Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Nation Principal Chief)/Archive 3

message: Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it -- Lulu -- Disputed Tag removed.  Waya sahoni 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: *The photo's on the article page have not been proven to be in copyright violation.  Only place the violation tag after it has been proven please.  I've cleaned up the article page as far as the photo's are concerened and on the talkpage as well.  I'd suggest that those who are against this article get a life. Those against this article leaves me wondering who in pulling your strings. --Bookofsecrets 14:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden on images is to prove that they are properly released, not to prove they are in violation.  The only way to prove a violation is for the copyright holder to successfully sue Wikimedia over them... which is the whole issue the policy exists to avoid.  Prima facie, there is a stated copyright and no obvious release of it.  The statement on the image pages that they are PD because US government works seems almost certainly false, since there is no evidence whatsoever that they are produced by the US government.  It's possible, but not obvious or explicit, that they were produced by the Cherokee Nation government; but I honestly do not know the copyright status of such works. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up and removed. 

message: Waya sahoni.  There are incidents where certain individuals have extreme nasal challenges because they do not know how to mind their own business.  --Bookofsecrets 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasal Challenges 

message: *I see double standards unfolding as I figured they would.  I will not report this to the wikipedia folks.  Double standards are unacceptable. --Bookofsecrets 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please clarify this comment? Johntex\talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Standard 

message: It appears as though there's some question as to the copyright status of something on this page, but I can't figure out exactly what's going on.  Could someone (or, as I suspect will be necessary, a few people) explain why this article is half warnings and disputes and copyvio boxes? Let's get this fixed.  JDoorjam     Talk 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this talk page gets archived extremely frequently for some reason. I think a lot of the dispute is in Archive #2. Other than that, I have no idea. --BWD (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A book by Wm R Wayland was cited by this article's main editor as primary source for most of the content. Several editors challenged the editor to produce an ISBN for the book to see if it met WP:V and WP:RS. No ISBN was stated, but page scans of a number of pages of the book were uploaded and placed on the article and on this talk page. The book appears to be a private publication without an ISBN. The image pages themselves claim that the work is PD because it is a US government work. However, the notices on the scans themselves seem to state pretty clearly that it is not a US government work. It may or may not be a work of the Cherokee Nation who seems to have distributed it; but that claim is not specifically made on the image pages. I am not clear what copyright status a Cherokee Nation work would have, in any event.  Specifically, the scan says that permission to distribute these excerpts was given by the author, but the context seems to be for a particular bulk mailing; there is no more general release statement in the scans. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would those images fit under fair use since it's a scan of a book? --BWD (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair use is generally allowed only in the context of discussion of the book/work itself, and only in minimal quantities required for such discussion (e.g. a book review). Use of a work to discuss the same topic addressed by the work is not generally under fair use; however, there is a normal fair use when presenting a particular author's "take" on a topic. E.g. About Foo, Smith writes "Foo is groovy"; Jones, by contrast, writes "Foo sucks." OK, my example is silly: but those uses are still essentially discussion of Smith and Jones inasmuch as it's not simply Foo that is being discussed, but "Smith's opinion of Foo". In any case, it's hard to see how scans of many whole pages could fall within fair use, even if this were a book review of Wayland: a few words, sure; or even an image or two if the work was visual in nature; but not whole page scans. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can produce concrete evidence that Mr. Wayland has released his book as PD or GFDL, the use is allowed.  But just imputing motives (however plausible) to Wayland is not the same thing as a specific copyright release. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I got clarification of this issue from #wikipedia. This is indeed a copyvio. You can only scan a part of a page to make a point. Plus, this book isn't published yet, so scans of a page would not fall under fair use. --BWD (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, exactly, is the conflict here? 

message: Ok.  If this all went down like the article currently says it did, there have to be enough resources out there that we can get an indisputably non copy-vio article together, which, in the long run, is going to be easier than sorting through the copyright issues of the current text.  There are also huge NPOV issues that are extremely difficult to overcome when the base content of the article is straight from one source.  It seems to me it would be better to put together even a working stub, swap that in for this, and build the article from the ground up.  (Commence throwing objects at me.) JDoorjam     Talk 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's start over. 

message: At the risk of seeming to introduce tangents into the discussion, I would like to state that what we are witnessing here are classic Jeff Merkey/"Waya sahoni" tactics and behavior.
:"I have provided the sources, and verified the source of the content."
"Waya sahoni" was originally challenged to support WP:POV for the pejorative and libelous statements written about Joe Byrd. These statements appear to be supported by the inline links still found at this moment in the article itself. If one is to follow the links, one will find that the articles linked to do not support the pejorative language in the least.
Next "Waya sahoni" attempted to state that his source was a "book". He was challenged repeatedly by numerous editors to post the ISBN number so that the "book's" existence could be verified, and "Waya sahoni" failed to do so:
:"I have to dig it out. I think its up at the office, so I'll run up there and get it. Please be patient, it might be later this evening when I post it. Waya sahoni 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Classic Merkey" 

message: The almost single sourcing of the article seems quite problematic.  However, it seems some of it is backed up by this from cnn: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/25/cherokee.election.01/ 
Looks like a fascinating story, but so far, I have not been able to find too much verification with the customary googling.  --Vryl 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that only items released by the US federal government are in the public domain, as per US copyright law. Therefore, if it was taken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for example, it would be in the public domain, because the BIA is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior. Other governmental bodies vary; something by the state of Texas, for example, would not be in the public domain, while something by the state of North Carolina would be, per NC General Statute § 132-1. Cherokee Nation items are not in the public domain — but we must make the distinction from those by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter who it was distributed (or 'released') by. Distribution of this copyrighted work by a federal government agency does not put the work in question in the public domain. That only applies to authored works by the federal government. If we assume good faith and take User:Waya_sahoni at his word, then the author of this copyrighted work gave permission to the BIA to distribute his work in a limited setting. That does not change the copyright status of his work. Without written documentation to the contrary, this is a copyright violation. --BWD (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading Waya sahoni's claim in more generous light of purporting that the material was actually commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation (and hence an official work).  However, that apparently still would not constitute a release.  There is also a claim floated that the photos were taken by BIA employees, which would constitute a release; but that claim seems ad hoc, and has been poorly supported by Waya sahoni as yet. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one assumes that it was commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation, then it still doesn't constitute a public domain release. Further, if that was the case, then the author would not need to put a disclaimer on the paper granting permission to use the image/scan/page. Now, as to who took the photo of the work: we need documentation for that. The burden of proof is on User:Waya_sahoni to provide that information. In that abscence of that, the default action is to delete it after one week. --BWD (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, the photos I'm refering to aren't the scan of the book pages per se, but the photos of the demonstrations, etc. which were reproduced in Wayland's book.  If—and this is a big if so far—Wayland included PD photos in his book, Waya sahoni or someone else obtaining those photos by way of Wayland's book wouldn't change that PD status (though it might degrade image quality in the multiple steps, as it seems to have).  Of course, I entirely agree with you, BWD, that merely stating it is conceivable that the photos are PD falls far short of allowing their use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. I absolve myself from trying to help resolve this because I'm named as a party to Waya_sahoni's arbitration request, and as such, I don't think I can be neutral in helping resolve it. But good luck to you guys in finding a solution to it. But as a side note: I was told in #wikipedia by an admin that full book scans (particularly several pages worth) is a copyright violation, particularly if it is of a yet to be released book. --BWD (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know...wow, I really need to choose my words more carefully. ;) — Rebelguys2 talk 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:C2STc94_72UJ:www.cherokee.org/TribalGovernment/e99edition/PC_byrd.html+%22Joe+Byrd%22+cherokee&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en|lang_fr|lang_de|lang_it|lang_es
--Vryl 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that only items released by the US federal government are in the public domain, as per US copyright law. Therefore, if it was taken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for example, it would be in the public domain, because the BIA is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior. Other governmental bodies vary; something by the state of Texas, for example, would not be in the public domain, while something by the state of North Carolina would be, per NC General Statute § 132-1. Cherokee Nation items are not in the public domain — but we must make the distinction from those by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter who it was distributed (or 'released') by. Distribution of this copyrighted work by a federal government agency does not put the work in question in the public domain. That only applies to authored works by the federal government. If we assume good faith and take User:Waya_sahoni at his word, then the author of this copyrighted work gave permission to the BIA to distribute his work in a limited setting. That does not change the copyright status of his work. Without written documentation to the contrary, this is a copyright violation. --BWD (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading Waya sahoni's claim in more generous light of purporting that the material was actually commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation (and hence an official work).  However, that apparently still would not constitute a release.  There is also a claim floated that the photos were taken by BIA employees, which would constitute a release; but that claim seems ad hoc, and has been poorly supported by Waya sahoni as yet. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one assumes that it was commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation, then it still doesn't constitute a public domain release. Further, if that was the case, then the author would not need to put a disclaimer on the paper granting permission to use the image/scan/page. Now, as to who took the photo of the work: we need documentation for that. The burden of proof is on User:Waya_sahoni to provide that information. In that abscence of that, the default action is to delete it after one week. --BWD (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, the photos I'm refering to aren't the scan of the book pages per se, but the photos of the demonstrations, etc. which were reproduced in Wayland's book.  If—and this is a big if so far—Wayland included PD photos in his book, Waya sahoni or someone else obtaining those photos by way of Wayland's book wouldn't change that PD status (though it might degrade image quality in the multiple steps, as it seems to have).  Of course, I entirely agree with you, BWD, that merely stating it is conceivable that the photos are PD falls far short of allowing their use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. I absolve myself from trying to help resolve this because I'm named as a party to Waya_sahoni's arbitration request, and as such, I don't think I can be neutral in helping resolve it. But good luck to you guys in finding a solution to it. But as a side note: I was told in #wikipedia by an admin that full book scans (particularly several pages worth) is a copyright violation, particularly if it is of a yet to be released book. --BWD (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know...wow, I really need to choose my words more carefully. ;) — Rebelguys2 talk 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical Info 

message: It's interesting that Joe Byrd's candidacy statement in 1999 carried the tribal seal, just as did the mailed pamphlet under copyvio discussion.  But Byrd's statement also notes "© Cherokee Nation - All Rights Reserved".  This would certainly seem to suggest that the Cherokee Nation publishes material that is not thereby released into the public domain.  It seems likely that Cherokee Nation law differs from US Federal law in relation to the copyright on works of its employees. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that only items released by the US federal government are in the public domain, as per US copyright law. Therefore, if it was taken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for example, it would be in the public domain, because the BIA is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior. Other governmental bodies vary; something by the state of Texas, for example, would not be in the public domain, while something by the state of North Carolina would be, per NC General Statute § 132-1. Cherokee Nation items are not in the public domain — but we must make the distinction from those by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter who it was distributed (or 'released') by. Distribution of this copyrighted work by a federal government agency does not put the work in question in the public domain. That only applies to authored works by the federal government. If we assume good faith and take User:Waya_sahoni at his word, then the author of this copyrighted work gave permission to the BIA to distribute his work in a limited setting. That does not change the copyright status of his work. Without written documentation to the contrary, this is a copyright violation. --BWD (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading Waya sahoni's claim in more generous light of purporting that the material was actually commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation (and hence an official work).  However, that apparently still would not constitute a release.  There is also a claim floated that the photos were taken by BIA employees, which would constitute a release; but that claim seems ad hoc, and has been poorly supported by Waya sahoni as yet. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one assumes that it was commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation, then it still doesn't constitute a public domain release. Further, if that was the case, then the author would not need to put a disclaimer on the paper granting permission to use the image/scan/page. Now, as to who took the photo of the work: we need documentation for that. The burden of proof is on User:Waya_sahoni to provide that information. In that abscence of that, the default action is to delete it after one week. --BWD (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, the photos I'm refering to aren't the scan of the book pages per se, but the photos of the demonstrations, etc. which were reproduced in Wayland's book.  If—and this is a big if so far—Wayland included PD photos in his book, Waya sahoni or someone else obtaining those photos by way of Wayland's book wouldn't change that PD status (though it might degrade image quality in the multiple steps, as it seems to have).  Of course, I entirely agree with you, BWD, that merely stating it is conceivable that the photos are PD falls far short of allowing their use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. I absolve myself from trying to help resolve this because I'm named as a party to Waya_sahoni's arbitration request, and as such, I don't think I can be neutral in helping resolve it. But good luck to you guys in finding a solution to it. But as a side note: I was told in #wikipedia by an admin that full book scans (particularly several pages worth) is a copyright violation, particularly if it is of a yet to be released book. --BWD (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know...wow, I really need to choose my words more carefully. ;) — Rebelguys2 talk 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright on bio statement as illustration 

message: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:JAgNDcsNfJkJ:www.olememories.net/cherokeeobserver/etc/charges.html+%22Joe+Byrd%22+cherokee&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=9
--Vryl 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges against Joe Byrd 

message: Includes lots of interesting stuff, payment to byrds lawyer brother and more. 
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/United_States/Former%20Cherokee%20Chief%20Joe%20Byrd.htm  
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/United_States/FBI_Eyes.htm  
--Vryl 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byrd and Wiretapping 

message: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N36/shorts2.36w.html
http://www.doi.gov/news/archives/indchset.html --Vryl 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Byrd and Interior Ministry agreement

message: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410312
Anyone wanna do anything with this stuff?  I think that at least the biographical stuff should go in...  --Vryl 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More stuff on the Courthouse occupation

message: This article needs information about Joe Byrd's early life.  When and where was he born?  Where did he go to school?  Did he have a profession?  This article makes it seem like he materialized in 1995. We'll have to work on that. Johntex\talk 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: Hrrrmmmm.  Should all this info be here, or somewhere else?  If somewhere else, then where?  Do the events mentioned here deserve their own article?  Poll anyone?  --Vryl 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it about Joe Byrd or Cherokee History?