This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article formerly contained a reproduction of the complete poem. I removed it on the basis that, having first been published in 1959, it is presumably still under copyright. User:Michael Bednarek restored the text with the cryptic edit summary "restore 10 lines: de minimis & http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HaJaJL47NbAC&pg=PA118 & de:q:Bertolt Brecht & more of an aphorism than a poem; cf. q:Oscar Wilde." I am not sure exactly what the argument is here. "De minimis" is usually invoked when a small portion of a copyrighted work is reproduced in another work in such a way that it is not the main focus; in this case we have reproduced the entirety of a poem in an article which is actually shorter than the poem. The Google Books link doesn't display anything for me, so I'm not sure what the intention was behind listing it. The third link simply goes to a German Wikiquote page where the poem is also reproduced; is this supposed to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or am I overlooking some discussion on the talk page where it was definitively settled that we have the rights to reproduce the poem in full? The "more of an aphorism than a poem" bit is equally puzzling to me; surely copyrightability rests on creativity and not the literary classification of the work. Finally, there's a link to the English Wikiquote page for Oscar Wilde, again with no explanation which would lend me to divine the user's illustrative intentions. Any help in understanding this rationale, from Michael or others, would be greatly appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it remarkable (ironic?) that the habitual plagiariser BB should be afforded the "presumption" of copyright protection for a work which is widely cited, often in full (and this doesn't have anything to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which you might want to re-read). As for Willett's and Manheim's translation, the question arises whether it exceeds the threshold of originality. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the copyright law of Germany, where the poem was originally published, nor the United States, where Wikipedia's servers are based, revokes the protection of copyright from habitual plagiarists. And unlike trademarks, copyright does not become invalidated by indifference to repeated infringement. So I still contend that we must assume the original poem is still non-free and, without further commentary which would lend a claim to fair use, must be deleted on those grounds. Do you still disagree? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the legal (legalistic?) points you raise, but they seem to me to illustrate the difference between "legal" and "just" very well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that point of view. I think this entire discussion could be rendered moot if the article were simply expanded so that the commentary on the poem is longer than the poem itself. I hope that someone more familiar with the poem and the political events it arises from will produce such an expansion before someone else inevitably removes the text again. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at the article on the German Wikipedia, de:Die Lösung, which is a bit longer. It might also be argued that this particular poem is of very little significance for English audiences. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
