This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is this text covered by copyright, sumbitted under the GFDL, or in the public domain? -- The Anome Yes it is the
copyright belongs to John Belham-Payne valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
She did not, please do not use wikipedia to falsify this information valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead of "winging" it around the copyright laws, why dont you ask an expert for their input? That way you won't get yourself into any trouble. valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
--Fuzzypeg, I also do not want this page to spiral into arguments based on false conceptions of the history of Doreen's work. Here is my opinion based on first-hand knowledge: 1) Doreen never published her Book of Shadows and it has remained unpublished until this day. Any BOS published was either from someone downline, who published an altered copy, or, as in the case of "The Charge of the Goddess," it was republished, with some changes and with express permission, by the Farrars. 2) Valiente retained all rights to her published and unpublished works, including "The Charge." She did not want her work floating around in the public domain out of concern that people would, as they have when "The Charge" is published without copyright notice, take it as an ancient text. 3) When Valiente died, she willed all of her magical estate, including all of her writings published and unpublished, to John Belham-Payne. This means that Belham-Payne now owns the copyright to all of her work, including "The Charge" and has the sole right to grant permission for its publication or use. This is of no dispute, I have read the original will. 4) As Valientegirl has been trying to say, this does not mean that the public is not able to use her work in their own personal, private and not-for-profit BOS. It does mean that if someone is wanting to post any of Valiente's work on the internet in a not-for-profit and non-altered manner, they must post a copyright notice. If they are going to republish her work for profit, they must seek the permission of Belham-Payne. 5) The fact that there are other current listings of "The Charge" without copyright or permission in other places do not change these basic facts. The Belham-Paynes have been engaged in an ongoing process of trying to contact all of those who have, over the years, neglected to credit Valiente's work properly. 6) The Doreen Valiente site is under permanent construction, as the Belham-Payne's work to develop the museum in her honor. Once the updates are complete, you will be able to see Valiente's will for yourself. Onuava13 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good. I've added that to the article.
But what about this version, attributed to 'Starhawk'? Is it a substantial derivative work with copyright of its own? -- The
more relevant to the article. — Ashley Y 12:36, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
This is a clear case of "move to Wikisource:" (the article text is of course encyclopedic, but the "Charge" text itself is inappropriate, as long
as it is not discussed paragraph-by-paragraph). dab 12:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
discussion in the future. — Ashley Y 03:05, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC) I have removed the text from Wikisource. If you really feel the need for a "Charge of the Goddess" why dont you use Starhawk version? valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
removed the unwikified part of the text (which can be very easily re-introduced for discussion). dab 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers J Kelly, I have sent you an email. Perhhaps you could let me know if you receive it, if you dont receive it then could you tell me how to contact you? Thanks valientegirl 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Great I think this is my page - User_talk:Valientesite - not valientegirl look forward to hearing from you valientegirl 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank everyone ahead of time for the collegial, friendly conversation about improving this article that I look forward to seeing develop. Jkelly 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this link: I just thought I'd raise it here as I wasn't sure a bald link was the right way of connecting the two articles: after all Eko Eko isn't part of the Charge. Arguably each article could be see-also'd to Book of Shadows, or maybe we need to establish a new category called something like 'Wiccan texts' (which could also incluide Aradia for example. Any ideas? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the text of the Charge of the Goddess, and it was removed by an editor who claimed it must be under copyright. It is in common use throughout the Pagan community, and it is ridiculous to have an entry about it and not include the text of the Charge itself. -- Morgaine Swann ( talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
John Elder ( talk) 08:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be based on the assumption that the Charge was originated by Doreen Valiente, which is nonsense. She may have written the version that is most widely known, but her version is simply an rewrite of one written by Gardner, which itself was compiled largely from Aradia and Crowley's Gnostic Mass (which itself is copyright O.T.O. I believe). See any number of sources to verify this, including Rankine & D'Este's Wicca: Magickal Beginnings, and my own article in the latest Pentacle magazine cited on the page. Couldn't we quote some "fair use" sections from Gardner's Charge and thus sidestep the entire issue? -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm a Wiccan historian - who wrote a thesis on the history of Wicca to gain my MA - I can add to the discussion regarding who wrote it. Nobody can prove a thing. Basically it's widely understood that Gerald wrote a frankly crap version, then Doreen rewrote it as the basis of the various versions of the Charge used today. However, Doreen's original version is largely seen as the biggie and we know exactly what the copyright status is there. It's on her official website, with is overseen by her estate (namely John). You can read it here. Basically, it's fine to add Doreen's Charge of the Goddess to Wikipedia. You can do what you like with it, as long as you credit her and you're not selling it commercially. I hope this helps. JoHarrington ( talk) 10:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Vidkun asserts that Ali Puli is not cited by Serith in the referenced article on the sources of the charge: He clearly is several times, albeit in a less than complete attribution. I.E:
"I have used these abbreviations for the sources:
AL: The Book of the Law (Liber AL vel Legis).
AP: Alipilli"
; and
"The line attributed here to Alilpilli, ("That if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee thou wilt never find it without thee") has been attributed by Kelly (p. 115) to L. A. Cahagnet's Magnetic Magic, where it appears on the title page.
There are a total of 498 words in the version given by Kelly. The following table shows how many came from each source:
Valiente: 174 - (34.9%) Gardner: 66 - (15%) Crowley: 83 - (16.7%) Crowley (edited by either Gardneror Valiente): 40 - (8.0%) Gardner (edited by Valiente): 12 - (2.4%)
Alipilli: 18 - (3.6%)"
The seat of the confusion may be that Serith uses the contracted form 'Alipilli', instead of 'Ali Puli', and does not specify the work which the quote is taken from. The fact that both names refer to the same person is clear from the link to Ali Puli, and from the references on that page. Josephus ( talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that the Wikipedia Manual of Style (and other style guides) recommend against italicizing titles of revered religious texts or scriptures. Thus this article does not use italics for Charge of the Goddess. Nosferattus ( talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is this text covered by copyright, sumbitted under the GFDL, or in the public domain? -- The Anome Yes it is the
copyright belongs to John Belham-Payne valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
She did not, please do not use wikipedia to falsify this information valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead of "winging" it around the copyright laws, why dont you ask an expert for their input? That way you won't get yourself into any trouble. valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
--Fuzzypeg, I also do not want this page to spiral into arguments based on false conceptions of the history of Doreen's work. Here is my opinion based on first-hand knowledge: 1) Doreen never published her Book of Shadows and it has remained unpublished until this day. Any BOS published was either from someone downline, who published an altered copy, or, as in the case of "The Charge of the Goddess," it was republished, with some changes and with express permission, by the Farrars. 2) Valiente retained all rights to her published and unpublished works, including "The Charge." She did not want her work floating around in the public domain out of concern that people would, as they have when "The Charge" is published without copyright notice, take it as an ancient text. 3) When Valiente died, she willed all of her magical estate, including all of her writings published and unpublished, to John Belham-Payne. This means that Belham-Payne now owns the copyright to all of her work, including "The Charge" and has the sole right to grant permission for its publication or use. This is of no dispute, I have read the original will. 4) As Valientegirl has been trying to say, this does not mean that the public is not able to use her work in their own personal, private and not-for-profit BOS. It does mean that if someone is wanting to post any of Valiente's work on the internet in a not-for-profit and non-altered manner, they must post a copyright notice. If they are going to republish her work for profit, they must seek the permission of Belham-Payne. 5) The fact that there are other current listings of "The Charge" without copyright or permission in other places do not change these basic facts. The Belham-Paynes have been engaged in an ongoing process of trying to contact all of those who have, over the years, neglected to credit Valiente's work properly. 6) The Doreen Valiente site is under permanent construction, as the Belham-Payne's work to develop the museum in her honor. Once the updates are complete, you will be able to see Valiente's will for yourself. Onuava13 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good. I've added that to the article.
But what about this version, attributed to 'Starhawk'? Is it a substantial derivative work with copyright of its own? -- The
more relevant to the article. — Ashley Y 12:36, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
This is a clear case of "move to Wikisource:" (the article text is of course encyclopedic, but the "Charge" text itself is inappropriate, as long
as it is not discussed paragraph-by-paragraph). dab 12:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
discussion in the future. — Ashley Y 03:05, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC) I have removed the text from Wikisource. If you really feel the need for a "Charge of the Goddess" why dont you use Starhawk version? valientegirl 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
removed the unwikified part of the text (which can be very easily re-introduced for discussion). dab 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers J Kelly, I have sent you an email. Perhhaps you could let me know if you receive it, if you dont receive it then could you tell me how to contact you? Thanks valientegirl 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Great I think this is my page - User_talk:Valientesite - not valientegirl look forward to hearing from you valientegirl 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank everyone ahead of time for the collegial, friendly conversation about improving this article that I look forward to seeing develop. Jkelly 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this link: I just thought I'd raise it here as I wasn't sure a bald link was the right way of connecting the two articles: after all Eko Eko isn't part of the Charge. Arguably each article could be see-also'd to Book of Shadows, or maybe we need to establish a new category called something like 'Wiccan texts' (which could also incluide Aradia for example. Any ideas? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the text of the Charge of the Goddess, and it was removed by an editor who claimed it must be under copyright. It is in common use throughout the Pagan community, and it is ridiculous to have an entry about it and not include the text of the Charge itself. -- Morgaine Swann ( talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
John Elder ( talk) 08:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be based on the assumption that the Charge was originated by Doreen Valiente, which is nonsense. She may have written the version that is most widely known, but her version is simply an rewrite of one written by Gardner, which itself was compiled largely from Aradia and Crowley's Gnostic Mass (which itself is copyright O.T.O. I believe). See any number of sources to verify this, including Rankine & D'Este's Wicca: Magickal Beginnings, and my own article in the latest Pentacle magazine cited on the page. Couldn't we quote some "fair use" sections from Gardner's Charge and thus sidestep the entire issue? -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm a Wiccan historian - who wrote a thesis on the history of Wicca to gain my MA - I can add to the discussion regarding who wrote it. Nobody can prove a thing. Basically it's widely understood that Gerald wrote a frankly crap version, then Doreen rewrote it as the basis of the various versions of the Charge used today. However, Doreen's original version is largely seen as the biggie and we know exactly what the copyright status is there. It's on her official website, with is overseen by her estate (namely John). You can read it here. Basically, it's fine to add Doreen's Charge of the Goddess to Wikipedia. You can do what you like with it, as long as you credit her and you're not selling it commercially. I hope this helps. JoHarrington ( talk) 10:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Vidkun asserts that Ali Puli is not cited by Serith in the referenced article on the sources of the charge: He clearly is several times, albeit in a less than complete attribution. I.E:
"I have used these abbreviations for the sources:
AL: The Book of the Law (Liber AL vel Legis).
AP: Alipilli"
; and
"The line attributed here to Alilpilli, ("That if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee thou wilt never find it without thee") has been attributed by Kelly (p. 115) to L. A. Cahagnet's Magnetic Magic, where it appears on the title page.
There are a total of 498 words in the version given by Kelly. The following table shows how many came from each source:
Valiente: 174 - (34.9%) Gardner: 66 - (15%) Crowley: 83 - (16.7%) Crowley (edited by either Gardneror Valiente): 40 - (8.0%) Gardner (edited by Valiente): 12 - (2.4%)
Alipilli: 18 - (3.6%)"
The seat of the confusion may be that Serith uses the contracted form 'Alipilli', instead of 'Ali Puli', and does not specify the work which the quote is taken from. The fact that both names refer to the same person is clear from the link to Ali Puli, and from the references on that page. Josephus ( talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that the Wikipedia Manual of Style (and other style guides) recommend against italicizing titles of revered religious texts or scriptures. Thus this article does not use italics for Charge of the Goddess. Nosferattus ( talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)