Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf

[edit]

According to ticket:2024051810000019 this document was not published prior to its upload to Commons, so the declared copyright template is not valid. While transcription is not a copyrightable process, we need a free license permission from Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986) heirs due to the note on the 1st page and notes at the end. Also unclear if this document is within Wikimedia Commons scope. Ankry (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Transcribing or editing or typesetting a handwritten document does not transfer the copyright to the editor, transcriber, or typesetter; if it did Stephen King would not hold the copyright to his works. USA copyright law has "publication" as when a work is distributed to members of the public, not exclusively when it is distributed/sold by a publishing company. The document has been circulating since 1970. Up until 1989 you were required to have a copyright notice, the name of the copyright holder, and the year "clearly visible" on each perceivable copy. Then you had to register the copyright with the USCO within 5 years. --RAN (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Arthur Norton represented himself to me as a distant family member. He is not. I tried to assist him and sent him several documents to further his research. I took him at his word, not knowing he is a Template:RPA. I have no idea why he would he seek to {{{{RPA}}}}, a family treasure, and publish it here on Wiki. I have been a researcher for over fifty years, working with colleagues all over the world, and this is the first time I have met with such a Template:RPA
    This family manuscript has not been in circulation outside our family. Here, he argues for his theft and his attempt to publish this family treasure on public domain, against my explicit directions that he not do so. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:2C9E:E3F7:8786:612E 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if considered unpublished because of the limited distribution, US copyright law only gives a window of 70 years after the death of the author before a work enters the public domain. 1939+70+1=2010, which is the year it entered the public domain. At least 6 copies are extant that went to siblings, nieces and nephews in 1970, that were authorized distributions by Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986) without a copyright notice. Each authorized "perceivable copy" must contain a properly formatted copyright notice, if the intention was make a valid copyright claim. There is also no registration of the work with USCO by the original manuscript creator, William Francis Norton (1857-1939); or the editor, Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986) for the 1970 publication. Neither entity appears to have wanted to limit distribution or make a claim of a copyright. --RAN (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): This DR is not related to authorship by William Francis Norton (1857-1939) but to authorship by Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986) whose copyright are unlikely to expire before 2057. Parts of the text refers to William Francis Norton in the third person, so he is not the author. If these parts are removed, the text may be cosidered PD. However, you didn't address the objections regarding scope: This is a private document unrelated to any notable person and of questionable educational value. Also unused in Wikisource. Wikimedia Commons do not host such files. See Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats. Ankry (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am a direct descendant of William Francis Norton (1857-1939) and Gerard Francis Norton. RAN is NOT. Template:RPA. Template:RPA. He is the kind of poster who gives Wiki a bad name. Please remove this family treasure from all you websites, and honor the wishes of our family. JAL--Owner of the website. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is his make-believe lie. A "perceivable copy" indeed. RAN is fabricating here to justify his theft. What is his problem? JAL--owner of the manuscript. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 00:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You directed me to reasons for using/not-using the PDF and DjVu formats instead of jpg and png formats. What specific format are you advocating for? The relevant scope for being hosted at Commons, excluding what file format is best, is: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose", there is no demand that it be used in Wikisource to be eligible for hosting at Commons. We have over 100,000 news articles and books and pamphlets that are on Commons with no entry in Wikisource because no one has taken the time to transcribe and edit and format them. As to being private the author himself asks that it be made public: "If I don't have this little history put in book form before my death, I hope some of my children will". The document is used as a reference in multiple Wikidata entries. It contains a first hand account of early telephonics: "One afternoon in the Fall of 1878 the word was passed around that the new invention of the telephone would be tested and all were invited. It was a half holiday. The test was made at the railroad station. The station master used the telegraph wires to the next station three (3) miles away and the two (2) station masters talked to each other and let others talk also. So the telephone started." It contains an account of a migration from Ireland to Australia: "My brother Hugh left Ireland in 1862. He went to Australia with some other young men and remained there all his life. He first went farming in the sheep raising country. I used to see letters from him to my mother when I was a boy. Later he moved to the city of Ballarat, Victoria (about 100 miles from Melbourne). He was successful in business there." I have already addressed Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986), and he has not complied with United States copyright law when he distributed authorized copies without a copyright symbol or copyright registration. Each "perceivable copy" in an authorized distribution must comply with USCO copyright formalities. --RAN (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The document is used as a reference in multiple Wikidata entries." If this is so, the only entries made are those of RAN himself. This is pure theft, acquired under false pretenses. What is his problem that he wishes to hold onto our family's manuscript. We are no relation to RAN. It is not his to circulate. He is a Template:RPA. JAL.--Owner of the muscript 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 00:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From a US Copyright Office document: Publication does not occur when copies or phonorecords are offered for any other purpose, such as offering them to a group of persons for private use, private performance, or private display. This statement contradicts RAN's claim that few privetely destributed copies can be considered publication. They cannot. Ankry (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I concur this is possibly not in the project scope, but I think it could be kept on the grounds of respect (memoirs are, in the area of genealogy, very valuable and hosting the file could eventually be useful to some remote relatives). Bedivere (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also RAN has gone on to create Wikidata items for William Francis Norton and his memoir. This is questionable as they are direct descendants apparently. Bedivere (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RAN is NOT a direct ancestor. Not even close. He portrayed himself to be so and thus obtained the manuscript under false pretenses. I explicitly told him, after realizing his Template:RPA, NOT publish it on any sites like Wiki. Never the less, he did so, after my direction. This document is only circulated within the immediate family of the authors. The above quote, "If I don't have this little history put in book form before my death, I hope some of my children will" refers to our family only, and not for public use. Why he would steal it from our immediate family is unknown. It is not for public use. Please remove this stolen document from you websites. JAL owner of the manuscript. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 00:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no respect in theft. RAN is not related to our family. He acquired this document from me under false pretenses. RAN has some need to fill his coffers with the treasures of another family. As I told him in March 2024, perhaps someday in the future, "BUT, NO, NOT NOW," and asked him to please respect our family's wishes. He has not. This is theft. RAN is a Template:RPA. JAL--Owner of the manuscript. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 00:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Mainly due to the clear lack of prior publication. Although I think the circumstances under which the file was uploaded to Commons are also rather suspect and shouldn't be encouraged by us continuing to host it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That is correct. There is a "clear lack of prior publication." The manuscript is unpublished and only circulates within our family--that of William Francis Norton (1857-1939) and Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986) both of whom are my direct ancestors. Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) is not a member of our family. He is not related to any of us. Not even close. He does not know our family. He quotes from the manuscript as though he does. He is a Template:RPA. He is Template:RPA, having acquire the document under false pretenses, and is using it on Wiki websites after my explicit directions that he not do so. Such behavior needs to be stopped. Template:RPA. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) needs to be stopped, lest Wiki become an accomplice to this Template:RPA. That is not the purpose of Wiki websites, I surely do hope. JAL--Owner of the manuscript. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 01:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) anything to say regarding the IP accusations, which seem rather direct? I think the file should be deleted, especially if you don't clarify these statements. Bedivere (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bedivere, would the members of the Norton family randomly comment on a Commons deletion request...? RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a random comment Bedivere (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling it "theft" and "fraud" is libelous, and I don't respond to libel. The document was sent to me voluntarily, and I am aware of other copies from other family members, including a copy in Australia. I can forward a copy of the email in a VRT to show it was voluntarily shared with me, there was no coercion or "theft" or "fraud". As we all know, having a copy of a photo/document does not make you the rights owner. The only question is whether the document is in the public domain or not. See: {{PD-US-unpublished}} for the 1936 text. I am not against covering up the two 1970 paragraphs, but I would like to hear from other people first as to whether the distribution in 1970 without benefit of a copyright notice or copyright registration has caused the document to lapse into the public domain. --RAN (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PD or not, can you elaborate how is this in the project scope? The file is used on Wikidata items you created after uploading this file. These individual's notability, and that of this memoir, is dubious to say the least. Bedivere (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RAN has not replied to me or my requests for his family verification at all. He could not verify. He represented himself to be a family member, but he is not. RAN is a thief by his placing this family manuscript on any public domain. He did so against my explicit direction NOT to do so. Indeed, he did so IMMEDIATELY AFTER my explicit directions NOT to do so. It was given voluntarily only because he had posed as a family member, and I trusted his integrity. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) we now know, has NO INTEGRITY. This is called theft. What malice does he hold to pose as a family member, which he is not, to make claims of historical scope to justify his behavior, to behave like a thief. We might ask RAN why he is so attached to this particular manuscript? Or is this a part of a pattern of deviant acquisitive behavior? The merit of the manuscript is not his to comment on. It is not his. He is NOT a family member, is NOT related to either William Francis Norton (1857-1939) or Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986) or to me or anyone in our family, including those in Australia. He acquired this family manuscript under false pretenses. Is this the kind of behavior WIKI condones? JAL Owner of the manuscript. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 15:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it would be better for you to explain why it is not in scope, I answered it in detail previously. Here it is again. It is a Wikimedia Foundation rule: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose." As well as previously stated, it is a document of a first hand account of building our western railroads and a firsthand account or early telephonics. --RAN (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that you created these items apparently solely for it to be "on scope". I find that unacceptable. Sorry. Bedivere (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal feelings that it is "unacceptable", do not trump "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose." There is no "you created" exception to the most basic scope rule of the Wikimedia Foundation. --RAN (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a good laugh of the rules of both Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. You are disrupting both projects. You should not suggest you are not doing so. Bedivere (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me elaborate my point so that you just don't outright misunderstand it. You upload a file of dubious relevance to the commons. If it is not used anywhere else on the Foundation sites, it is not in scope. Then you create a Wikidata item not only for the memoir itself but to the author and relatives (yours or not, as it's been disputed, is irrelevant to this case). Wikidata items are in scope only if they are linked internally or within Wikimedia projects. As a result, the files and the items are in scope. But that was fabricated obviously by you. Yet you refuse to admit that. Bedivere (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I don't know what exactly is happening here, but is Richard Arthur Norton is a descendant of William Francis Norton? If so, I find the copyright violation allegation unlikely. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, all the accusations from the IP should be completely ignored if not accompanied by evidence. COM:VRT exists for a reason. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The initially linked VRT ticket suggests that he is not. Or at least, there is no evidence for this. Moreover, licensing requires unanimous decision of all heirs. But we see a dispute in this matter here. Also, being a descendant is not enough; one needs to be a heir. This is not the same. Ankry (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) is not a member of our family. He does not know our family. He is not related to any of us. Not the author of the manuscript, William Francis Norton (1857-1939) or his son who edited it, Gerard Francis Norton (1902-1986) both of whom are my direct ancestors. He quotes from the manuscript as though he does know our family. It is an unpublished manuscript held within our family. Any copyright has been falsely attached by RAN. JAL Owner of the manuscript. 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 15:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please quote this exact law: "licensing requires unanimous decision of all heirs", the exact law is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. The "unanimous decision of all heirs" would only apply to something that is not already in the public domain, such as releasing an image/document under a creative commons license, please stop misrepresenting United States copyright law. The license {{PD-US-unpublished}} was removed by Bedivere with this edit, without providing an explanation. --RAN (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • J.A. Lounibos is making libelous statements which should be removed by calling my actions "theft". Here is the email I received from her: "Well, I have spent a delightful morning perusing your great trove of photos at wiki media commons. What wonderful work you have done. Now I have some work to do, here, as I add your family to my TREE (George Walker Family Family TREE) here at Ancestry. (also at Geneanet.) This will be most interesting, since I dinna [sic] have any siblings from those earlier days. --Below, I have attached the MEMOIR for your records. --Also a brief screenshot of our branch from the TREE, --and a map of West Stockbridge MA which shows, in the green inset map, William Norton's home below Crane Pond." --RAN (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are my words when I was under the deception of this scoundrel. There is nothing libelous in my statements. RAN has posted this document against my explicit instruction not to do so. RAN acquired this document under false pretense. He acquired my trust by claiming to be a descendant of our New Jersey branch family, by producing a portrait of my grandmother which I assumed was from his family before I was aware of his aberrant behavior. The portrait is not from his family. He is not a member of our New Jersey branch. Of the portrait of my grandmother--RAN acquired it by trolling the internet, I later learned. He further uses the family on other sites (eg Find a Grave)in order to Template:RPA. He appears to collect items of the Norton name, a common name, solely to perpetuate his delusion. RAN's behavior is unbecoming of WIKI's reputation and purpose. WIKI needs to DELETE our unpublished and uncopyrighted manuscript immediately, lest WIKI becomes Template:RPA. JAL Owner of the manuscript 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 18:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is my last email to RAN, then written in good faith, last March. I have received no reply since. I discovered only this week that he had uploaded it to WIKI later on the same day:
    JA Lounibos
    From:<redacted>
    To:Richard Arthur Norton
    Sun, Mar 24 at 8:50 AM
    Richard,
    At present I do not wish you to place the Memoir on such public domains as Wikimedia Commons and the Internet Archives. I sent it to you because of what I believed to be a mutual Naughton relationship? But I cannot find it.
    The Memoir is a family piece. It is preserved for the future. And I wish it to remain private for now. Perhaps in the future that might be a possibility, but, no, not now.
    And, so far, I cannot document what our relationship is. Can you please help me here? I need documentation. DNA is good, but that is general Naughton stuff. I need documents. I would appreciate it if you could write me a TREE--beginning with yourself, your family and dates, and then working back through your parents' families, your grandparents, your greats, and so on, so I can see how to integrate your branch into my own detailed Tree here.
    I hope you will help me here. The Memoir is a treasure in our family and has been shared amid our family branches, which I understood you to be part of? But I do not know if you are-- and am a bit disturbed that you have not sent me the documentation I requested and are running with my shared documents to public platforms? It is included in my extensive and detailed TREE which is private. I do not wish it to enter the public domains, yet. Since you were adding my grandmother's photograph to Family Search, I had assumed that we are of shared branches, a sibling connection, but, as yet, I cannot validate that, and need your assistance in this. And I hope my generosity in sharing these documents with you has not been premature.
    So, no, you do not have my permission. Please respect my wishes here.
    JAL
    RAN had written earlier:
    On Saturday, March 23, 2024 at 02:50:40 PM PDT, Richard Arthur Norton <redacted> wrote:
    Do I have your permission to add the memoir to Wikimedia Commons and
    the Internet Archive so that it is preserved for the future? Have you
    run OCR on it to convert it into ASCII text? If not, I will do it.
    --What is RAN's problem that he does not understand plain English? 2601:204:CE01:20A0:C544:8900:A754:A64A 18:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I blocked this IP for insults and harassment. Whatever are the disagreements about the scope and copyright of this document, the wording used here is not acceptable. Also disclosure of RAN's email is not OK either. Yann (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Also disclosure of RAN's email is not OK either" Are you referring to the content of the mail or just the mail adress itself? Trade (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was first talking about the email address, but disclosing a email content without the author's permission is not OK either. Yann (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete see below - What a weird case. I don't know why someone would want a memoir of someone else's family and I don't know why someone would object so strongly to someone else documenting some family history on the internet. It's all very strange, but thankfully we don't have to settle that here. The scope issue is unclear to me, but thankfully we don't need to settle that either because it's simply not suitably licensed. The memoir was unpublished before being uploaded here, and clearly written by the child of the subject. As it wasn't published, copyright registration/notice doesn't matter. As I don't see any argument that the child has been dead for 70 years, we're not out of copyright. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong on so many points. Let me repeat now for the third time. The document is in the public domain under this license: {{PD-US-unpublished}} "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions: its author died before 1954" The author died in 1939. It is not "clearly written by the child of the subject". It was written by William Francis Naughton (1857-1939) in 1937, if you read the document, that would be exceeding clear since he signs and dates the document. It was transcribed and typed from a handwritten manuscript by the son. Transcribing a document or editing a document does not transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock. If it did, Stephen King would not have copyrights to his works, it would belong to the secretary that typed it, or the typesetter at the publisher, or the editor that corrected spellings. The author asks in the document that it be distributed: "If I don't have this little history put in book form before my death, I hope some of my children will". And as I have pointed out many times already, it contains a first hand account of the building of the western railroads and early telephonics. You also wrote: "I don't know why someone would want a memoir of someone else's family", but every single manuscript hosted at Commons is not about your family. Every single book hosted at Commons is not about your family, and every single image hosted at Commons is not about your family. Yet, here you are. Commons isn't designed to host material to please any single individual. It is to preserve history for whoever may be interested in the future. --RAN (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Regarding who wrote it, I was thrown off by the references to "my father" -- I thought it was talking about the subject rather than the subject's father. My mistake. As for "memoir of someone else's family", yes if I were to upload a memoir it would also be of someone else's family, but it would be of a notable person. So I guess I'd amend "I don't know why someone would want a memoir of someone else's non-notable family member" (and for the anonymous user above, that's not intended as an insult -- "notable" is Wikipedia jargon). Regardless, I didn't !vote delete based on that latter argument but on copyright, so will strike my boldtext above for now. I guess we're left with a question of COM:SCOPE with some weird interpersonal stuff going on with the provenance. I think I'll abstain for now, but ask the subject's family member here: if RAN had been forthright in the communications (saying "I have an interest in memoirs and ensuring they're part of the historical record. I wonder if you'd be willing to share it with the many historians, researchers, and generally curious people who use the Commons archive"), would that change your mind regarding allowing it to be public? — Rhododendrites talk |  14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thanks for responding, and thank you for reading the document. Tempers having been running a little too hot in this debate, it is good to see you read it. As to the communications to the person that sent me the unsolicited document. I cut off communications when they became libelous and threatening. I have been in touch with other branches of the family that have copies including one in Australia, they have been more accommodating. --RAN (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, per Ankry and Consigned. Thuresson (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:William_Francis_Norton_(1857-1939)_memoir.pdf&oldid=917954262"