Talk:Adjustment Team

The story has been described as Dick's "first tentative try" at Frederik Pohl's "tunnel under the world" theme

Since it PRECEDES Tunnel under the World, this is an utterly bizarre statement. It is P. Dick's theme.

Listed Link Generates "Attack Site" Warning

I'd recommend deleting the first External Site listed (phillipkdickfans.com) as it triggered warnings from both McAfee and Google. The Google warning reads in part:

What is the current listing status for philipkdickfans.com?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 9 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 25 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-04-24, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-04-24.

Malicious software includes 11 scripting exploit(s).

Malicious software is hosted on 2 domain(s), including trughtsa.com/, updatedate.cn/.

Is there a guideline for this? (The malware may have been installed by a third party, but it's there nonetheless.)

Unspecified source for Image:Adjustment team.jpg

I found Image:Adjustment team.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adjustment team.jpg

Image:Adjustment team.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I deleted the comparison to the film Dark City after reading the article on that film. Left what there currently is of a plot synopsis largely as a gap filler until I (or someone else) has time to write a plot synopsis. To me this appears to have been written by someone who hasn't read the story and didn't get the information from an accurate source. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot synopsis seems to need a fix. It says "Sector T69 is scheduled for adjustment" which doesn't make sense in the context of the entire synopsis and also differs from other sources: "Sector T137 is scheduled for adjustment". I have not read the short story, so I would defer to someone who has. 192.182.211.138 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright section deletions. Please explain reason if this is good faith editing.

LOOP4321, your sole Wickipedia contributions have been to remove references to Copyright Registration Number RE0000190631 related copyright status in Adjustment Team. The section is verifiably referenced with reliable sources and it is notable that the story is in the public domain. You have not made edit summaries about deleting this text section or discussed this on the talk page. If you are editing in good faith please explain your reason for deleting this section. I believe Wickipedia has a feature to request opinions from disinterested editors when editors of an article cannot agree on something. If necessary we could do something of that sort to resolve this amicably. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what all this "Copyright Registration Number RE0000190631" stuff is about but this is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA, not a legal document. There is no need to include such detail. It's reasonable to identify it as being in the public domain and then mention that there is "a copyright dispute"; any specifics or case numbers can be left in the reference/citation. Mrstonky (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

3 deletions in 7 minutes with no explanation. Please explain reason for deleting Copyright status and Movie adaptation sections if this is good faith editing.

69.108.83.187, if you have valid objections to the sections you deleted please explain those objections on the talk page. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A TraceRoute for this IP showed something familiar from checking on a problem with the philipkdickfans.com site. See Google Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for AS21844 (THEPLANET) and Google Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for philipkdickfans.com. AS21844 (THEPLANET) seems to have some technical relationship to both the IP address and the site. I don't know whether this has any significance but someone with more IT knowledge might know if it may indicate anything more than coincidence. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

69.108.83.187, if you have valid objections to the sections you deleted please discuss those objections on the talk page. Unexplained deletions of verified, notable and/or relevant information is not proper behavior on Wikipedia. Repeatedly doing so is even less acceptable behavior. Please read some of the editing guidelines and discuss whatever issues you perceive here at the talk page if you are acting in good faith. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed "refimprove" tag because I believe it is no longer appropriate.

I've removed the "refimprove" tag because I believe the article's references have been improved enough that the tag is no longer appropriate. Comments about this are welcome. If it is believed the tag removal was not justified, I'd appreciate some explanation of what further improvements are needed to justify the tag's removal. If it was inappropriate for me to make the decision since it is based on references I've added, please inform me of that and where it would be correct to ask for a tag's removal in such a situation. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Added facsimile and text versions

I added the facsimile version from wikimedia commons, and a text version someone put together (link to text version was accidentally found here : http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/10/first-look-the-adjustment-bureau/ )

As this works is public domain in the USA, it will allows US residents to read and use the text in any way they feel necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.164.161 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status the most interesting thing?

Reading this article, the non-plot summary portions of it seems to be mostly about the copyright renewal status of the work. Even the section about the upcoming movie adaptation is mostly about copyright and renewal.

Is this really the major item of interest about the story? Is there any external references that show concern over copyright status? One or two sentences about it, fine, but I certainly don't see why copyright status requires a large paragraph in the movie adaptation section: It's out of copyright - fine, Universal and Electric Shepard have as much rights to make the movie as anyone; It's not out of copyright - fine, Universal has the blessings of Dick's heirs, and have rights to make the movie. The copyright status is irrelevant to the movie. The only reason I see to mention copyright in connection with the movie is if the copyright status was at issue when making the film - say Universal wanted to make the film independently, but were forced to bring on Electric Shepard because of the uncertain copyright, or Warner Brothers were also making a version, but were forced to can it because of uncertain copyright. Absent those sorts of issues (attested to by external reliable sources), I don't see why the copyright status takes such a prominent position in the article - especially as it is presented so dryly. The whole discussion seems more like a position paper (original research and point-of-view pushing on the part of Wikipedians), than an encyclopedia article. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I die a little bit inside when I see those long copyright registration numbers in an article about a science fiction short story. It looks like this article has received a lot of attention from an editor who understands the rules of Wikipedia (verifiability, references, etc) and has an in-depth knowledge on Dick and his works (including copyrights) but who somehow does not know what a Wikipedia article on a science fiction short story is supposed to look like. Knyght27 (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the section on copyright status has all the hallmarks of WP:OR. It only cites original source documents and then draws conclusions from them. The conclusions themselves are not specifically supported by any published sources. If there is a reliable published source that draws the conclusion that the work is in the public domain, that (and only that) source should be cited, instead of writing a legal brief that tries to draw the conclusion independently. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two commenters made thoughtful, helpful comments providing insight to both need and possible methods of stating the significant matters more clearly and less clumsily. The first made it abundantly clear he/she did not understand the story is in the public domain but a claim of copyright for a non-existent story with the same title creates the appearance the authentic story is copyrighted. This causes much confusion which is an issue and apparently caused the purchase of "rights" to make a derivative work from the non-existent story which was presumably based on the believe "Adjustment Team" is copyrighted and this was a purchase of rights to make a derivative work from the actual story with does not require permission or payment. The copyright status of the real "Adjustment Team" is not uncertain and the registration and assignments do not reference it in any manner I can discern from the published Copyright Office entries which are only briefly descriptive indexes to the actual documents which are not published. The commenter also made it clear he/she did not understand the nature of Copyright Catalog entries and that needs to be clarified in the article. It also needed to be explained in the Wikipedia article on the Copyright Catalog which I think I've done adequately with the addition of two sections to the article. And I frankly agree the detailed explanations are dreadful prose but they are intended to meet the higher standard of verification of statements likely to be challenged. I'll be reworking the copyright information and presentation to improve communication and style. R'n'B, you merely seem to be parroting uninformed or POV inaccurate comments stated as facts. I assume good faith but think you would have been wiser to check the facts for yourself. I cited the published index entries prepared by Copyright Office employees from original source documents and I checked bibliographic information--these are both forms of published reliable secondary sources. The sources show "Adjustment Team" is in the public domain. "No original research" isn't equivalent to not looking at your foot to see you really don't have 8 toes on it. It also isn't an absolute rule. Wikipedia guidelines also include Use Common Sense and even "Ignore All Rules" for rare but appropriate circumstances. If you believe this story from Orbit entitled "Adjustment Team" is copyrighted, state that with citation to verifiable reliable sources. If you believe the "Adjustment Team" listed in the electronic "index card" for Copyright Renewal Registration Number RE0000190631 really exists, state that with citation to verifiable reliable sources. And please explain how you were able to cite the verifiable reliable sources without doing "original research" so I may understand what you think is and isn't original research. Hope I'm not sounding too testy. I'm overdue for dinner and I think it's showing.

Oh, to answer the section's question. As a long-time fan of Philip K. Dick who is familiar with his main themes and not very interested in the movies based on his writings, I do think the copyright stuff is more interesting and more Dickian than the movie. Perhaps I'll add a quote or two from him after dinner. For a parting thought I'll leave this with a quote he used in his Hugo Award winning novel, The Man In The Hight Castle. "Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream." Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to online text

There was a link to an online version of the text a few days ago which no longer appears on the page. I believe the debate over public domain status is resolved, and would like to inquire as to why the link was removed. --Redknight (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status and copyfraud section

I added "United States" to one sentence for clarification. I also changed section title back to "Copyright status and copyfraud" which more accurately reflects content.

The Canadian copyright status of the story (and derivative works), the basis for claim of copyright and who the Canadian copyright would belong to if valid is a recent topic of discussion due to a DMCA notice. As noted at http://www.sffaudio.com/?p=28808&cpage=1, DMCA is not Canadian law but a DMCA notice was used anyway. Copyfraud is relevant to all the subjects because the story may be protected by copyright in Canada based on the original 1954 copyright but the Canadian copyright holder may not be The Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust because there may not have been a valid transfer of rights from the author's children to The Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust under Canadian law. Similar issues concerning who owns the rights could exist in other nations which don't apply the rule of the shorter term to US works. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Author quote

What connection does the author quote have to this work? The quote doesn't seem relevant to Adjustment Team in any way. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - have deleted for now...of course it may be reverted if there is a genuine reason for it being there I guess... Greg1138 (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Copyright Status and Copyfraud" Section...

...is now unreadable, seems MOSTLY irrelavent and doesn't belong here. I don't get it? Can someone better at this stuff than me tidy it up? Greg1138 (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is unreadable. Talk to Refrigerator Heaven about that. Over the past few years, he's flooded the article with irrelevant and tedious details about copyright. He's attached a mostly irrelevant image and he's written an overly-long plot synopsis that doesn't adequately introduce the setting of the story. I really don't think all the work has made the article a better one. Knyght27 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section as original research. It reads like somebody's opinion about the copyright status of the work - which may well be correct, but we don't engage in our own legal research, we only reproduce the research of others. So unless there's a reliable source addressing the question of the copyright status of the work, we can't do so in our article.  Sandstein  20:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That was not original research you deleted although you did delete reliable sources which ironically were mostly links to research of others. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You should not repeatedly revert the section's removal by others, that's edit-warring. I've started a discussion at WP:NORN#Adjustment Team.  Sandstein  05:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 Sandstein , I suggest you review the definition of edit warring. It does not include reverting vandalism or reverting blanking as good faith editing which is what the many reversions of blanking by myself and many others have been. Also, in the English-speaking areas where I have lived the way you used the word "you" in this context is singular implying the reversions of blanking have been only by me, not by a number of editors (and bots). This is misleadingly to many English speakers and I think contributed to Mike Christie's evaluation of what commentors had previously said. It may possibly have also have discouraged him from checking contributions from commenters on this page and therefore given undue weight to some of the commenters. Your contributions clearly indicate you are a legitemate editor who has made many edits but this is not the case for all the commentors on this page. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned you removed the section twice stating original research as the reason the first time without actually describing what was original research. "[I]t reads like original search" is merely an opinion about writing style. "So unless there's a reliable source addressing the copyright status of the work" seems an unambigious assertion no reliable source doing so was used. Perhaps I misunderstand. Regardless, what sources are you challenging the status of on and on what basis are you asserting they are not reliable sources? I can't properly dispute or agree without that information although my impression is that you are challeging reliable sources which have previously been questioned and their status as reliable sources was correctly described/explained in the past. I also note at least one editor has been banned for blanking copyfraud information about RE0000190631 but I'm not aware of anyone having a problem from Wikpedia for mentioning it. Indeed, the information has been in an FA ("The Last Of The Masters") and the story "Adjustment Team" is on two Wikimedia sites with no DMCA notices issued. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation 6 is not valid. It is just a citation of copyright law. It does not back up the statement that the copyright for the book is out of force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.112.2 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

IPs are even less anonymous when they are part of a corporate domain, Unsigned Comment. Is this an official statement from Paramount? Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright section removed

I see above there has been previous discussion of the copyright section. I've removed it, which seems to be in line with the opinion of most commenters above. We don't normally give the copyright status of works, though I think it might be OK to leave in an unambiguous statement that "the work is in the public domain". Anything beyond that is original research and/or synthesis. I agree it's interesting, but unless this evidence is assembled and printed by a reliable source I don't see how we can reasonably include this material. The opinion at the NORN noticeboard was also in favour of removal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been much blanking and some discussion of the copyright section for two years now; both here and to a lesser extent at the article for the movie, The Adjustment Bureau, which is loosely based on this story. There has been much blanking and editing related to Copyright Renewal Registration Number RE0000190631 everywhere it is mentioned on Wikipedia. As RE0000190631 has over 20 demonstrably false listings it can be expected to be mentioned in other articles. After looking at your contributions I assume you removed the copyright section in good faith but acted too hastily. Please see WP:NOTOR (particularly "Compiling facts and information" & "Conflict between sources") and WP:SYNTHNOT as well as WP:NOR. There are conflicts between sources which Wikipedia considers Reliable Sources involved in this matter. Bibliographies consistently state X, while a Copyright Catalog Entry states Y. This is not a trivial conflict to be dismissed with an unsupported and inaccurate statement that the story is "in the public domain" (Canada and the United Kingdom are examples of countries where it is not in the public domain). As I've stated before, this requires citations suitable for statements likely to be challenged. People generally appear to assume "Adjustment Team" is copyrighted in the US and that there is only one "Adjustment Team" written by Philip K. Dick. I can find no evidence a second "Adjustment Team" was written by Philip K. Dick except Copyright Renewal Registration Number RE0000190631 which is contradicted by every bibliography I've seen and all my other knowledge related to that subject. That the real "Adjustment Team" is under US copyright protection is something I've assumed after it entered the public domain but before consulting the public record which clearly shows it has not been for almost three decades despite copyright notices in books which state or strongly imply it is under copyright in the US. That "Adjustment Team" is validly copyrighted in the US is something the Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust wants to be true and has almost incidentally asked a federal court to do as part of a complaint filed October 27, 2011 (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/31/Dick.pdf) which pointedly does not mention the non-existent "Adjustment Team" of Imaginative Tales, Sept., 1955 listed in Copyright Renewal Registration Number RE0000190631. BTW, the lawsuit stems from the movie, The Adjustment Bureau, where a copyright section was removed from the article as giving undue weight to the subject in what was a small article at the time. You can see discussion about copyright status on the Talk page of that article but no mention of the month-old lawsuit in the article. "Science fiction, legal reality" (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111127,0,770128.column) is somewhat more informative than most articles I've read which seem to rely largely, if not solely, on a press release by one of the parties to the suit.

If Wikipedia articles don't normally mention a work is in the public domain in the United States or wherever (with proper references, of course), I hope I'm starting a new trend. That is interesting or important information to many people, absolutely in line with the part of Wikipedia's mission to be educational and not inconsistent with any other part of Wikipedia's mission or rules. Regardless, copyright status is of greater importance to the subject of this article than should be typical of short stories because of conflicting sources of information about that status, very significant misinformation that creates misperception and because it greatly affects the status of the article's subject which is an economic commodity as well as a work of literature. If you don't want to read the suit itself, I think this article quoted some financial information regarding the movie deal which is the subject of the recent lawsuit. "Philip K. Dick Family Sues for 'Adjustment Bureau' Film Royalties" (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/philip-k-dick-family-sues-254356). That only involves one recent business deal related to one story, certainly there have been numerous other business transactions involving RE0000190631 related copyfraud over the course of almost three decades. There have been numerous unjustified DMCA takedown notices issued and there has been an incalculable chilling effect on perfectly lawful activities.

I've read the little discussion at the NORN noticeboard. Sandstein conveniently moved it away from the article's Talk page where I'd already responded to some of the incorrect statements. BTW, there are scans of copyright registration applications here (http://www.sffaudio.com/?tag=copyfight). If Copyright Catalog Entries are primary sources, what are the applications? And why are applications reviewed and amended by the Copyright Office before acceptance and publication of the CCEs which are indexes to them? Livewireo had a comment deserving of response as well as the courtesy to notify me of the NORN thing. I don't seem to have edited anything here while that was going on or until long after it was over but did get a timely email notification because of that. I hope the paragraph above this one is responsive if he/she has an interest and notices.

It's very easy and convenient for people to say, "primary sources", "original research" and "synthesis" when they are not knowledgeable about a subject or willing to examine what basis or relevance there is for such assertions. Or even when they simply lack a valid objection. There have been complaints that CCEs are primary sources which they certainly are not. There have been complaints about original research and synthesis that fail to describe specifically what is original research or synthesis and why it is OR or SYN within the meaning of Wikipedia guidelines and prohibitions. They generally seem to amount to little more than differences of interests, background knowledge and perhaps abilities combined with the assumption, "If I don't know it or have a general interest in the subject, it must be OR or SYN." or sometimes assumptions/beliefs by administrators which I can only geuss at. My hobbies, background and interests are what they are. To people who don't share them things may appear to be OR or SYN when they are not. Sometimes I attach much importance to things which more knowledgeable people recognize as trivial or I don't recognize the importance of things that are obvious to a large part of the population. I respectfully ask that you restore the Copyright status section or state some specific objections which I can respond to. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I should start by saying that I am inclined to believe that there was nothing factually wrong about the statements that I removed; I spend a lot of time editing articles about old sf magazines and I have done my share of searching the copyright records, though I'm by no means an expert. I can quite believe that the story unfolded as you had it. However, I am not convinced that the whole thing should be returned to the article.

It's true that searching for a copyright record is not original research; we do it all the time to find out if an image is available for use in an article, for example. But I don't think we should assemble a chain of argument based on a series of searches and publish the conclusions of that chain of argument in an article unless a reliable source does so. For example, I think the LA Times story is clearly a reliable source discussing copyright, and anything we can source to that article is fine to include, subject to other common sense editing constraints, of course. To me, the text I removed went beyond that; it was an individual synthesis of researched data that drew a conclusion and placed that conclusion on the talk page.

I can see where reasonable people could differ on this. I think if you want this more widely discussed, so we can reach a stable consensus, a good next step would be an request for comment, which might draw in some uninvolved editors to allow us to get more opinions. I can set an RFC up, if you're not familiar with that process, and you agree that it's worth trying. Let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library),

You seem to make an incorrect assumption that the copyright section is a chain of argument about copyright status based on a series of searches.* The "series of searches" related to RE0000190631 in articles are for citation/reference/verification not for research about the copyright status of the works; unless you consider it unacceptable original research to verify that no overlooked published story with a duplicative title actually does exist. The Copyright Catalog Entry for Copyright Renewal Number RE0000190631 is a group renewal for contributions to periodicals published in the same year. Such renewals allowed claimants to make multiple renewals on a single form for a single fee rather than multiple individual renewals for which the Copyright Office would charge a seperate fee for each renewal. You probably know about that already but others reading this may not. A couple years ago I was reading a skimpy article about an issue of Orbit magazine or some story that had been published in Orbit and I looked at the Talk page where there was mention of deleting an image because it wasn't labeled properly concerning copyright. Whoever deleted the image was correct about that but threw in an offensively unlikely statement that the whole magazine series was probably copyrighted. I was just reading, not editing, however that statement ticked me off enough to check whether the magazine issues had their copyrights renewed. Orbit is hardly a distinctive search term and I was looking at what Wikipedia had to say about it because I was rereading an issue I bought about 50 years ago so I used the title of a story in that issue by my favorite author as a search term to find the registration number of that issue. "Adjustment Team" turned out to be a nicely distictive search term for the Copyright Catalog but it showed "Adjustment Team" as being published in a different magazine and there were other obviously incorrect entries in RE0000190631. E.g., there are four magazines listed as having two stories by PKD and it is common knowledge (among older fans anyway) that despite having as many as 8 newly published stories on the news stands at one time PKD only once had two new stories in the same issue of a magazine. I think there were some stories I simply recognized as being published in different magazines than the CCE said. No research needed, I simply had the knowledge already. Lack of ignorance about even an obscure subject is not the same as original research.

Some time later I compared the CCE to the Magazine Checklist that's in pages 146-151 of the very authorative 1981 Levack PKD bibliography. A checklist I've kept a photocopy of in my car glove compartment since 1982 for handy reference when browsing used bookstores. Possibly I compared it first to the Chronological Order of Publication of Philip K. Dick's Work on pages 142-145 of Levack. Regardless, that bibliography absolutely meets Wikipedia standards for a reliable source. I own many additional reliable sources and nowadays I also have some excellent internet resources. There are 23 nonexistent works listed in Copyright Renewal Number RE0000190631. In every case they have the title of something published in 1954 whose copyright wasn't renewed in 1982, that is such an obvious pattern Wikipedia would have to demand willfull ignorance to ignore it entirely and I don't give that undue weight where I mention it. Perhaps you or someone else will quibble verifying that the 1954 publications weren't renewed is prohibited original research or mentioning it is prohibited synthesis. In this context, I'll dispute that though these rules are written in language that lends itself to extremist interpretations.

Again, I point out Copyright Office circulars are reliable sources which directly address the relevant issues about copyright and meet some of the standards Wikipedia emphasizes as especially desirable or even necessary. Also they aren't biased one way or another concerning the specific matters involved with the copyright status of these stories or influenced by anyone party to a legal dispute which the L.A. Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Wrap and the New York Times are in a manner Wikipedia guidelines specifically caution about. I see no reason to abandon the government publications.

As far as the lawsuit goes, I waited about a month hoping someone else would address that subject so I wouldn't appear to be making personal attacks or taking sides other than the obvious disagreement with the plaintiffs request the court declare RE0000190631 is valid. Really, the suit needs to be mentioned here and in the article on The Adjustment Bureau but at this time it's mostly a news item and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a newspaper so there's not much to say about it now that is appropriate. I consider that a bit of a blessing as I've little neutral to say about the Complaint which is pretty much all I know about it anyway.

I think the Talk page is the proper place to discuss this. I hope it's been discussed sufficiently by now.

• I do make such searches now on magazine contributions for future use on other Wikimedia sites as I want to scan many public domain stories for use there when I've learned how to scan old magazines without damaging them in the process or maybe ask other PKD fans to make such scans from magazines they own. I hope to use that information eventually on Wikipedia and imagine it will lead to debate about whether that really is original research and if there is consensus it is a violation of the Wikipedia NOR policy I'll certainly argue for a change in the rule so that it doesn't lead to such an absurd consequence. However, that isn't shouldn't be relevant to the PKD story articles except ones that are public domain because they weren't renewed and there aren't any public records that would mislead about that copyright status. That's something that doesn't seem to be very controversial so far though I'll grant I see links to Project Gutenberg more often than I see a statement that the work is in the public domain in the US. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I partly agree with you. I think we agree that searching for information about copyright is something we can do independently of sources, and the results can be used to determine that a scanned magazine cover can be used. (By the way, please ask if you'd like me to scan something in -- I have a fairly good collection of old magazines and books including some of the PKD paperbacks and many of the magazines his work appeared in.)

Perhaps it's just that the statement as it stands is longer than I think the material justifies. Here's a summary of what you added (apologies if this is a bit imprecise, but it's just a summary):

'Adjustment Team' is in the public domain in the US as the original copyright has expired without a renewal. A copyright entry was created for it in 1956 that is invalid as it records the story as having been printed in Imaginative Tales instead of Orbit; this led to an appearance of copyright protection, and rights to the story were being sold as late as 2009.

I could imagine someone taking issue with several points here -- for example, "in the public domain" is currently being contested by that lawsuit (about which I have no opinion); what if the plaintiffs win and the story is determined not to be in the public domain? Surely we should simply state that the copyright status is being disputed? I think it would be OK to simply point out in a footnote that the original copyright was not renewed per a search, and the second copyright statement includes the wrong magazine.

So how about rewriting what you had to look like this:

"Adjustment Team"'s copyright status is currently in dispute. The original story does not appear to have had its copyright renewed, and a copyright entry that was created for it in 1956 records the story as having been printed in Imaginative Tales instead of Orbit, which is incorrect. The story was assumed to be in copyright, and rights to the story were acquired by Media Rights Capital, but subsequently they decided that the story was in fact in the public domain and demanded the return of the money they paid to Dick's estate. The estate has sued, claiming that the 1954 publication was unauthorized and does not count for the purposes of determining copyright.

That makes no value judgment about anyone's claim, just records what the primary sources say and what the LA Times says. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the sentence, "I think we agree that searching for information about copyright is something we can do independently of sources, and the results can be used to determine that a scanned magazine cover can be used." The results of such a search can be used for many things including contributing to Wikilivre which is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Further the Copyright Catalog is a public reference work with much interesting information that isn't important for determing copyright status. I might be interested in some scans from you and not only PKD related ones. There is a lot of wonderful material in the public domain from 50s and 60s magazines that could be used to enhance Wikilivre. My user talk page would be a good place to discuss that.

The copyright status and copyfraud section for this article is two years old and the lawsuit is only a bit over a month old. Hardly a reason to rewrite the section; perhaps the opposite. Indeed, after rereading the complaint I'm sure the estate is asking asking the court to rule RE0000190631 is a valid copyright. It doesn't seem to mention that Copyright Renewal Registration Number and it makes no mention of Imaginative Tales. The complaint states first publication correctly and offers some interesting arguments about why "Adjustment Team" is validly copyrighted or why the estate should get all the money it is asking for even if the story is public domain. I'm not sure the Complaint needs to be mentioned in the article now and wonder if much needs to be said about it here. For the moment I think it would be best to consider it a distraction from the main issue. There were 37 contributions listed in RE0000190631 and 23 of them are demonstrably false. The issue here about copyright status is relevant to articles about any of them including some that already have a copyright status section. One of them was even an FA and an early target of section blanking. This isn't some subject that is in Wikipedia because it just hasn't been noticed.

"Perhaps it's just that the statement as it stands is longer than I think the material justifies." seems to be the sticking point since you don't think there are factual errors. It is an inelegant statement but it needs to be precise and carefully worded for a number of reasons. It needs to be able to withstand challenges which it has done very well, it needs to avoid any speculation about who created the original fraud or who knew what and when they knew it. Perhaps it is best understood as it relates to a policy for technical articles that they should try to be understandable by an average reader with references that allow readers more knowledgeable about the subject to get the more detailed information from the references. Admittedly that's a bit of an oversimplification but I think it makes my point and copyright law certainly is a technical subject as well as a matter of importance to all of Wikipedia though I'm not sure how many editors realize how much Wikipedia rules and guidelines are fashioned by copyright law, the extreme defensiveness current copyright law creates or the importance of the subject of copyfraud. Indeed, Jimmy Wales has called Jason Mazzone's Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property, "A must read for anyone who cares about the future of creativity." (http://www.copyfraud.com/) and IIRC a professor with a copyfraud blog has lectured Wikipedia editors about the subject or given them some sort of prestentation about it at the invitation of Wikipedia. It's recognized as an important subject by the Wikimedia Foundation. If it is the clunkiness of the footnotes that bothers you, as it does me, perhaps you have computer knowledge I don't that would allow the direct links to be created in a manner that works well consistently despite the bandwidth conservation measures that cause time outs.

'Adjustment Team' is in the public domain in the US as the original copyright has expired without a renewal. A copyright entry was created for it in 1956 that is invalid as it records the story as having been printed in Imaginative Tales instead of Orbit; this led to an appearance of copyright protection, and rights to the story were being sold as late as 2009.

This is not an accurate summary. "Adjustment Team" was properly copyrighted in 1954 and two contributions by other authors were validly renewed in 1982. A Copyright Catalog search for Registration Number B00000486659 will show these. Checking for renewals of stories was how I found the "blanket copyright" of the magazine issue and that there was no PCW renewal of the magazine. The only US copyright registration for "Adjustment Team" published in Imaginative Tales was "created" in 1983 along with 22 other false "creations". There are no 1955 registrations for them, they were all published in 1954 with copyright notice and the blanket copyright registration numbers for the alledged 1955 publications are just claimed in 1983 to give the appearance the stories had their copyright registrations renewed before they entered the public domain. No matter which shell you lift you won't find a pea under it.

The rewriting you suggest incorrectly states a registration was created in 1955 (I assume you meant 1955, not 1956), uses "assumed" without explicitly stating who made the assumption and refers to both a 1955 publication in Imaginative Tales and a 1954 publication in Orbit but doesn't reconcile these references and it does make value judgements about the claims including a judgement that the estate accurately states what the defendants claims are. A very unreasonable value judgement considering factors such as the complaint is one party's statement in an adversarial proceding and at paragraph 17 the complaint states the estate has never filed a suit before despite the fact it filed suit against California State University, Fullerton on July 14, 1983 (See page 4 at http://www.titanyearbook.com/archives/1983/1983-09-15.pdf)--and I knew the date by memory as July 14 is memorable because it is Bastille Day and the suit is also mentioned in the first issue of the Philip K. Dick Society Newsletter (August, 1983). Also, that rewriting is not applicable to the 22 other false listings in Copyright Renewal Registration RE0000190631. I can't remember exactly what the removed section said but will see if I can restore it for reference and likely leave it back in the article if I still don't see a problem with it. If so, you can review whether you still think it needs changing or removal. I'll leave a message on your talk page. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Let me try and explain why the section about the public domain status of the story is original research. You, Refrigerator Heaven, have gone to the primary sources (the copyright records) and have drawn a conclusion and have made that argument within the article itself. You have not cited any secondary sources (e.g., a news article, a legal journal) where someone else (i.e., a recognized expert) has drawn that conclusion. What's supposed to happen we tell the reader what reliable sources say. Instead, what's happening here is that this article says "We can say that the copyright has expired on this because we checked all the copyright records and could not find the renewal anywhere."

This is going to sound odd, but nobody is really doubting that your analysis is correct. The story is probably in the public domain. You just cannot argue the case in the article. You cannot even lay out the proof (as you have done) and lead the reader to conclusion you want. Here's the kicker: Let's say we want to include the entire text of the story in Wikisource. If you were to do that and then make your case that the copyright has expired, that would be totally permissible and you'd probably convince enough people that it would be kept. In fact, this sort of armchair analysis happens all the time on Commons with respect to the copyright status of images.

Think about it another way: There are a number of very experienced editors who are telling you this is original research—myself, R'n'B, Sandstein, Mike Christie, Dmcq and Zero (the last two from the noticeboard). Meanwhile, nobody else is defending your position. Consensus clearly dictates that this section is out of line with policy. howcheng {chat} 08:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The map is not the territory. Copyright Catalog Entries are not primary sources. I give yet another citation for this from a Reliable Source. "Together, the copyright card catalog and the online files of the Copyright Office provide an index to copyright registrations in the United States from 1870 to the present." -- The Copyright Card Catalog and the Online Files of the Copyright Office; U. S. Copyright Office · Library of Congress · 101 Independence Avenue SE · Washington, DC 20559-6000 · www.copyright.gov, circular 23 reviewed: 11 ⁄ 2010 Printed on recycled paper u. s. government printing office: 2010-xxx-xxx ⁄ xx,xxx (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ23.pdf). They index many other other things than copyright registrations also as you can learn from reading this and other circulars and materials on the subject.

If you are going to state Copyright Catalog Entries are primary sources, please give a contextually relevant citation to support that statement.

Seriously? Copyright Catalog entries are prima facie primary sources when it comes to copyright records.

I've cited reliable secondary sources stating the applicable law regarding renewal requirements, that if they weren't met the work entered the public domain permanently and I've cited the public record showing no renewal was made for the story. I do give more consideration than Wikipedia to whether the public record is accurate and intend to provide more context regarding this matter. If you have another plausible summary/interpretation of the relevant information or other relevant information that supports different summary and/or interpretation of the overall information available (and allowed to be used) share it. That's supposed to be part of the process of creating better articles and consistent with the policy that no editor "owns" an article.

I acknowledge and commend your work, but you have not cited a single secondary source. You need a court ruling, or you need a published opinion by a legal publication or an intellectual property attorney. As a Wikipedia editor, you yourself cannot make that judgment about its copyright status, even if you are an IP attorney.

Perhaps you overlooked that I've already uploaded a scan of the story from the magazine and that others have used the images to produce a plain text version of the story. It's been linked to the article. One of Wikipedia's sister sites is devoted to public domain and other "free content" literature. You've made no mention of the "phantom" "Adjustment Team". The 23 phantom works listed in RE0000190631 are a serious bibliographic problem as well as creators of copyright misinformation.

Because it's not relevant. As I said, your argument as to its copyright status can and should be used to defend the inclusion of the text of "Adjustment Team" in Wikisource. That's not the point. The point is this section of text you've written violates one of Wikipedia's core principles: we do not make findings of fact; we report what others have done.

The history of the article shows I'm not the only editor who thinks the copyright/copyfraud section is appropriate. As far as defending it on the talk page, I don't know why I'm the only one writing in favor of it except that I may be misunderstanding what isn't allowed by the rules against sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting. I also don't know why this is suddenly of interest to a number of editors who aren't editing the article and with the exception of Mike Christie don't seem to have any interest in the article other than objecting to mention of copyright matters. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the other editors, but I myself just watched the film on TV that day and then came to read the article. Nobody has asked me to make a comment here. The only other editor in this discussion that I even recognize is Sandstein, and only because I've seen him/her around the wiki. As far as I know, there is no collusion taking place. My sole motivation is the betterment of the encyclopedia. howcheng {chat} 07:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Howcheng on this. I think the section on the copyright status should be reduced to a couple of sentences reporting what has been said in secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick Fansite is clean of malware now

Some of the old content is gone and not all will be restored. New content is being added. It's a very good resource again and safe to link to. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and fraud lawsuits

Why is there no information in the article about the copyright and fraud related lawsuits and other disputes related to this story? Why all the opposition to mentioning copyright status in the article? 199.250.57.231 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem as long as the analysis of the copyright dispute is done by an external source. The only issue was that the argument was being made in this article, which is against the no original research rule. If someone else is making the argument, we can cite it and include it here. —howcheng {chat} 03:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)