Talk:Heaven's Gate (religious group)

"Rkkody" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rkkody has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Rkkody until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant picture

I am removing the stock picture of a house in Rancho Santa Fe because it is irrelevant and misleading.

- Irrelevant because it was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2013. Its only connection to the story is being in the same suburb of San Diego as the incident. The actual address is at the end of a winding, unsealed cu-de-sac, not on a corner.

- Misleading because the context makes it appear to be the house where the suicides happened (I was misled). --Hugh7 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Image of Heaven's Gate meeting flyer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DO NOT DELETE the image of the May, 1994 Heaven's Gate Berkeley meeting flyer.

I have just received a notice from someone named PARAKANYAA suggesting the deletion of the May, 1994 Heaven's Gate meeting flyer that in 2014 I posted as part of this article. PARAKANYAA is concerned that I do not have permission to post the flyer.

(1) Please be advised that the flyer lacks a copy write symbol. So that it is public domain. No one can claim any rights regarding the flyer. So PARAKANYAA's concern lacks foundation.

(2) The flyer really is an important historic artifact which belongs in a university rare books room. Sharing it as part of this article is totally appropriate documentation.

(3) Also the flyer is part of a well-known news story. So showing the image is covered by fair use provisions.

(4) And finally, since the Heaven's Gate cult member subsequently commit suicide, none of the members are left to grant permission! Wsjacobs (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wsjacobs 1) It would have been public domain if it had lacked a symbol in the 80s or before but due to a reformation in copyright law a symbol was not needed when you said this is from (1993). Is it from before that? You uploaded it as "own work", which it is not.

2) I don't disagree, but that doesn't go before copyright law.

3) You didn't upload it as fair use.

4) Unrelated to the discussion.

I personally disagree with the existence of copyright law. Wikipedia has to abide it however. Also this discussion should be on commons., where you uploaded it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your personal opinions regarding the existence of copyright law are not relevant. What is at issue the legal status of the document in question.

The document is public domain. No one claims ownership of the document. There is no statement "Do not reproduce" or "Obtain permission of <name> before reproducing." Therefore it is perfectly legal to post it. Wsjacobs (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wsjacobs That is not how copyright law works. A copyright is created when a work is created. That is how the law works! I wish it was not, I have no personal vendetta against this image's existence, but it is the rules. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA: I made the image. The flyer was freely distributed without any claims of ownership or restriction. The flyer is part of a well known news story and a historic event. It is perfectly appropriate for a historical article to present public domain materials. So again your concerns lack foundation.

@Wsjacobs Your scan of the flyer is a derivative of the original flyer, which was made by Heaven's Gate members. At the time this was made (1993) copyright did not need to be explicitly claimed to be enacted. By producing the work, a copyright was created, even if it was freely distributed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that you are correct. You cannot claim ownership of something if you never identify yourself as the owner. Were you correct than a newspaper reporting this story could not include a photograph the document as part of a story on the Heaven's Gate cult.

BTW: Actually I had the document for several years and only learned who its authors were when the Heaven's Gate cult commit suicide. I then put two and two together. Wsjacobs (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes you can. Anonymous copyrights are valid and apply: "For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, or works made for hire, the copyright term is 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first." PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wsjacobs Wikipedia uses a much stricter definition of fair use than newspapers tend to, to avoid getting sued. In addition, it is unlikely the members of Heaven's Gate would claim copyright: however they theoretically could, so the rules of Wikipedia do not let you upload it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If you delete the document you are depriving Wikipedia readers of an important historic document and reducing the value of the article.

Again, please refer this matter to Wikipedia's legal counsel. I do not believe that you are correct. Once a document enters public domain (as was this flyer) you cannot subsequently claim ownership rights for the document. Wsjacobs (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but those are the rules. I don't control the rules. Things being publicly distributed does not make them public domain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I am not an attorney but I have a good layman's knowledge of American law and I believe that your interpretation of this matter is quite mistaken.

My understanding is that if someone publicly distributes written material for free without any claim whatsoever to ownership, authorship, restriction on rights, etc. the material is public domain. There is no indication on the flyer who authored it. There is no copyright indicator. There is no group identification. There is nothing to indicate that any rights are being retained. And as you know, you cannot retroactively assert rights to materials which through your actions you waived by allowing them to become public domain.

In addition to the just made point, please remember that the image has been posted on Wikipedia since 2014. During that time, no one has made any assertion of rights to the document and requested its removal. As such, in the extremely unlikely event that someone did come forth and try to assert rights to the document, the mere fact that they did not do so for the past ten years would justify dismissal of the claim via estoppel by laches.

Since I presume that you will continue to disagree, save the both of us some time. Please refer this issue to Wikipedia's legal counsel. It is for them to decide. Wsjacobs (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Files for discussion or Commons:Village_pump/Copyright Polygnotus (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. However I am a simple Wikipedia user and editor. So sending me to use other tools is not desirable. I never do anything really complicated. So I will repeat what I have already said here multiple times.

I cannot believe that the image in question is problematic. It was posted ten years ago. No one has ever raised an issue with it. The mere fact that the image has been online for ten years without prior complaint itself constitutes evidence that the document is now public domain. There is no hard evidence who authored or produced the image. The original flyer completely lacks identification and was freely distributed. Even labeling the flyer as a Heaven's Gate meeting is an inference based on the content. Presumably anyone trying to claim rights to the document would have a very hard time doing so given that all of the people associated with the image's authorship, production, and distribution are long dead. Wikipedia is a non-profit. So the rules for use should be looser, not more restrictive, than for for profit media such as commercial newspapers.

While PARAKANYAA's desire to protect Wikipedia is laudatory, clearly PARAKANYAA is being overly zealous. If the image in question is deleted, it will significantly reduce the information value of the Wikipedia Heaven's Gate article.

Wsjacobs (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.