Talk:Antonio Paoli/Archive 2

Copyright problems

A contributor approached me as an administrator who works on copyright problems about concerns related to this article. This article copies content extensively from the linked PDF. For example, compare this paragraph:

By 1878, the young Antonio had lost both of his parents. Amalia Paoli, although not the oldest, took full responsibility of her little brothers and sisters. In 1883, "with the assistance of well-connected people", Amalia moved to Spain and was able to get an audition in front of Isabel de Borbon, Princess of Asturias, and sister of the King of Spain, Alfonso XII. Impressed with Amalia's singing abilities, the Princess took Amalia under her protection and sent her to received singing classes under the most famous singing teacher at the time in Madrid, Napoleon Verger. Amalia was also able to get royal assistance for her younger siblings, Rosarito and Antonio Paoli, which moved with her to Spain in 1883.

with the source, at page 6:

By 1878, the young Antonio had lost both of his parents. Amalia Paoli, although not the oldest, took full responsibility of her little brothers and sisters. In 1883, with the assistance of well-connected people, Amalia moved to Spain and was able to get an audition in front of Isabel de Borbon, Princess of Asturias, and sister of the King of Spain, Alfonso XII. Impressed with Amalia's singing abilities, the Princess took Amalia under her protection and sent her to received singing classes under the most famous singing teacher at the time in Madrid, Napoleon Verger. Amalia was also able to get royal assistance for her younger siblings, Rosarito and Antonio Paoli, which moved with her to Spain in 1883.

(Even the typo, "sent her to received", is retained.)

This is at the very least a clear problem of plagiarism, as verbatim copying must be explicitly noted. However, it is also very possibly a copyright problem, as the form was filled out by one Juan Lianes Santos, who is not a federal employee but rather an historian for the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office. Puerto Rico is governed by US copyright laws, which means that state employees are entitled to copyright protection unless the state otherwise designates. Puerto Rico does not so otherwise designate; at [1] they say that they retain proprietary rights and copyright in their content. The US government website that hosts the pdf is unclear. It doesn't say all text is public domain, though it doesn't exclude it explicitly, and it doesn't indicate whether applications have been released along with content actually hosted at the website. I don't believe that this content can be presumed to be public domain. I have blanked to allow time to determine the copyright status of Mr. Santos' words. If they are determined to be public domain, the content can be restored if properly attributed; if they are not, the article will need to be reverted to its condition here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• True, Wikipedia policy states "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission.". Content should be expressed in the own words of the editor. If not corrected, then the original content should be placed and the "GA" nomination put on hold. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, right after listing this for further evaluation I asked a Wikisource administrator if he could help shed light on this. If the content can be verified to be public domain, then all that will be needed is proper attribution under Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I do not know how this will affect its possibilities of achieving GA. I know that at one point the Plagiarism guidelines indicated that FA candidates could not contain large sections of PD text, but as I do not evaluate articles for quality grade, I do not know if that is still true. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• • O.K., I see that the "GA" is on "hold", that is good. I will take a "crack" at the article and try to solve the situation As soon as possible. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. As for my part, it's a bit irregular, but since the author's e-mail address was included in the form I've contacted him via OTRS to see if he can clarify the situation. If they do not regard it as PD, I've asked for license under CC-By-SA. We'll see if he responds. (Ticket:2010090110009025). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Very good, indeed. However, I will still like to indulge in my own creative writing instead of depending totally on someones work, therefore I will continue to work on it in my "workshop". Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Done, I hope that the new version takes care of the issues involved. Happy editing everyone. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Great! :) I'll still note if we get the copyright question addressed, but it's entirely up to you guys whether to incorporate any of that language or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter who fills the form addressed to a federal agency? Isn't such a filing Public Domain just as federal court filings are? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any law that would make such forms public domain. 17 U.S.C. § 105 notes that "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."; 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines its terms thusly: "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." State governments are not precluded from claiming copyright, and Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 206.02 further adds that, "Works of the government of Puerto Rico are not considered to be U.S. Government works." It also says that "...the fact that a copyright may have been transferred to the U.S. Government is not determinative of its status.... Similarly, the fact that the work has been printed by the U.S. Government does not determine its copyright status."

In terms of federal court filings, court judgments are not subject to copyright under U.S. law whether these are federal, state or produced by other nations (no governmental edicts are). (Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 206.01) Federal court filings are public records, but that's not the same thing as being public domain. (See Wikipedia:Public domain#Public records). While court judgments are public domain, I'm unaware of any legislation that has made all federal court filings public domain. If a private citizen files a deposition, his words are available for scrutiny, but not necessarily for modification and reuse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This article

...is one of the worst on Wikipedia regarding a singer. It is clearly a hagiography with no critcism of a singer who divides opinion. Yes, keep the praise of a clearly important singer with clearly a great voice, but include the critcism of what (some) people regard as one of the crudest,loudest and tasteless singers who enjoyed an international career (and praise from composers). It may not be the singer' fault but at least tell the truth. To say he is a rival of Caruso (or even better) is just plain stupid - without saying the other view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.121.89 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Just one editor who worships Paoli seems to be running this article and will not have anything said against this singer. Hey! Let's face it this is a terrible article because it worships Paoli without saying what certain people thought of him. He had an unusually natural and powerful voice but sorry some countries/people didn't/don't like him - the common concensus amongst modern musicians/critics is that he is terrible. This may be unjust but it happens to be true. Mercy11 (or whatever he is called) has got to make this more encylopedic (you don't have to be terrible to Paoli just mention what other people think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRance22 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This just proves this article is written and controlled by a person who worships the artist and also is very proud of Puerto Rico. This so obvious from the article - even my 12 year daughter says it's written by a person whose sole object in life is to push the artist and his country. He will not have any (verified) comment which does not praise his idol. There is no point in complaining in his quoting from the Tourist Board of puerto rico or anythign else. Wikipedia just loves people like this and tehy will control Wikipedia. Aaaaaagh! This article was locked because someone dared include top international critics (such as Steane and Scott) who have doubts about the artist - the contributor did niot vandalise or remove the praise, just added the crtic's comments to balance the hagiography. I despair of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRance22 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please provide us here, with reliable verifiable sources, as required by Wikipedia policy, which we may have access to, so we may verify your claim that Steane and Scott have made negative comments on Paoli. Now, bare in mind the fact that critics comments are their own personal opinion and far from those who heard Paoli in person and acclaimed him. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)