Wikisource:Copyright discussions

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'

Index:Donegal Fairy Stories (1915).djvu

The specfic edition is clearly a pre 1928 US edition. However, I'm not on doing a little reading convinced it's suitable for hosting on Commons. The author wrote this in Ireland in 1900, The author of the text died in 1960. Applying a standard 70 year term, this may still be in copyright outside the US until 2030. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: To the best of my knowledge, the book was first published in the USA in New York in 1900 by an American publisher and the nationality of the author doesn't matter per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom ("A work, other than a broadcast, can qualify for copyright protection in either of two ways: by the nationality of the author, or by the country of first publication. [...] However, a work made before 1 June 1957, can only qualify for copyright protection by its country of first publication; not by the author's nationality. [...] If a work is first published in only one country, which is a party to the Berne Convention, then that is the country of origin. [...] If two or more Berne Convention countries qualify, and not all of them are in the EEA (such as Canada, the US, or Australia), then the Berne Convention country with the shortest applicable copyright term determines the copyright term within the UK, if it is shorter than the normal term for such work under UK law.")

But I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me. That said, it might have been a better idea to find and proofread the 1900 edition. --Ssvb (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, County Donegal is not a part of the UK, now I'm not so sure anymore. Seumas MacManus seems to be categorized as a British author on Wikidata. --Ssvb (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ireland is complicated. From 1800 to 1922, all of Ireland was under UK governance, but at the end of 1922 five-sixth of Ireland gained independence. See w:History of Ireland (1801–1923) for more information. So, when the book was published, MacManus was a UK author, but by 1923, he was no longer a UK author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey: Since the copyright situation is obscure for the non-lawyer folks like us (MacManus even relocated to the USA before 1922 and probably was an American citizen by that time), can we just move the djvu file from Commons to Wikisource and be done with that? --Ssvb (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

See also the Deletion discussion at Commons. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb: It seems nobody dares to get into the discussion in Commons. However, you can surely work on this book safely, because even if it were finally deleted from Commons, we will move it to en.ws immediately, and so it will not affect our index page at all. I will keep this discussion opened until Commons come to some solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW

There is a concern by Wound theology at Talk:Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW: The copyright template here notes that the source was "legally published within the United States" but the definition of legally published is clearly not applicable here: Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending [...] A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: This ideally should be sent to Commons to sort out there, because really it should be deleted everywhere if it's deleted here. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Started that deletion discussion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Max Headroom broadcast intrusion.webm. Please take further comments there. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Letter of resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ

A letter from Barack Obama to his former church written during the campaign season in 2008. This does not seem to be an official work of his as a Senator, and I can find no evidence that he put this work under a free licence. —FPTI (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Other of the Author:Barack Obama/Letters might also have copyright problems. FPTI (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@FPTI: Agree. Do you think you could list the other problematic letters here too? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say almost all of them, but reading through them I see he advocated for debates to be published under free licenses in 2008, such as in Barack Obama's Letter regarding the Open Debate Coalition and Barack Obama's Letter to Howard Dean. This makes me think he might have done the same at his website or something. Will have to look more into it. FPTI (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Raggle-Taggle 1933.djvu

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Raggle-Taggle (Starkie, 1933). I suggest the uploader pauses and does a little checking of previous uploads. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00: Absolutely check my other uploads!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

To Restore America

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

This 1976 Reagan campaign speech was not made during his tenure either as governor or president (see the row in w:Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan#Speeches), and so it is not {{PD-USgov}} as claimed. I do not see another reason why this would be PD. — Alien  3
3 3 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. It was published without a copyright notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this seems quite like the case of Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. It'd be nice if CBS had fought that, but the main difference is that Reagan didn't immediately register it (though he did register a book of speeches a few years later that may include it).--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Prosfilaes: I really respect your grasp of the copyright issues, but may I ask you to explain the objection in more detail? Why exactly is the linked publication without copyright notice not enough? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Prior to 1978, copyright works published in the US, had to be registered and comply with certain formalities such as having discernible copyright notices when "published", or exhibited. In certain instances an orally delivered speech however could still be in copyright, as they were typically transcribed and published in fixed form, as I understand it.

    88.97.96.89 11:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    MLK did pretty much the same thing; provided copies of his speech without notice to the media before his speech. That was ruled a limited publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    I see, thanks for explanation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:KR-political-speech

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

The template and the template-related works deleted.

On kowikisource, we decieded to delete this template. Korean copyright act does not allow the use of speeches and statements by the same author after compilation, so derivative works are not permitted. Since the template had been in place for over 15 years, I had no doubts. Additionally, other political speeches from Korea, which are not classified as laws, treaties, etc., should also be deleted. (related talk) --Namoroka (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a list of the works using this license:

• Remarks by President Moon Jae-in Following Signing of the Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula
• Welcoming Remarks by President Moon Jae-in at Dinner for the 2018 Inter-Korean Summit
• Address by President Moon Jae-in on the May 26 Inter-Korean Summit
• Statement by President Moon Jae-in at a Joint Press Conference Following the 2018 Inter-Korean Summit in Pyeongyang
• Address by President Moon Jae-in at May Day Stadium in Pyeongyang
• Translation:2024 Declaration of Martial Law in the Republic of Korea

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed the license for Translation:2024 Declaration of Martial Law in the Republic of Korea since original Korean script was released in {{KOGL Type 1}} by the government. All other articles should be deleted.--Namoroka (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)--Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev (1990)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

No evidence of being in the public domain or released under a free license. prospectprospekt (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment This item needs a {{cv}} tag. -Pete (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've done so, and in general when a page here or at WS:PD isn't tagged you can tag it yourself. — Alien  3
  3 3 18:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of Romania (1965)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

English translation published in 1975 in Romania, so most probably still copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Wouldn't a constitution be an edict of government and therefore in the public domain? -Pete (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course, the original Romanian version is the edict of government, but we are discussing the English translation of the document. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that it looks like there is a US Government translation in JPRS 48811 if someone can get a hold of it. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

(added {{cv}}.) — Alien  3
3 3 18:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The Call to Jihad by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

The only source it cites is a copyrighted book from 2002. Even assuming that the author, Ahmed Rashid, didn't translate it, I couldn't find any evidence that the Islamic Movement published their works under a suitable license. Norbillian (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Added a missing {{cv}}. Please remember to tag all works you bring here or at WS:PD accordingly. Thanks, — Alien  3
3 3 18:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Paris Agreement

I don't have an argument against, but I don't know what template to use, so can someone please prove this is in the public domain—especially now that Trump signed an executive order to withdraw from this agreement? Or we can delete if there is no argument. Thanks. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Created under the auspices of the UNFCC. Per https://unfccc.int/this-site/terms-of-use "All official texts, data and documents, including low resolution webcast transmissions, are in the public domain and may be freely downloaded, copied and printed provided no change to the content is introduced, and the source is duly acknowledged." They are also published in UNTS and other UN documents etc. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280458f37&clang=_en. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Despite the random invocation of "public domain", those sound like no-derivatives terms to me. Xover (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure that the invocation of public domain, and not the restrictions, are the part that is "random"? If, for instance, a law or policy puts them in the public domain, then the mere descriptive text dropped randomly into a web page would not override that. (I have no idea which is which, my question is whether you or anyone in this discussion does.) -Pete (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Then there is the narrower scope of just the agreement (as opposed to all official documents). Here is the UN Doc version of it: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g16/015/38/pdf/g1601538.pdf which would seem to meet: "Official records (proceedings of conferences," or "United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol" requirements for {{PD-UN}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If it has been created under the auspices of the UNFCC, then I think the conditions set by the UNFCC (non-derivative) must apply. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If it has been created under the auspices of the UN, then I think the conditions set by the UN ({{PD-UN}}) must apply. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

We need some definite proof that it has been fully released, in case of uncertainty we cannot accept it. Paris Agreement was adopted at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference, and these conferences are made under the auspices of the UNFCCC. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g16/015/38/pdf/g1601538.pdf meets condition 1, (Proceeding of conferences) and 2. (Document released under the UN seal) of {{PD-UN}}. What additional release is required per the terms of {{PD-UN}}? MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If the only documents from the UN in the public domain are those that have an explicit "This document is released into the Public domain by the author" statement what is the even point of that license? Just stick {{PD-release}} on it if that is the case and delete every other UN document that doesn't have the "explicit release" statement. The UNFCCC is part of the UN ("We are part of the UN System" [1]), run out of the UN Campus Bonn https://unric.org/en/unbonn-org/ (see "UN organizations in Bonn"). If we are going to say A UNESCO conference is under the auspicies of UNESCO not the UN so PD-UN doesn't apply. the UN Security Council is under the auspices of the UN Security Council not the UN so PD-UN doesn't apply, the UN General Assembly is under the auspcies of the UN General Assembly so PD-UN doesn't apply, again what is the point of PD-UN? MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

OK. Having looked at the UNFCCC's licensing policy in more detail, it seems that it applies only to their website and not to everything they produce, and so I agree that their works published elsewhere under UN can be licensed as PD-UN. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Modern UK Ministerial / Government Speeches

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

No action needed.

Given we determined above that ministerial speeches aren't covered by the OGL unless published with an explicit statement licensing it (i.e. the government waiver doesn't apply), I think we need to tag and delete any other such speech. For example, Author:David Cameron, Author:Theresa Mary May etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And other documents too this document lacks an OGL license: [2] . My understanding is that now " Per my understanding the OGL applies to works that are explicitly stated to be licensed under OGL." which this document isn't. 18:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The above linked Letter to Donald Tusk was published through the page: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-donald-tusk-19-august-2019 , where the OGL licence is explicitely given. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned exactly the same above re the National Archives "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated" but that was deemed insufficient, https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11021603 and unproven as "not explicitly stated." MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I have apparently misunderstood the situation in the discussion above. Will have a look at it again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As an example: David Cameron: First Speech as Prime Minister is credited to YouTube, not gov.uk. Note it predates the OGL, so it couldn't have been published first with the license. Maybe it is post 2011 works that are covered? So Gordon Brown: First Speech as Prime Minister as well? Is it we need to find that the transcript was actually on gov.uk after 2011? I am trying to understand which speeches are ODL and which are not and need to be deleted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

So, I had a look at the #Speeches by James Chichester-Clark again. Both works were sourced from The Times and in the discussion there was nowhere a link to the works being previously published somewhere with the OGL licence stated. That is why I closed it as public domain status not proven. Now you have provided a link to https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11021603 , but I cannot see the links with this licence there anywhere either. If there are any doubts, I can reopen that discussion (and temporarily undelete both works too). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The decision was made that we need to track the publishing history of every speech or document to find an "explicit event," (lets say "text or document posted on gov.uk" counts, as opposed to having a license statement on the document). If the PM speaks and it wasn't posted, it's not under the OGL The two speeches above I linked are sourced to YouTube (here Russia Today, I checked), not gov.uk. How is that any different than linking to The Times? MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

To summarize:

1. Previously we relied on the government waiver, "Crown copyright information previously available for re-use under waiver conditions can be re-used under the terms of the Open Government Licence. Information covered by waiver conditions included: ... Text of ministerial speeches and articles." This was not considered "explicitly" licensing the text of a ministerial speech.

2. That means every single document needs a check for some sort of "explicit" event, i.e. any Crown Copyright content may be copyrighted unless it had clear sourcing, e.g. any PM speech may be copyrighted if someone never actually published the text to gov.uk.

3. I pointed to several documents that lacked clear sourcing to a website that was under the OGL. There is the need to update the sourcing of every single of one of these documents to point to the gov.uk version or link to the document to make clear that they were actually released.

MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

See the discussion here Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2012-02#David_Cameron:_First_Speech_as_Prime_Minister which mentions the exact same waiver that was rejected above. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's take them one by one:

1. Speeches by James Chichester-Clark were published in The Times and nobody found them published anywhere with the OGL release --> We cannot consider them released under this licence.
2. Letter to Donald Tusk was published on a government web page with an explicit OGL release note [3] --> It was released under the OGL license.
3. Cameron's speech was published on a government web page with an explicit OGL release note [4] --> It was released under the OGL license.

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That is exactly my point the whole time, we need to verify every speech or document was posted to gov.uk after that statement was posted and ensure they are linked. We can't just assume PM gave it a speech, stick OGL, like was the previous precedent. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Rules of Procedure on the Organisation and Activity of the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

The Serbo-Croatian original from c1969 was created by the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, which was a political party, and thus it does not fall under {{PD-EdictGov}}. Most probably copyrighted.

See also User_talk:TheUzbek#Rules of Procedure on the Organisation and Activity of the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Added a missing {{cv}}. — Alien  3
3 3 18:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern page 19 image.jpg

The deletion rationale at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern page 19 image.jpg still seems valid to me (I think). If that's so, then the license is wrong - it's not a public domain work of the US government, it's an all-rights-reserved image by Norfolk Southern Corporation (it even says so at the bottom!) - which means that we can't host this image at all. Duckmather (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Duckmather: As this is a copyright issue, I have moved it to our copyright discussion board and changed the template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Commons has determined (in a lengthy discussion with dozens of participants) that such images are allowed. This discussion (with only one comment besides my own) is not sufficient to change Commons consensus on that issue. In addition, this image (and many like it) are also considered acceptable here. Just as I explained in the deletion discussion on Commons, by being included within a Supreme Court opinion it becomes a part of the opinion, and is thus in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Copyright Great Britain 1923; Copyright United States 1925

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

The discussed Raggedy Ann's Alphabet Book is in the public domain in its home country (UK) and all its contents can be uploaded to Commons.

Raggedy Ann's Alphabet Book (Index:Raggedy Anns Alphabet-1925.djvu) it was published in United States and printed in 1925; it also has a copyright notice for Great Britain which is 1923.

While the "rascal" in me wants to say that Great Britain did not exist in 1923; the adult who is driving wants to know if maybe I need to upload the images for this book here (at wikisource).

The author is born in the United States and the publisher is in the United States. I don't know why they mentioned Great Britain at all. Thanks, for the looksee.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

As the first copyright was in the UK, we can probably assume that the UK is its home country.

The author (who is also the illustrator) died in 1938, so went PD-UK in 1938+70=2008.

So normally it can all go to commons. — Alien  3
3 3 18:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

By the way, about your comment about Great Britain, physically, the island has existed for thousands of years. However, for copyright purposes, it may be that, as this was after the Republic of Island had left the United Kingdom, they weren't sure how to refer to the remainder. -- Beardo (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The Skylark of Space

I think that this: https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog?exhibit_id=copyrightrenewals&search_field=search_title&q=The+Skylark+of+Space means that I should not upload my scanned 1947 version anywhere.

Am I right about this? (Happy VD!)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes - the book version will be in copyright until 2042.

The original magazine version, published in 1928 is now in public domain. -- Beardo (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

There are copies of the relevant issues of Amazing Stories in Commons - something else to work on ! -- Beardo (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Democratic Party platform, 1992

I can't see how this might be in public domain, (unless it was released and where would that be declared ?) The source claims copyright, though I am not sure if that is right. -- Beardo (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

In principle, the 1992 physical publication by the DNC might have a release, but I doubt it. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Industrial Society and Its Future

The last discussion of this work was closed in favor of deletion because of some uncertainty about the contents of an auction. After the arrest of the author of this work, he pled guilty to a number of crimes and was ordered to pay some $15 million in restitution. In furtherance of providing this sum of money, the government ordered an auction of the author’s property. The question was whether the property involved in the auction did or did not include the copyright in the work. If it did, then the copyright is owned by some private party. If it did not, then the copyright remained the author’s property, and the author later released it under a free license (or at least purported to do so). The contents of the auction are to be found in court documents: the categorized contents of the government auction were attached to the order in United States v. Kaczynski, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1146. This list is the list of which items were sold at the auction. It had to include every item which the government intended to sell, because the Court of Appeals had ordered a plan for the sale of the items to be made to afford ample notice to all parties involved. Importantly, this list does not include the copyright in any of the author’s works. Therefore, it is clear that only physical property, not intellectual property, was sold. Thus, the author retained the copyright, and the later release was valid. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll buy that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The deleted text looks like some poor copypaste. While it can be surely undeleted, a new transcription might be a better solution if somebody decided to make it, e. g. from https://www.newspapers.com/image/822408649. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

But we need to undelete first, no? Otherwise you get into trouble for violating policy by recreating previously deleted works. While recreating a work deleted for formatting reasons by proofreading is defensible, one for copyright is easy to point to for violating policy. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we need to undelete first ? Can't this discussion decide to create the page afresh from a scan-backed version ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we do not. Though it was deleted for copyright reasons, now we can reject it for other reasons. And if there is consensus that it is a free work, we can add it anew from a different source. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: I have already scanned the original from microfilm, so if this discussion concludes in favor of reversing the previous consensus as to copyright, I will upload and proofread that copy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Constitution of Serbia

User:No.cilepogača has challenged the deletion of the text of Constitution of Serbia, see User talk:Jan.Kamenicek#Constitution of Serbia, so I decided to start this undeletion discussion. For the related copyright discussion see WS:Copyright discussions/Archives/2024#Constitution of Serbia.

No.cilepogača has provided a link to an "official" publication of the English text at https://propisi.pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/content/800. However, there is only a small part of the text, not the full text, which is behind a paywall accessible for paying subscribers only. At the bottom of the linked page there is a copyright note: ©2009–2005 — Службени гласник РС. The publisher Sluzhbeni Glasnik seems to be a business company (aktivno privredno drushtvo) according to https://www.slglasnik.com/sites/default/files/pdf/o_nama/podaci-o-preduzecu.pdf. There is no sign of the English translation having been published under a free licence and so I still do not see any proof of the English translation of the constitution being in the public domain. Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

aktivno privredno društvo just means it's just active enterprise. Its legal form is javno preduzeće (state-owned enterprise). No.cilepogača (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Though surely that is irrelevant if they haven't actually published the full text of the English translation under a free licence ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

1973 Royal Command Convoking NPA

No indication of the source of the translation, no sign of that text when I search. The original contributor included "The document is translated from the Thai version by Chanathip Pinngoen, first-year student (30 May 2008) of Thammasat University's Faculty of Law", though that text was later removed by another. (It may that the translation was by the original contributor, but I don't see that was stated, and cannot see that we are likely to be able to confirm that.) -- Beardo (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)