Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 October 12
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 11 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 13 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 12
editI need references (literature, articles) regarding this borj (castle in Arabic), building it & its historic background (main interest). It looks there's very little around (web), and some experts are welcome here. בנצי (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The French wikipedia has a reference (published 1868):
- Un des principaux officiers des rois d’Aragon et de Sicile était l’amiral Roger dell’Oria (ou de Loria), qui ... fit de nombreuses tentatives contre l’Afrique. Dans l’automne de l’année 1284, selon Ibn-Khaldoun et l’auteur de la Farsïade, en 1289, selon le cheïkh Bou-Ras, il vint prendre possession de l’île de Djerba, toujours en état de révolte contre l’autorité hafside et qu’il enleva au cheïkh des Nekkariens Ikhelef-ben-Moghar. Il fit de cette île une petite principauté dont il fut le chef, sous la suzeraineté du Saint-siége, et y bâtit un château fortifié où il laissa garnison. (Gist is: admiral Roger dell'Oria (also spelled de Loria) of Aragon and Sicily seized Djerba in either 1284 or 1289 (sources vary) and built a fortified castle.)
- However, you will note that this reference doesn't make the connection that this is the same castle today called Borj/Bordj el Kastil, so there is some OR in the French wiki article. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. you might also pursue the references in Roger of Lauria and its French, Italian, Spanish and Catalan versions, which all have difference references. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Federal museums and copyright law (U.S.)
editHi y'all, I'm looking for some sources or background on federal American museums/cultural institutions and the application of American copyright law. Rather dry topic, but hopefully someone knows something!
I'm wondering whether creative (i.e., formally copyrightable) products of federal American museums are legally in the public domain. Specifically, I'm looking for information on how American copyright law - which normally puts any work made by federal employees as a part of their federal duties into the public domain - treats the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution, two pretty unique government institutions in their legal relationship to the federal government. The Smithsonian operates under a trust, with only some employees categorized as federal government workers, and the National Gallery has a pretty similar legal set-up; there is more documentation on the Smithsonian side, with extensive established precedent on the ways laws concerning federal oversight, taxation, etc., apply to the institution, including the application of copyright claims against the Smithsonian. But I've been searching high and low for details on how copyright law has been applied to products of these institutions, and I can't find much solid documentation of their copyright claims being tested in court or written about.
I ask this in the context of looking for freely licensed images of artists for Commons and use on Wikipedia. The National Gallery and Smithsonian regularly publish images, videos, and promotional content about artists, created by museum employees, that would seemingly be in the public domain, depending on the way copyright law is applied. The National Gallery, for example, regularly publishes videos of artist talks, including this video of a talk by artist Christina Fernandez: link (first video on page). The video ends with a copyright marking: "© 2023, Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art." Obviously much of the content of the video (e.g., high-quality representations of Fernandez' work, the text/audio of her lecture, copyrighted music featured, etc.) are not in the public domain, no matter what. But, if the National Gallery were treated like a regular federal agency in regards to copyright law, this video would be fair game to use as a source for a freely licensed image of the artist.
Normally I take cultural institutions at their word when they claim copyright over material, but I've run into several examples recently of institutions blurring the lines to avoid legally public domain material from being created or used without their permission (Dia Art Foundation and their copyright claims over Spiral Jetty, a fundamentally non-copyrightable object, come to mind). With that as recent context, I wonder if the National Gallery and Smithsonian, when applying their copyright markings to creative works they release, are simply hedging their bets that people will assume the copyright is valid. Or does the trust instrumentality that legally forms these institutions truly exempt them from the normal application of copyright law to federal government works?
I asked at the Copyright Village Pump, was told just to assume their works are validly copyrighted, or to come here for more background. Does anyone have any information or sourcing on this for more research? Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Have you tried asking the Smithsonian itself? They would probably know the relevant laws better than we do. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- No (substantive) responses. I've tried multiple times, multiple different departments. No real answer. --19h00s (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- You appear to assume that the government cannot hold a copyright. That is an incorrect assumption. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about works created by government employees in the course of their duty as government workers. The government can of course own any copyright given or ceded to it by another entity, but a government employee's creations as a course of their federal job cannot be copyrighted. 19h00s (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your assumption is that all who work for the government are employees. If the government contracts a team to make a film, they are not considered employees. Their work is not restricted. It will be copyrighted. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- You could've just said that, instead of speaking around what you meant to make me seem like I didn't know what I was talking about? But thanks! 19h00s (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- See Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States. Works by government employees are copyrightable; only "edicts", whatever that means but its a specific term related to copyright, will not lead to copyright statuses. Where the federal government is concerned, copyright exclusion concerns domestic copyright protection, so there's a bit an uncertain area regarding what is concretely the definition of public domain. -- Askedonty (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for this clarification, super helpful. Appreciate the constructive assistance! 19h00s (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking that the Gallery could simply not afford offering to the public "fair game" as you said in the content of their videos when their intent is promoting the artist. The Board of Trustees system with its dependence on outsiders is known as a pattern allowing more or less external control on its subject matter. Implicitly insiders would be complaining if the Institution objectives were being jeopardized. They probably also could simply abstain executing. --Askedonty (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's possible that these museums are what the UK calls quangos. One such entity, the US Postal Service, has held copyright on its creations since 1971, when it ceased to be a traditional government department. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking that the Gallery could simply not afford offering to the public "fair game" as you said in the content of their videos when their intent is promoting the artist. The Board of Trustees system with its dependence on outsiders is known as a pattern allowing more or less external control on its subject matter. Implicitly insiders would be complaining if the Institution objectives were being jeopardized. They probably also could simply abstain executing. --Askedonty (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for this clarification, super helpful. Appreciate the constructive assistance! 19h00s (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your assumption is that all who work for the government are employees. If the government contracts a team to make a film, they are not considered employees. Their work is not restricted. It will be copyrighted. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about works created by government employees in the course of their duty as government workers. The government can of course own any copyright given or ceded to it by another entity, but a government employee's creations as a course of their federal job cannot be copyrighted. 19h00s (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- You appear to assume that the government cannot hold a copyright. That is an incorrect assumption. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- No (substantive) responses. I've tried multiple times, multiple different departments. No real answer. --19h00s (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @19h00s Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 313.6(C)(1) (3d ed. 2021) makes clear that
Works prepared by officers or employees of the Smithsonian Institution are not considered works of the U.S. government if the author-employee was paid from the Smithsonian trust fund.
Presumably this applies to the National Gallery of Art too. Shells-shells (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)- You are legendary, thank you thank you thank you!!! 19h00s (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)