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)

Speeches by James Chichester-Clark

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

• Northern Ireland Prime Minister’s speech on 17 August 1969
• Northern Ireland Prime Minister’s speech on 24 March 1972

The texts are two speeches by Northern Ireland Prime Minister James Chichester-Clark (1923-2002). Per c:COM:UK, the standard copyright period of the United Kingdom is 70 years p.m.a., which means the texts will enter British public domain in 2039 and 2042. If Crown copyright applies, then they entered British public domain in 2019 and 2022. However, as both cases exceed the URAA date of 1996-01-01, and normal political speeches are not eligible as edict of government in the United States, the texts are very likely to be copyrightable and not within U.S public domain.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that if they are owned by the crown, there are likely covered by https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/waiver-information.pdf ("Text of ministerial speeches and articles") and hence licensed under the OGL and eligible for inclusion (e.g. a speech published by the current government https://www.northernireland.gov.uk/articles/crown-copyright "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website ... under the terms of the Open Government Licence.) My only hesitation is around the exact ownership arrangements of the Northern Ireland government at the time, MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. Per my understanding the OGL applies to works that are explicitly stated to be licensed under OGL (Use of copyright and database right material expressly made available under this licence indicates . . .), which differs from other free licenses like the Indian GODL (automatically covers almost all government works). Is there any other British sources that later applies the OGL to these speeches?廣九直通車 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Two months after the discussion was initiated, I am going to close it soon as "public domain status not proven", unless some new information appears. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The waiver and regulations I mentioned. The guidance says https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/psi-implementation-guidance-re-users.pdf it is in scope. This would cover any speech by a Minister of either the UK government or the Northern Irish Executive. It must be waived. "Most information produced, held or disseminated by Crown bodies (most of central government) is under Crown copyright. Most Crown copyright information is available under the Open Government Licence (OGL), with attribution of source." The National Archives says: "The material featured on this website is subject to Crown copyright protection and licensed for use under the Open Government Licence unless otherwise indicated." "Under the terms of the Open Government Licence (OGL) written content from a Crown copyright public record may be published by transcription, without charge." https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/copyright/image-reproduction/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/copyright/. Under https://www.gov.uk/ "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." "In the case of copyright works produced by civil servants, the copyright is owned by the Crown. Copyright can also come into Crown ownership by means of assignment, or transfer, of the copyright from the legal owner of the copyright to the Crown. The Open Government Licence (OGL) is the default licence for the use and re-use of most Crown copyright material." etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The regulations a indicated is the National Archives (who is responsible for Crown Copyright) implementing "The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015" https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1415/contents/made MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:05, 17 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) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical Affairs Act of South Korea

The English translation comes from https://law.go.kr/LSW/eng/lawEngBodyCompareInfoP.do?lsNm=%EC%95%BD%EC%82%AC%EB%B2%95&lsId=001783&efYd=20241022&lsiSeq=265945&gubun=EngLs&ancYnChk=undefined . Using Google Translate I had a look at their copyright policy as for translations, and there is written "Please use it as a reference only as the foreign language is not an official translation", see here. For this reason I think we cannot apply {{PD-EdictGov}} here. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

When combined with the "reference only" statement, I believe the term "official translation" means that this English translation has no legal effect and cannot be relied on legal purpose. Unless we can confirm that it is not translated by the South Korean Government, I would vote for  Keep.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

They are translated and copyrighted by Korea Legislation Research Institute. While it is a government-funded research institute but still claiming copyright for its translations. "Commercial use and modification of the work are prohibited" (link 1) "Any unauthorized duplication and dissemination of the material prepared and posted by KLRI is prohibited." (link 2)

I'm not sure about the copyright status of translations uploaded on the Court and the Constitutional Court's website, where they granted free use (link 3, link 4) but for the Supreme Court, it says that the translation was made by KLRI. (link 5).--Namoroka (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: Both the disclaimers of the court and constitutional court specify (at least if DeepL is right), respectively, The materials provided on the court's website, to which the court owns all the intellectual property rights, may be freely used without separate permission, and The materials provided on the Constitutional Court's website, for which the Constitutional Court holds all of the intellectual property rights, may be used freely without separate permission (all emphasis mine.) As these are translated and copyrighted by the KLRI, the court and constitutional court do not own all the intellectual property rights, and therefore these releases do not apply, and this is indeed copyrighted. — Alien  3
3 3 08:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the English translation of the Constitutional Court was carried out independently by the Constitutional Court. So it should be kept. There is no evidence that it was done by KLRI.--Namoroka (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you give a link to this other translation? This version of the text, at least, was translated by the KLRI according to the source it gives. (If we find another version (which I did not manage to do), that is freely license, that can be kept, but not this version.) — Alien  3
3 3 08:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other English versions except for the translation by KLRI.

It seems confusing to mention all three different items at once. 1) Legal law texts (like Pharmaceutical Affairs Act): KLRI carried out the English translation. 2) Court rulings (like 2000Hu3418): KLRI carried out the English translation. 3) Constitutional Court rulings (like 2004HunMa554): The Constitutional Court carried out the English translation. Therefore, my opinion is that #1 and #2 should be deleted, and #3 should be kept.--Namoroka (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the translation of KLRI eligible for use under {{PD-EdictGov}} because it is 'a any translation prepared by a government employee'? KLRI also acknowledges that their works are part of public works. They states in copyright policy that, "According to Article 24-2 of the Copyright Act (Free Use of Public Works), works for which the KLRI holds all intellectual property rights or has obtained the rights holder's consent for the free use indication ... can be freely used without separate permission." The copyright policy on the English legislation website states that "copyright belongs to KLRI."--Namoroka (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that #3 should be kept.

KLRI is funded by the government, so I think (?) that we can say that its employees are government employees, and so it is PD in the US under {{PD-EdictGov}}, and can be kept.

(For copyright in Korea, the copyright policy seems to state that these works are under the w:Korea Open Government Licenses, as opposed to being released really unconditionally. Only the first of these four licenses is compatible with our copyright policy (it is roughly a {{CC-BY-SA}} equivalent), and I could not find under which license is this precise work. However, this is irrelevant to us as here only US copyright matters.) — Alien  3
3 3 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, only {{KOGL Type 1}} is allowed in Wikimedia projects. However, in this case, these works are not released in KOGL. / KLRI is classified as a "non-classified public institution" (기타공공기관) under Korean law. I am legally unsure whether employees of this institution would be considered as "government employees" under U.S. law.--Namoroka (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

An entity being funded by the government does not make its employees government employees (the government funds a lot of stuff, including aerospace, weapons, private labs in all sorts of fields, etc.). Even if they were goverment employees the edicts of government doctrine would not apply: it covers works that either 1) have the force of law (i.e. the text of a law) or 2) whose author for copyright purposes is a competent legislative assembly. Edicts of government covers a Korean-language original law when it is on the books, but not its translations unless the translations themselves have force of law (very very rare; I've never seen it in practice) or were translated by a competent legislative assembly (sometimes happens, typically under work-for-hire type arrangements). Xover (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If so, we should delete #1 and #2 unless they are translated by Wikisource user or someone else.--Namoroka (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they are under some KOGL: works for which the Korea Institute of Law and Justice holds all intellectual property rights or has received the consent of the right holder for free use are marked with the ‘Korea Open Government License’ and can be used freely without separate permission. (from [1]). But I don't know if it's {{KOGL Type 1}} or the others.

(For information, non-classified public institutions are part of public institutions, defined by the Public Records Management Act as The term "public institution" means a State agency, a local government and any other institution prescribed by Presidential Decree) — Alien  3
3 3 13:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

They release only selective works under KOGL like this. There should be KOGL mark. Not everything is automatically under KOGL unless specified.--Namoroka (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for me, sorry. — Alien  3
3 3 13:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Having read the discussion above it seems to me that none of the translated decisions at Category:Supreme Court of Korea decisions is proved to be in public domain, am I right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you.--Namoroka (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Depends on the translator, but yes, in general, these aren't sure to be PD, and probably most of them aren't (scourt website is down for maintenance right now). — Alien  3
3 3 20:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Equal Employment Opportunity And Work Family Balance Assistance Act of South Korea

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

Same as above, the source being https://law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=1&query=EQUAL+EMPLOYMENT+OPPORTUNITY+AND+WORK-FAMILY+BALANCE+ASSISTANCE+ACT#liBgcolor0 . -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete also, as the KLRI copyrights its translations. — Alien  3
3 3 08:07, 7 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) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

To Restore America

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)

Nelson Mandela's inaugural address

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted: public domain status not proven

I do not see a reason why this 1994 speech should be PD. The stated licenses, {{PD-SA-speech-1996}} (which is anyway not a US tag) and {{PD-1996}}, do not apply, as they both require the work to be published before 1989. It does not fall under {{PD-SAGov}}, because it is a speech, and not an "official text" "of a legislative, administrative or legal nature". — Alien  3
3 3 14:45, 4 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) 11:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2022 on The Nation's Capital

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted: public domain status not proven

No source or license is given for this translation, and I cannot find its text anywhere on the web, so I do not see any reason why we could assume it is PD. — Alien  3
3 3 15:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. In any event, this seems incomplete, only having the preamble and first two article, whilst the version here - https://jdih.bappenas.go.id/data/peraturan/2022uu003Eng.pdf - has 45 articles. -- Beardo (talk) 22:10, 4 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) 11:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:KR-political-speech

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)

Open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev (1990)

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)

Debbie Does Dallas

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Debbie Does Dallas, which was withdrawn by nominator (and from available votes, would have passed consensus at Commons anyhow). SnowyCinema (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Though the video portion of the film is in the public domain, the soundtrack, from which most of this transcription is sourced, possibly is not. This film was first published in 1978, which means that it is governed by the Copyright Act of 1976. That act required a copyright notice (or registration within five years) only for material that "can be visually perceived". The soundtrack (which is excluded from the act's definition of "sound recording" because it accompanies a motion picture, and thus does not have to follow the formalities that were required for sound recordings) is heard, not seen, so it is not visually perceived. For those that have access, this is talked about in 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.06. prospectprospekt (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section shall be placed on all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." The work is the motion picture, defined as "‘‘Motion pictures’’ are audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any." An audiovisual work can be "visually perceived", so it needs a notice. If it doesn't have the notice, the audiovisual work loses its copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If not, then it's not covered by copyright law. Copyright law covers motion pictures and sound recordings as works, not soundtracks of motion pictures. It has no separate existence in the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prospectprospekt: I strongly suggest this should be brought up at Commons if there is a concern about a film's contents, especially if they're aside from the dialogue etc. The soundtrack, since there were no lyrical songs, is not replicated in our transcription of the film, and the video of the film is used on several projects, and while I can't give you a summary right now as I have to run in a minute, Commons has precedent already to keep movies of that description. The gist of it is that audiovisual works don't have copyrighted soundtracks, unless the soundtracks were copyrighted separately (such as in a music sheet or record published beforehand). SnowyCinema (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

(And even if a few of the soundtracks were copyrighted separately, they are such a minimal focus in a film focused on sexual arousal that I feel like some of that could be overlooked as de minimis, but it's not my call.) SnowyCinema (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on Commons at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Debbie Does Dallas. prospectprospekt (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. The courts seem to be clear on this. —FPTI (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of Romania (1965)

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)

The Call to Jihad by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

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)

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)

Modern UK Ministerial / Government Speeches

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)

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)

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

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)