at all. Do you really believe a Spanish Priest in the middle of the Spanish Civil War stopped to file a Berne Convention Statement with the US Government to secure a limited monopoly for the sale of the publication of his short prayer??? And do you similarly believe he renewed that copyright later on, as he would have had to do?
It's not inconceivable, but I can't find any evidence that it happened, despite doing a due diligence search with the LOC. At this point, the impetus is on CF to show us that the work really is under copyright. --Alecmconroy 02:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I do see your point: copyright works (indeed it was devised) as a protection to keep other people from making money from your artistic or scholarly work (like in patents); however, I'm not positive that the law allows anybody to make copies of works if they have no commercial value. You see: I tend to assume a rather cautious interpretation of the law, assuming full copyrights even for works with no commercial value and without such copyright notices. These exclusive rights should be presumed, I think, unless the copyright holder explicitly allows the free (gratis and libre) reproduction of the work, as in GFDL and similar licenses.--- Moreover: I assume that this 2002 version might indeed not be the same as the one composed in 1930 (before the Spanish Civil War, the Vatican Council, or the canonization of the founder); I doubt Josemaria Escriva wrote the prayer "To our founder Saint Josemaría".--- But instead of arguing amongst us we'd better wait for a third party. On average, this seems to me a balanced discussion of this copyright issue, given CF's absence.--- Louie 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Public prayers of major religions may not be protected by copyright; I don't know if this leaflet contains a public prayer, though (the body of the article explains that it is meant for private prayer).
Strictly speaking, I mean public prayers "might" not be copyrighted, not "can't". --Alecmconroy 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is doubtful whether the source had the right to make this publication; if it had no right, it would be unlawful to quote it as a source; so
Au contraire--- we list copyrighted works as references all the time. Whether that site has the right to do what their doing is the between them and the copyright holder (if one even exists). The text of our link to them is 100% not a copyright violation though. --Alecmconroy 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Right: we quote and link to copyrighted works systematically; although, AFAIK, all of them published by the copyright holders, not by people distributing illegal copies. Louie 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if the text of the prayer is not copyrighted, or to include it here on Wikipedia claiming fair use, a more reliable source should be preferred.
Here I have no objection. If you can find a better online source for the text, by all means, add it. The source we have satisfies WP:V, but that doesn't mean it's the "best" source ever. --Alecmconroy 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Louie 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright holders

Hello!--- Apparently, the copyright holder for the Works of Josemaria Escriva is an entity called "Studium Foundation", a seemingly non-profit foundation based in Madrid. They claim to take requests to publish works by Josemaria Escriva. That's a good start for a version prior to 1978 (actually, prior to June 26, 1975). Louie 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The person mentioned in the leaflet used as a source is Thomas Bohlin, currently Vicar of the Prelature for the United States, as stated in their website. It may be a good idea to ask him directly what's going on. Louie 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Escriva wrote a number of full length books, and these are what the Studium Foundation seems to cover. Instead of being short prayers, these are extended works which ARE sold, were written later in life, and probably would have been registered under copyright. I don't see anywhere on either site where the Preces is claimed to be copyrighted. Nor do any of our sources assert copyright-- the Statement by Thomas Bohlin, for example, is not a copyright claim, but an assertion that the leaflet is a legitimate copy of the original in the prelature archives.
If you're really interested in investigating it, you could contact the US office of the prelature through http://www.opusdei.org and ask them if they claim to have copyright over the text of the prayer, and if so, ask them if they consider the usage here to be beyond fair use. If they want, they can file a takedown request with the foundation, and the experts will decide whether it's a fair use or not.
I'd be shocked if they actually do assert copyright, and if they further asserted that it use here was not a fair use. They have enough of a problem combatting secrecy allegations with the stupid Da Vinci code-- the last thing they need is a special "secret copyrighted prayer"--
But if they believe they hold the copyright, that'd be there call, nor ours-- so if you wanted to really do every step "by the book", that'd be the way to go: email the prelature, ask them point blank whether they assert copyright and if so, whether their lawyers consider the usage here to be outside US fair use laws. IF they did, they should file a copyright complaint with the foundation, who would then agree or disagree.
So far though, none of the sources we've seen actually asserts copyright for this particular prayer and even if they did, I still think it would be a fair use. But if you wanted to do some detective work to triple check us, that'd be the place to start-- getting an official statement from somebody who claims to hold copyright, claims this isn't fair use, and files a complaint with the foundation. --Alecmconroy 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK; got it.--- Though it seems odd to me to put the burden of the proof on the copyright holder (whoever that may be, for whatever use or value) rather than the person making the copy---namely, you.--- The law seems meant to protect copyright holders (for whatever use or value) unless explicit permissions are granted, and allows to quote only fragments for commentary under fair use claims; that's explicitly explained while dealing with what's copyrighted and what amounts to fair use. Moreover, using and linking to copyrighted works explains that purposefully linking to a site infringing copyright constitutes contributory infringement; so this is pretty serious.--- Louie 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I do see your point: you see it the other way around; you assume that, given that this is a prayer (or rather, a collection of prayers, some of them in the public domain), it should be deemed as public domain (or something like that) unless somebody claims to hold copyrights. I say we should better wait for another opinion, before taking further steps into finding the copyright holder, whoever that might be. It might not be necessary to contact anyone else to figure out that this indeed might be a case of copyright infringement.--- Louie 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So, just to "go by the book", I shall proceed as stated in the Instructions.--- Louie 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I also posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to see if that gets us an expert. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you already added this page to the Copyright problems checklist; I don't know if the rest of the procedure still applies, namely, removing the disputed text (I'd say the Latin and English versions; the "Origins" and "Contents" sections may stay), and adding the {{copyvio}} template, pointing to the dubious source's url, to give the reviewer more info about this matter. I could do both myself, but I don't deem it appropriate: this article was your idea in the first place, so I think you may edit it to your taste while this trouble is cleared up.--- Louie (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If we actually knew the text was copyrighted, then I'd do the copyright violation and pull back until there's a second opinion-- but so far, we've had 0 information that the text is undercopyright, it's a type of text we wouldn't expect to be undecopyright, composed during a time and place we wouldn't expect to be under copyright, and a due-diligence searhc the copyright database has turned up nothing. So, let it sit until somebody actually points us to a source that say it might be copyrighted. ---Alecmconroy (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Last night I asked this Cfflorendo to provide a proof for eir claim that this prayer is copyrighted by the Prelature; the guy is still missing, but it occurred to me that we may have some basis to presume this copyright in front of our eyes: the facsimile provided by the (dubiously legal) source states at the end that Fr. Bohlin certifies that the copy is faithful to an original preserved at the Prelature's archives; assuming that this copy is authentic, that would mean that the original is indeed in possession of the Prelature, and thus they could claim to hold copyrights on this 2002 version. Since the leaflet states no permission to sell, lease, distribute, copy, or make derivative works (like translations) from the prayer, we may presume nobody, save the Prelature or its lawful agents, has that permission, unless proven otherwise.--- Louie (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


If a reputable user (which consider you to be) takes it down, I won't edit war over it until we get a second opinion, but I think you're making a number of mistakes in your intepretation of copyright law. THe existence of ta copy in the Prelature Archives doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the copright status. There is a copy of the Declaration of indepedence in the US national archives, and there were 2002 reproductions of that document-- but Declaration of Independence is public domain.
If this work is copyrighted, it should be in the US database of pre-1975 copyrighted works. -- I can't find it, can you? If not then ti's not registered. If a pre-1975 work isn't registered, it's public domain. And even if it weren't pbli c domaink, it's still fair use.
If an expert doesn't show up soon, I'll directly write some experts dto ask their opinion. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're writing to experts, you should contact the Prelature in the US to ask them what's going on. I'll do the same for a Spanish speaking source. Louie (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "unreferenced" tags

I tried to fix the sections tagged as non-referenced. The job required some rewriting in the "Origins" section, and a major overhaul of the "Contents" section: the latter looked like original research added by Marax on July 17, 2007; it has been replaced by a documented quotation.--- Louie (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)