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'

Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936)

The PD-EdictGov template does not apply here because the English translation was not produced by a government. It was published by a private company in the UK in 1978, and would still (I think) be under copyright in both the UK and the US. Jcitawy (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Keep I don't disagree with the source of the translation, or the reasoning for a nomination, however, the work's source clearly states that it has been released into the public domain, and that should be given validity, and a seemingly legitimate release statement overrides the hypothetical of who did own the copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Delete The work was originally published in print by Red Star Press Ltd., in Joseph Stalin: Works, Volume 14 (London, 1978), and we would need a proof that this particular publication of translated texts was released into public domain. The fact that marxists.org released their 2008 reprint into the public domain is imo not a proof that the 1978 publication had been released too, especially as they do not say what they founded their their release into public domain on, and there are considerable doubts that they had the right to do so. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Changing my vote to  Keep per TE(æ)A,ea. below. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: From my experience, the public domain declaration is for the transcription/retyping work, not for the original. But the Works printing may not be original; I’m sending for the volume. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep (the TL) as PD-US-no notice, due to simultaneous publication (distribution) in the United States under Red Press’s American division. I have a copy on hand, so if it isn’t deleted, I can scan it in and post it here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • billinghurst, Jan Kameníček: Given a lack of opposition, I’m going to make a scan in the next few days. I also wanted your opinions on another item in that volume, “On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.: Report delivered at the Extraordinary Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R.” This was a speech delivered on the floor regarding the Constitution Commission. I mention it because I believe that it would qualify as PD-EdictGov. I will scan it in in any case, but I await your opinions before uploading it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

    Honestly, I always hesitate about PD-EdictGov and I would also appreciate if some help page explained it in more detail, but it seems to me that the original text should fall under this license. I suppose that the English translation was distributed in the US as was the previous volume and so it falls under PD-US-no notice, right?

    As for the Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936), if no opposing arguments come within a few more days, it can be imo closed as kept. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

    @Jan.Kamenicek: My understanding is that there is very little case law on GovEdict in the US, though there was a case in the past couple of years which came down with a decision allowing American state government publications generated by a private company om behalf of that government to be released into the public domain (was discussed here at enWS with links). So my understanding is that essentially if it is a government that is speaking in its official sense for the public's broader information then it is available. As we only look to comply with US copyright law then we have a broader capability to reproduce the edicts from any government. Edict here is acts, regulations, declarations, official documentation at a broad audience; so not one to one communications, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

    • billinghurst, Jan Kameníček (sorry for all the pings): See File:Works of Stalin 14 contents.pdf if there’s anything more in here, and File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf for the actual document. I’ll probably work on it quite soon if no one beats me to the punch. Also, I marked it just in case, but should it be moved? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

      As I had written before, I am always hesitant about PD-EdictGov, but IMO File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf can be uploaded to Commons under PD-RU-exempt. However, some texts in the File:Works of Stalin 14 contents.pdf, like "On an article by Engels", do not look like they fall under this license. Commons require that the author's works are free in the US and the source country. The license tag in the Stalin's author page at ru.ws says that his works published after 1917 are copyrighted until 2028. So if these texts cannot be licensed as edicts of Russian government, they are free neither in the US nor in Russia. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

      Note here is a version of the 1932 consitution [1], a draft of the 1936 constitution [2], Stalin's speech on the 1936 constituyion [3] and a 1945 Embassy translation [4], I haven't been able to find a scan online of the 1938 translation, Constitution: Fundamental Law of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Soviet Union: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1938, which is likely the original version of the translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• To all involved: I have proofread Index:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Question: @TE(æ)A,ea.: Why is File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf not within Russian PD? I think the original Russian text should be covered under {{PD-RU-exempt}}. If the translation is also allowable by {{PD-US-no notice}}, is the file eligible to be transferred to Commons?廣九直通車 (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    • 廣九直通車: I didn’t look at Russian law. I know that it’s in the public domain in the United States, so I uploaded it locally. If it meets Russian public-domain standards, I certainly have no objection to pushing it to Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Hmm. Provided this text was ever enacted as the constitution of the USSR—which I am going to go ahead and assume—the Russian-language original clearly falls under {{PD-RU-exempt}}.
  I see above assertions that this translation is covered by {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I see no specific explanation of why this is so. In order for it to be no-notice it would have had to be first published in the US without a valid copyright notice. I see no evidence provided above that the relevant publication did not have a valid copyright notice (@TE(æ)A,ea.: if your meaning is that you have visually inspected a physical copy of the publication and found no notice then please say so explicitly; just saying it has no notice without specifying how you know is not very useful for future wiki-spelunkers).
  Additionally, in order for a multiply-published work (as I see referred above) to qualify has "first published in the US" it must have been published in the US no more than thirty days later than wherever actual first publication occurred. This is a quite rigid limit and requires much better evidence than seeing both UK and US on the colophon. While a specific date is usually not possible to ascertain with 100% accuracy, reasonable research must be made (and documented) to establish a reasonable likelihood that foreign publication happened "on or about" date X, that US publication happened "on or about" date Y, and that the probable intervals between the two is less than 30 days.
  @MarkLSteadman: You mention a 1938 likely first publication of the translation. Is that the same as File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf? I rather understood that to be a partial scan of Joseph Stalin: Works, vol. 14 (1978). London: Red Star Press Ltd.? On what do you base the claim of a 1938 first publication of the translation, and why do we assume this is the same translation? And if they are the same and this translation was first published in 1938, who was the translator and what else do we know about that publication? Even if there's no scan online it should be possible to find it in a library or archive somewhere (TE(æ)A,ea. in particular is good at finding stuff like this in libraries).
  I think it's very likely that there's an early translation of this, and a lot of the communist-leaning publishers didn't—for whatever reason—include copyright notices, so finding a PD translation should be eminently possible. But based on the information provided above I am more confused than persuaded for the specific translation under discussion here. Possibly I'm just having a senior moment, but I'm not seeing the evidence needed to conclude "PD" here. --Xover (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. And looking at the scan of Works (1978), its preface actually says The … Russian edition of J. Stalin's works … contains thirteen volumes and covers the period from 1901 up to January 1934 and has been published in English by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow. […] After this time, writings of J. Stalin in the English language could so far only be found in … pamphlets, Congress reports, newspaper articles e.t.c. After reprinting the 13 Volume Moscow edition, we now present five further volumes of works of J. Stalin. … As well in volume 14 after Stalin's explanatory speech on the Draft Constitution, we have included the full text of the Constitution as finally adopted by the Supreme Soviet.

  That certainly suggests that Red Star Press may have facilitated the translation and that this is its first publication. The text in the preface doesn't rule out that they used a previously published translation, of course, but they also discuss having checked the German and French translations so it certainly could be read to mean an original translation (if you're republishing an existing translation you usually don't check translations in other languages). This scan certainly has no visible notice, but since it was published after 1977 a notice was not strictly required. Works published 1978 through 28 February 1989 could be registered up to 5 years after publication even if they contained no notice (and would get either pma. 70 or pub. + 95 terms). However, searching the Stanford database (which contains renewals up to 1978) and the Copyright Office's database, reveal no entries for this under any probable search term ("Stalin" in title or author). That makes it eligible for {{PD-US-no-notice-post-1977}}. Iff this was this translation's first publication (cf. Mark's mention above that the translation was first published in 1938). Xover (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Xover: I’ve long since returned the book, so I can’t scan any more of it at this point and I can just tell you what I remember. I received a physical copy of a book, and was able to examine it directly. The book contained no notice. It was published in 1978. I will take you at your word that there was no curative notice and is thus PD-US-1978-89 (the Commons license). I didn’t save my contemporaneous research, but I know that Red Star Press had (has?) an American division, and that they published books in both places. I don’t know why they would delay publication in U.S. contra U.K. I doubt the usual sources of evidence (newspaper advertisements &c.) will be useful here; the evidence is more circumstantial. I don’t know if there is an earlier English translation, but I wouldn’t be surprised as to this work as it is politically important. While I didn’t see any volumes other than no. 14, based on bibliographic information available to me, it does appear that Red Star started publishing the “new series” based on Stalin’s new works (post-1934) in 1978. There is no indication anywhere that the translation of the Constitution was copied from an earlier source. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks, that was exactly what I had in mind. I had a look through newspapers from around 1978 but could find no trace of this. To make probable a simultaneous publication we would have to find something like a publishers catalog including it whose date is known. Or an ad for it in a different book by this publisher whose date is known. Or possibly a secondary source that discusses either the publisher or the work in a way that dates it. But see also below regarding a possible (probable?) 1937 translation that would predate this if it is identical. Xover (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  More research, greater confusion…

  This indicates that an English-language translation was published by the State Publishing House of Political Literature in 1938. In addition, I found a 1976 edition by Progress Publishers that predates the Red Star Press edition by two years. This latter edition lists Printing history. 1937, 1938, 1945, 1947, 1951, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1972. Given the timing etc., in view of the previously mentioned 1938 edition, it seems likely that the State Publishing House of Political Literature published an official(ish) English-language translation in 1937, and that this was what was used for Progress Publishers' editions, at least up until the 1976 revised edition (when Progress Publishers seem to indicate an original translation from the Russian).

  Given the existence of an official(ish) English-language edition I find it unlikely that a wholly new translation was made absent specific evidence suggesting that (cf. the copyright claim for new translation from Russian by Progress Publishers). That makes probable a 1937 first publication in the USSR (we can just use Russia as a pragmatic simplification).

  Since about 1919, the State Publishing House of Political Literature (and all its several hundred siblings, commonly known, I think, as Politizdat) was the state publishing monopoly (before 1919 it was the party publishing organ). So I think it's reasonable to call the translation an "official" translation of the constitution. Official translations of the things exempted by {{PD-RU-exempt}} are also exempt, so this translation was PD in Russia on publication.

  So… The 1937 translation should be {{PD-RU-exempt}} and PD in its country of origin on the URAA date. If published outside the US in 1937 without observing the US-required formalities, and PD in its country of origin on the URAA date, it is {{PD-US-no notice}} (or possibly {{PD-US-no renewal}}). This requires finding a scan of the 1937 edition to verify that it has no notice (or that it has one). Alternately, if we can find a couple of contemporary publications by the State Publishing House of Political Literature to establish a pattern of including / not including a copyright notice.

  In addition, the recent-ish clarification of {{PD-EdictGov}} expanded its scope to include not only works that have the "force of law" (which translations usually do not, even if official) but also works whose authors are "authorized to speak the law" (i.e. any competent legislative assembly). An official translation of the constitution is somewhat of a stretch as having been authored by the Supreme Soviet, but if I squint just right I might just be able to convince myself that for a constitution published by the one-and-only state-monopoly publishing organ we're close enough to call it {{PD-EdictGov}}.

  If either of these apply there remains the question of whether the text published in Works vol. 14 is identical to the text published in 1937. That will need further research. Xover (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  My general conclusion when I dug into it aligns with this. Basically a. There is evidence of a publication in both Moscow as well as by International Publishers [5] in New York in 1937 / 1938 of an "official" translation and b. without comparing the actual published texts it will be hard to determine one way or the other definitively MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Montreal Gazette published a full translation of the draft of the constitution on June 26, 1936. And by references elsewhere it seems The New York Times also published this draft on the same day. That suggests a coordinated release to the press of an already translated text.

  Several articles of the translation published in the Times appear in The Herald-News for June 30, 1936. These are described as having been "cabled from Moscow" (but that could just mean a foreign correspondent in Moscow, not "Moscow" itself). In any case, the quoted articles are not identical with our text, for example using "toilers" where our text uses "the working people" (art. 125).

  According to The Hartford Courant for November 28, 1936: "fifteen million copies" of the constitution (presumably the draft since it wasn't adopted until Dec. 5) have been distributed in "five score languages". And the Soviet ambassador is throwing shindigs at the embassy celebrating it. It's certainly a massive propaganda push.

  The Seattle Star for February 4, 1937 advertises "the first official text of the constitution … in English, translated by Ivar Spector, University of Washington professor of oriental studies". Apparently it's a pamphlet for sale in the uni. bookstore. If it's the first translation then an official translation has not been distributed yet despite it having been adopted two months previous and the drafts apparently having been widely distributed in translation.

  But all in all, I find a minor fever-pitch obsession in the news with the draft constitution up to about the end of November 1936. Thereafter there's some references to the new constitution (mostly saying Stalin is a dictator and the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on) through the beginning of 1937. And then it goes entirely quiet. There are no mentions of publications of translations after the early 1937 Spector translation. Xover (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is a partly official, partly original, translation in Source Book on European Governments (1937). It uses the official translation of the draft, combined with original translation of the 43 amendments finally adopted. This translation also uses "toilers" in Art. 125, so it is not identical to our text.

  There's a copyright registration for the Spector translation: Union of Soviet socialist republics. Constitution of the Union of Soviet socialist republics adopted by the extraordinary VIII all-Union congress of Soviets, Dec. 5, 1936. Translated by Ivar Spector, with an introduction. © Jan. 15, 1937 ; A 104377 ; Metropolitan press, Portland, Or..

  There is an original translation in International Conciliation, Issue 327 from Februarry 1937, by a Prof. Clarence A. Manning at Columbia University, New York. It intersperses Russian words in parenthesis where there is no good English translation. It also uses "toilers" and is unlikely to be the direct source of our text.

  Aha, but in LeBuffe, Francis P. Jurisprudence, with cases to illustrate principles (1938) there's is a quote of Art. 4 claiming to be from the 1937 International Publishers translation. The economic foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the implements and means of production firmly established as a result of the liquidation of the capitalist system of economy, the abolition of private property in the implements and means of production and the abolition of exploitation of man by man.. Contrast that with our text which reads: The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments production, firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute the economic foundation of the U.S.S.R.. These are clearly not the same translation.

  But the Department of State Bulletin (1939) contains a full quote of Art. 125 from a translation published by the the American Russian Institute:

  In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

  a) freedom of speech;

  b) freedom of the press;

  c) freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;

  d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

  These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

  Compare this with [Page:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf/33|our text]]:

  In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

  a) freedom of speech;

  b) freedom of the press;

  c) freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;

  d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations;

  These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

  This seems exceedingly likely to be the same translation. Xover (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The American Russian Institute version is on Hathi (HathiTrust), Art. 125 on p. 35. It says it is based on the 1938 edition by the State Publishing House of the U.S.S.R, MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems that 19 months after the start of this discussion the doubts of this translation being in public domain have not been fully dispelled. The last relevant contribution to the discussion was more than a year ago. Unless some new evidence is provided, I will close the discussion and delete the text in question. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Apostle and the Wild Ducks and The Spice of Life and Other Essays

Two collection of essays by G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), published in 1975 and 1964. The ones in the latter are asserted (in the notes field) to have been never previously published. The other has no similar note.

My head isn't cooperating just now, so I'm dropping them here for help. We need to check the status of these, especially the allegedly unpublished ones, and update the listing. I suspect most of these are PD, including some of the ones currently tagged as being in copyright. It'd be nice to get these cleaned up properly. Xover (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• As collections, they should be deleted eventually, although they should be kept for now to facilitate copyright research on the individual essays. The note in The Spice of Life and Other Essays says, “None of them has appeared in a collection before.” They have, however, appeared in periodicals before. For example, the first essay in that collection, “Sentimental Literature”, first appeared in The Speaker for July 27, 1901. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Aha! Yes, that makes it even more likely these are mostly PD. Xover (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Collections have their own copyright, and having the table of contents and links to the individual essays here is probably too much. We can have the individual essays here, but not reproduce their headings and orderings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Collection copyrights are dumb. :-(

Anybody made any progress on identifying source of original publication for these, or alternate (PD) collections to which we could source them? Xover (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: “A Sermon on Cheapness,” The Speaker, March 29, 1902. The top of this page lists the sources, which are presumably correct. A lot of his articles were printed in the Daily News, as detailed in G.K. Chesterton at the Daily News. These stories should be listed on his Author: page, moved to top-level pages, and migrated over when sources can be found. Quite a bit of The Speaker is on Internet Archive, for example. After this, the collections can be deleted, as they are copyrighted. As for alternate collections, these all seem to be short pieces not previously published in book form, which is why they show up in collections. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you! Xover (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Szilard Petition

According to this page, A Petition to the President of the United States, is believed to be in the public domain. Therefore it seems probable, that this had simply no copyright notice on it, when it was first published. Also the National Archives Catalog states "Access: Unrestricted / Use: Unrestricted".

But after more research there I now have some doubts. This article states, that it was declassified in 1961 and first published in 1963. This seems to refer to "The Atomic Age" by Grodzins and Rabinowitch (1963). This book has a copyright notice.

But according to a scan by the University of California it was not declassified in 1961, but in 1957. This could suggest a not as formal first publication in 1961, which was refered to as "declassified" in the article (speculation).

In the end, the question is, what the correct copyright template (is it possible that USGov applies, even while Oppenheimer tried to supress the petitions circulation at Los Alamos?) is or whether it should be deleted (which would be a bit sad, as I would presume Szilard would be pleased with a wide distribution of this document). Habitator terrae (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the signatories, it looks to be PD-USGov. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thanks, then, only to be sure: In the English Wikipedia they thought PD-USGov wouldn't apply to the Franck Report. Is also (and not only the authors) the creation of the Petition enough "Government" to be public domain? Habitator terrae (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Habitator terrae: For the Franck report, I could see an argument being made the other way, as it appears that that report was made by a secret (likely non-governmental) committee, and then presented. This petition was not the result of such extensive out-of-government-employment work, so I don’t think that concern germane. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

    OK, I changed the copyright template here at Wikisource, but after that, when I searched for the correct template at Wikimedia Commons (perhaps c:template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE), another issue came up: Is it sure, that the signatories, who worked at the Metallurgical Laboratory ("However, in January 1942, Dr. A. H. Compton, Director of the Metallurgical Project, decided to concentrate the research at one location. To this end, certain contractual arrangements were made between the Government, represented by the OSRD and later by the Manhattan Engineer District, and the contractor selected, the University of Chicago.") were government employees or were they only contractors? If Szilard were employed by the University of Chicago and not by the Metallurgical Project itself, this copyright template would be incorrect (and would result in doubts about "public domain"-status and therefore deletion?). Habitator terrae (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

    • Habitator terrae: I think that the “contractual arrangements” were for working space, not employees (based on the surrounding text from that quote). In the modern sense of the term, a “contractor” would generally not be trusted with military secrets as important as nuclear energy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

      w:Los Alamos National Security, c:Template:PD-LosAlamos (although of course that was very later)? Habitator terrae (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

      • Habitator terrae: I think it’s pretty similar, but slightly different. Los Alamos (and a few other DoE facilities, like Idaho NL) are a mix of federally-run and privately-owned. In this case, the “Metallurgical Project” was an idea in the minds of a few physicists, and the U.S. government needed to rent out laboratories for them to carry out experiments. So, everything done by the “Metallurgical Project” is U.S. government work, and that is the case no matter where the Project existed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

        You have convinced me, but because of the precautionary principle, one implausible, but cogitable, speculation: Couldn't it be, that the leader of the Metallurgical Project w:Arthur Compton was still dejure part of the University of Chigago (he worked there) and he therefore made the scientists for pretence employees of the university? I'm only asking, because I wanna be sure, before I change the template on Commons. Habitator terrae (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment How is this a work of the US government? It would appear to be the work of one person, and countersigned by others. The author didn't publish it, and that someone else has published it without the authority of the author is someone else's breach of copyright, or publishing under public interest, not through a loss of copyright. Seems that it would be PMD + 70 years for an unpublished work. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would expect that is because they are members of the government drafting documents on government policy related to their official duties? But in general I have a hard time following this area of the law as I would expect that mailing a petition to the government would count as publication, since it has an implicit ask for further distribution? MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @MarkLSteadman, @TE(æ)A,ea.: So revert to old copyright template (or delete)? Habitator terrae (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) PS: @billinghurst: Perhaps of interest, don't know wether it also appeared in Leo Szilard, his version of the facts.

Three images in Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products/Opinion of the Court

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

kept as PD-USGov.

The three images listed were uploaded and later deleted at Commons

• File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 6 image.jpg
• File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 15 image.jpg
• File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 7 image.jpg

as copyright violations. I have uploaded them here and returned them to the work. They form part of our issue about de minimis works that are part of works that are otherwise within scope. @TE(æ)A,ea.: your contribution.

Until we have a clear approach, this is how I will manage these undelete and migrates.

The license on them is not one of ours, and should be part of a discussion, or we should have an interim copyright tag for such images migrated and under discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• The licence is a category-specific version of our usual PD-USGov, for SCOTUS opinions. The PDF is of a Supreme Court opinion, which is PD-USGov; and the images here, being derived from that opinion, retain that (lack of) copyright (status). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  They are photos of 3D objects, and the included 2D graphics is in with very low resolution. Unless there is some new input, I will close it as kept as PD-USGov. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Mysterious Ship

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as copyrighted.

Written in 1902, but not published until 1959. Previously discussed at Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2016#The Little Glass Bottle, but I'd appreciate a confirmation that this work qualifies for {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the renewal notice from that discussion, I would agree. This is not a mere technical issue; Derleth’s heirs didn’t have the right to renew Lovecraft’s works, and they could not claim that by calling Lovecraft a pseudonym of Derleth. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Do you have a take on this? Has your stance / understanding of the issue evolved in the 8 years since the last discussion?

If this is a renewal by Derleth's heirs, then in order for it to be valid Derleth would have had to own the copyright for it. It seems unlikely Lovecraft sold it to him since it's juvenilia. Was Derleth Lovecraft's literary executor? Did he buy the writings from the state? What's the theory here? Xover (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It's still got a renewal, but that renewal is incorrect in several ways. I don't think it would hold up in court, but I'm not positive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we are not authorized to decide whether a renewal is valid or not, so unless we find an authority claiming it as nonvalid, we have to consider it renewed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A Sting in the Tale and Introducing Jesus

These works by Roy Clements (https://royclements.net/) are available on his website, but it says "The copyright for all the materials on this website is retained by Roy Clements." I can find no CC-BY-SA 3.0 markings on his website, and the PDFs of the books have no markings to indicate they've been released under a free license. As per this, the author page of Roy Clements should be deleted as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Also includes copyrighted quotations from the NIV. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Dr Clements has agreed with me by email that he is releasing the books under cc-by-sa. Could you tell me what I should do to confirm this? Marnanel (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marnanel: If Mr. Clements updates https://royclements.net/books/ (or makes a separate copyright page, or something equivalent) with a clear statement that either all the books, with all parts, or lists the specific books and parts, that are licensed under {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} that will be sufficient. An admin can verify the statement and document it here. And having these under a compatible license would be awesome!

However, be aware that this is not quite as easy as it sounds. If these books were professionally published at some point (which the website suggests), the author will have signed a contract with the publisher assigning some of their rights to the publisher. Such contracts vary considerably, but a common feature is terms that prevent the author from doing what is proposed here (it could be through exclusive publication rights or some other mechanism). If so, there needs to be permission from the publisher as well. In addition, if there are illustrations, book covers, etc. that were created by third parties, these have separate copyright and Mr. Clements does not automatically have standing to license these. For example, the PDF of God and the Gurus contains a collage of photos that are credited to "Cover photos by courtesy of Camera Press". Camera Press' courtesy permission for use on the cover of a printed book does not automatically extend to giving Mr. Clements the right to license the photos to others, especially not under a permissive license.

Copyright law is, sadly, incredibly complicated, and often works in ways normal people think is very unintuitive and strange. But the bottom line is that Mr. Clements, despite obviously being what we normally refer to as "the author of the books", must assess both copyrightable contributions by others and any exclusive rights or other bars in contracts with publishers. If you're more than averagely up on copyright and contract law you can kinda sorta navigate this on your own, but as a general policy I would advice authors to consult a competent intellectual property lawyer before making any moves. The volunteer community on Wikisource will make our own assessment of such issues in order to manage our own liability (i.e. to make sure we do not host any copyright violations), but we cannot assess Mr. Clements' liability in terms of contractual obligations or rights to third-party contributions. Xover (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marnanel: I see https://royclements.net/books/ now includes the statement Roy Clements retains copyright to these books; you can share and quote them under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License 4.0, but there is still no statement regarding possible third-party copyrights like the NIV quotes, cover designs, and the Camera Press photo collage.

I am also concerned by the phrasing "share and quote": the CC BY-SA license doesn't just allow sharing and quoting, it allows remixing. In legal terms someone could take Mr. Clements' texts and modify them to argue for something directly contrary to the author's beliefs or convictions. Copyright law's moral rights would prevent such a modified version from claiming it was written by Mr. Clements (but would still need to credit Mr. Clements as the original author due to the attribution requirement in the license), but his texts could still be used as the basis for something which he would be vehemently opposed to. Just as an example, if these had been books about preserving nature, someone could legally modify them to argue in favour of paving over national parks to enable industrial development, or abolishing pollution control legislation to improve profits for polluting industries. I am not familiar with Mr. Clements' political or theological (or moral or...) views, but I am sure one may come up with examples of uses that would be as offensive to his views as the nature preservation example would be to someone with strong views on that subject. Are we certain that Mr. Clements' release under this license is a fully informed one?

Copyright law is complicated and I strongly recommend seeking advice from a legal professional specialising in copyright in cases such as this. Xover (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I think the work has been released under the appropriate licence satisfactorily. I am not happy with the text being copypasted here without the original PDF being uploaded to Commons, but that is for a different discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xover, @MarkLSteadman: So now we have the releasing statement at https://royclements.net/books, although the other concerns raised by Xover above have not been addressed. After many months without any new input the case should be closed somehow, so I am just checking if you still insist on deleting the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am neutral at this point. We don't really have a good solution about fair use quoting and licensing with respect to the NIV concerns I raised so I am fine either way. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Old New Land

The Levensohn translation (which this apparently is) was not renewed, so the text should not have been deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

After a quick look at the Stanford database, the copyright really seems not renewed. If confirmed, it can be undeleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If you looked through Stanford and didn't find anything it was probably not renewed. A bit odd since they registered the new matter for the second edition in 1960, but… It might also be worthwhile to search the actual volumes for 1941+28 for the original registration numbers (see ei's comment in the previous discussion) just to make sure there's no quirk of spelling or category that's preventing us from finding the renewals. Xover (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The deletion discussion is at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=12722222#Old_New_Land it seems to have levels of research that contradicts the "not renewed". More informtion required that demonstrates that the deletion discussion was incorrect. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• No, that’s incorrect. The previous discussion revealed the same information I mention now, (including the fact of public-domain status,) and then deleted it without a reason. That’s why I started this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: It was not "deleted without reason". It was deleted because the copyright discussion Billinghurst linked showed the work to have been published in 1941 and properly registered for copyright (with a registered second edition in 1960). That discussion also showed that you were mistaken about the identity of the translator. In other words, you are in this thread making a bald assertion in contradiction of the previous discussion, spicing it up with implied criticism of the closing admin (which happened to be me this time, but could have been anyone), giving no details of the research you've done, and don't even link to that previous discussion that you only after being challenged reveal to be most of your implied argument.

  In future, please consider making requests like this in a more structured and complete way. If you are requesting undeletion of a previously deleted text then link to any and all relevant previous discussions. If there are mistakes, confusions, missing aspects, etc. in those discussions then please point them out specifically. If you have done subsequent research please describe that research and its outcomes (especially for "absence of evidence" cases like non-renewal, it's critical that we be able to show we have made a good faith effort to identify any possible copyright). And please frame the undeletion request itself neutrally and assuming good faith (no sniping at the closing admin please): if you have complaints about anyone involved they can be raised on a user talk page, WS:S, or WS:AN, but WS:CV (or WS:PD) is not the place for that.

  Or to put it slightly more succinctly: if you want to persuade someone of something, it's usually more effective to make a persuasive argument than to complain of their failure to read your mind. Xover (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Xover: I will try to respond to your aspersions in order. It was “deleted without reason”; the rationale simply stated that it was a copyright violation, without addressing at all the strong evidence against such a claim raised during the discussion. Einstein95’s research in that discussion, which you specifically thanked, found the proper source for the discussion (the identified source, which I had discussed, was of a different work). The discussion showed a publication in 1941, which had a copyright notice but no renewal. I was not mistaken; the mistake originated in a different Web-site, which was (I believe) the original source of our text. I am not contradicting the former discussion; I created this discussion so that the result of the previous discussion could be implemented. I started this discussion to resolve the error involved in improperly closing the original discussion; of course that would imply something against the dignity of the closing administrator. There is no additional research to be done; all of the research necessary to be done in reference to this work was already done in the original discussion. I don’t know why it would be necessary for me to find the discussion for another user; it is directly referenced in the deletion log. In the course of making an undeletion request, I seek to provide all necessary information; but there is nothing for to add when (as here) I merely reference the previous discussion and the incorrect closure of said discussion. Again, there is no “subsequent research” which would supplemental to my argument; all of the information was available at the time of the original discussion. I don’t think it’s important to discuss the closing administrator at all; merely the incorrect closure which was done. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing found in the volumes of the Catalogue of Copyright Entries for 1968 and 1969 (i.e. 1941+27 and 1941+28) either. The work can be renewed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Works by Cemach Feldstein (1884–1944)

First published in 1942 and 1943 outside the US, and later translated by Wikisource from various subsequent reprintings. Feldstein died in 1944, so with Lithuania's pma. 70 term they were still in copyright on the URAA date (1996). The originals are thus in copyright in the US until 2023 2038/2039. Xover (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't find out if Lithuania was pma 70 in 1996. They signed the Berne Convention in 1994 and ratified it in 1996, so they could have still been life+50. We should record the rules in 1996 (or the URAA date) somewhere, because I've looked them up a couple times and had no list to add them to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Lithuania is an EU member so the current pma. 70 term is retroactive, but on 1 January 1996 it was pma. 50 (Lithuania was pma. 50 from at least 1994 until 2003, I believe). Since Feldstein died in 1944 the Lithuanian copyright on the last of his non-posthumously published works should have expired in 1944 + 50 + 1 = 1995 (before being retroactively restored to pma. 70). That should make them public domain in the US unless there's simultaneous publication involved (which would also require correct notice and renewal, so pretty unlikely). Xover (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Lithuania was a part of the Soviet Union, which had a 25-year (later 50-year) term until after Lithuania gained independence. Thus, Feldstein’s works should be in the public domain owing to that fact. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Soviet terms are mainly a factor for the successor states (the satellites that joined the CIS). The Baltics are considered to have been occupied countries so it is generally their pre-occupation laws that are relevant. Xover (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  The pre-1940 law was the 1911 Russian Empire copyright statute which had a 50-year term. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's really irrelevant. Circular 38a from the US Copyright Office[6] says that Lithuanian-US copyright relations are "Lithuania · Berne (Paris) Dec. 14, 1994; Phonograms Jan. 27, 2000; WTO May 31, 2001; WCT Mar. 6, 2002; WPPT May 20, 2002; VIP Jan. 1, 2019". If that date for Berne is correct, then 1 January 1996 is the only day that matters, at which Lithuania had to be at least life+50 to be in conformance with Berne. If it didn't come into effect until mid-1996, as per the ratification I found online, then the URAA date would be later in 1996, but still life+50.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Xover, @TE(æ)A,ea., @MarkLSteadman, @Prosfilaes: Would you agree with closing this as {{PD-1996}}? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Index:Southampton water treatment plant, 1969 annual operating summary (IA SOUTHAMPTONWATER00SNSN19765.ome).pdf

My question here, really, goes to how devolved Crown copyright is in Canada. This report was made by the government of Ontario, or some part of it, and includes a specific notice of Ontario’s Crown copyright (with a no-commercial-use restriction) on the first blank page. The license template states that this is free for use in the United States because Canada has pledged not to enforce Crown copyright in the United States in works with restored copyrights under the URAA. However, I am not sure if this pledge (again, on behalf of Canada) binds Ontario (or any province); if the Crown copyright truly vests in Ontario, as the notice in this PDF would seem to indicate, then Canada, I believe, has no power to pledge nonenforcement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting question. My immediate inclination would be to take that statement at face value. It has no obvious red flags of copyfraud or misunderstanding of copyright, and looks well-thought out. Canadian provinces are somewhat more autonomous, and their relationship to "the Crown" more notional, than typically found in the UK (Ireland and Scotland being the obvious exceptions). It's not something I've ever had cause to research, so I could well be wrong, but nothing I actually do know makes me immediately question that statement. Xover (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Provincial crown copyright is held by the King's Printer for Ontario, not Public Works and Government Services Canada, so I am inclined to agree that this template cannot be assumed to apply to provincial or territorial works. And in cases with unclear or ambiguous copyright, our usual practice is to  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The King's Printer presumably could grant a US release via OTRS as well for works with expired crown copyright. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright: followup

Followup to Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2020#Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright:

• "Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise" was released in 1935, so it's under US copyright until 2031 (p.m.a. 70 protection until 2069).
• "Les Bourgeois" was released in 1962, so it's under US copyright until 2058 (p.m.a. 70 protection until 2049).
• "Juca" was released in 1966, so it's under US copyright until 2062 (author still living).
• "Bom Tempo" was released in 1968, so it's under US copyright until 2064 (author still living).
• The following pages should be deleted, and the corresponding pages in the PDF should be redacted + removed from file history:
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/2
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/3
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/8
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/9
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/10
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/44
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/90

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at "Juca" (scan page 44). I agree that the Portuguese lyrics are under copyright, and they should be redacted. And I agree that a translation of them would be under copyright as well, but the Lehrer lyrics for "Juca" are not a translation. A few phrases match, but the majority of it seems to be a rewrite using the spirit and meter, but not the meaning or words. Here is a quick comparison between the original (with translation) and Lehrer's version of the same section:

Portuguese lyrics	Translation	Lehrer's lyrics
O seu luar Virou chuva fria A sua serenata Não acordou Maria.	Your moonlight Turned into freezing rain; Your serenade Did not awake Maria.	Outside the shops ⁠Along that street in Rio, ⁠He tried to get the cops ⁠To make the act a trio.

As you can see from this example, Lehrer's lyrics are unrelated to the content of the original lyrics, and therefore will not be under copyright. So the Lehrer lyrics, as far as I can judge are not a translation and therefore original to him. Therefore, it is only the foreign-language text that should be redacted from the scan. Nothing else needs to be deleted or removed except for any transcription of the copyrighted foreign-language text, which not all the pages have done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey:: On the other hand:

French lyrics	Translation (machine)	Lehrer's lyrics
Allô, allô, James, quelles nouvelles Absente depuis quinze jours, Au bout du fil je vous appelle Que trouverai-je à mon retour?	Hello, hello, James, what news Absent for a fortnight, At the end of the line I'll call you What will I find when I return?	Hello, hello, James? Tell me, what's new? I've been away two weeks or so, And that is why I'm calling you For any news that I should know.

The still-copyrighted foreign lyrics certainly need to be redacted. But without diving in deep I think making a call on the English lyrics is going to be really tough. They are unquestionably derivative works of the foreign-language originals, so I think our default assumption must be that they are covered by the original's copyright, and then only for cases where we actively verify that the lyrics are as unconnected as in your example we can accept it. This French example is essentially straight translation, but it could be as extreme an example as the Portuguese one with most of the texts somewhere in-between. It needs detailed and case-by-case analysis is, I guess, what I'm saying. --Xover (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've checked both Portuguese songs, and in those situations, Lehrer's lyrics are largely unconnected to the originals, except where a short phrase might be carried over to allude to the original. I am not skilled enough with French to address those lyrics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the same goes for "The Bourgeoisie", e.g.:

French lyrics	Literal translation	Lehrer's lyrics
Jojo se prenait pour Voltaire Et Pierre pour Casanova Et moi, moi qui étais le plus fier Moi, moi je me prenais pour moi	Jojo thought he was Voltaire And Pierre, Casanova And I, who was the proudest, I thought I was was me	Pierre thought he was Casanova, Jojo, Voltaire and Debussy, And I, who always was the proudest, I imagined I was—me!

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Toodyay Letters

I started splitting these letters into their own works. However, I am suspicious about their copyright status, for two reasons:

1. They are tagged as {{PD-Australia}}, but most of them were written in the US
2. They are manuscripts, and weren't published until 1959.

Here is the history of these documents:

Sykes may have remained a historically insignificant character, if not for the discovery in 1931 of a collection of letters written to him by his wife. The letters were found in a crevice during the demolition of old police buildings at Toodyay, and handed in to the Royal Western Australian Historical Society, which lodged them with the State Archives of Western Australia. Many years later, the social historian Alexandra Hasluck rediscovered the letters and researched Sykes. The results of her research were published as her 1959 book Unwilling Emigrants.

—

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

UK, not US surely ? I don't know if that makes a difference. -- Beardo (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I guess it would have been the UK. I'm not sure where I got the idea that they were from the US lol —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

As manuscripts, they're clearly PD-UK and PD-Australia. I assume they were never published with permission of the estate, so they would have been legally unpublished in the US until 2002 and thus went into the public domain under life+70. So they should be fine, if we can find a source that's usable, which could be Unwilling Emigrants if the text wasn't edited or if they were reproduced as facsimiles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Several of the letters come from https://catalogue.slwa.wa.gov.au/record=b1711183~S2# -- Beardo (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I was assuming they were all from his wife; if she was 20 when she married in 1853, that puts here at 120 in 1953, so clearly life+70. Portal:Toodyay Letters says Myra Sykes (c. 1833–1893), though her author page does not, so she's clear. His son, if he was born in 1865, and lived to 100 in 1965, which would be PD in Australia, but not UK or US. If she did get permission to print the letters, then they would be in copyright in the US until 95 years from 1959.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The 95 years from 1959 is because of the 50 years from 1959 for posthumous + 20 publication in the UK meaning it was copyrighted on the URAA date, correct? MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart's Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?

This text from 2005, added here in 2009, is described as a "free informational release" in the header, but listed as {{PD-release}}. There are several issues here:

1. This work is unsourced, and a quick search doesn't give me the actual paper, so information about it is limited. And most of the info about it online that I can find is from after 2009, indicating they may know about the paper in the first place from us.
2. What is a "free informational release"? If this was the rationale for the public domain release assumption, I am skeptical that a mere statement of "free informational release" is sufficient.
3. Is this stated as being in the public domain somewhere else? There's both an editor and a main author involved with this essay, according to the text, so both would have to consent to a public-domain release.

Any info? SnowyCinema (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Alex was looking for a place to post this online, and I suggested he submit it here. According to him it has been published twice, as appendices to the books Lost Flight of Amelia Earhart by Carol L.Dow and Legerdemain by David K. Bowman.--Srleffler (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)" So apparently the user who posted this was Alex himself, but can we be sure? SnowyCinema (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks legit to me, ideally we'd get Dr Mandel to send an email to OTRS to confirm, but I don't think it's likely to be copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if it were not copyvio, it does not seem to have been published anywhere outside the WS and so it is not in compliance with WS:WWI. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If it was only published in appendices it may fail as an excerpt. But that's of course assuming the work really was published in the way the 2009 comment suggests. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Finally found some proof of the study's publication at [7]. I think the fact it was published in appendices does not matter too much and it can be considered a work on its own. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, I have changed my mind for  Keep. I think we can trust the work was posted here by Alex Mandel and at the same time it can be considered a work on its own and not a mere extract. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Best regards to everybody. I am Alex V. Mandel, and I confirm that this article was written and released by my co-authors and I as a free informational release for everybody interested in this historical topic. It was posted here on Wikisource by me, with a full agreement and approval of all my co-authors as a free informational release for Amelia Earhart researchers and everybody who may be interested. Nobody of us ever did and still does not have any financial/commercial interests related to this document. We all also completely approved its publication in the the books Lost Flight of Amelia Earhart by Carol L.Dow and Legerdemain by David K. Bowman (as it is mentioned in the discussion above), and we all welcomed everybody else who may be interested to re-publish or quote it whereever and whenever they may want, for free. We would be glad if the free acess to it for everybody will be restored here on Wikisource. Alex V Mandel

Albert Einstein to Franklin D. Roosevelt - August 2, 1939

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept.

Being that the latest author died in 1966, the other in 1955, this work is probably still under copyright (since unpublished works require pma 70). And I'm skeptical of the claim that this presumably private letter to Roosevelt was published as the license claims. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you see the information on the Talk page about its publication? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be shocked if no one has gone through his archives and published them they may have a later copyright date but I doubt they are unpublished (with permission of the archive). Also, I am not sure why this is presumed private to begin with. "publication occurs when one or more copies or phonorecords are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work." What restrictions on disclosure are there if you just mail a letter to the whitehouse saying go do policy X? Isn't the expectation FDR is going to tell people the contents? MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

On re-examination, it looks like this letter was published in the Smyth Report, which, according to Commons, is in the public domain due to lack of copyright renewal. But, it's always difficult to determine the exact status of these sorts of things without a scan to back them. I don't think I'd go as far as to assume a letter to the president should assume a publication after, even if most of the time it is, but that's just me. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• SnowyCinema: You can read most of the report here, but the title page is missing. I agree with you as to the general-publication issue—the exception only applies when it is expected that the letter will be generally published after delivery, like a letter to the editor or a manuscript submitted to a magazine. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think the expectation is that these will get released as part of their public papers as well as shared within government. I am not a lawyer in terms of how this has been interpreted by the courts. But also how public officials with archives and people going through them, e.g. presumably Google Books counts as publication of Einstein's love letters, but the various books that did the same with this letter doesn't count?. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Secret History

This page has no source and no license, but appears to be this 1935 edition. Now, according to Loeb Classical Library, "it's probable that all volumes published before 1939 are public domain in the US", but I don't see a rationale for this and I haven't been able to confirm this myself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It's probable. Having looked at a bunch of Loeb's, I've never seen a copyright notice on an older one, and I've never found a renewal for one. It would be this volume at IA, and I don't see a copyright notice on it, I don't find a renewal for it, and Dewing was American, so whatever the circumstances of the printing, the URAA wouldn't have restored it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Notes and Queries( Later volumes)..

Starting the discussion here, because one volume Index:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 10.djvu proved to have contributions from authors that were apparently active until at least 1970, which led to the volume being deleted on Commons. A local copy now exists. However, I strongly suspect that whilst these are unquestionably PD-US (given the publication dates.), some contributions to the publication are not necessarily out of copyright globally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• ShakespeareFan00: Insofar as the volume are indisputably in the public domain in the United States, I don’t see a need to seek out copyrighted contributions here (as opposed to on Commons). If editors on Commons find such still-copyrighted contributions, the files can be localized at that point; but it is not necessary for English Wikisource to proactively seek out such contributions, given the U.S. copyright status. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  My concern wasn't the specfic volume but others.. In any event the remaining volumes of the 12th series ,and possibly the 13th Series can be uploaded locally, We'd then have a complete run? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Scientific Ape and The Clockmaker by Robert Louis Stevenson

Both of these works were first published in 2005 (see Parfect, Ralph. "Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Clockmaker" and "The Scientific Ape": Two Unpublished Fables." English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920 48, no. 4 (2005): 387-400. https://doi.org/10.2487/Y008-J320-0428-0742.) which I believe means they are not out of copyright as a result. Chrisguise (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chrisguise: If a work is unpublished until 2003 its US copyright term is pma. 70, so works by authors who died before 1954 are in the public domain in the US (and, obviously, in countries with general pma. 70 copyright terms). Xover (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is copyrighted in the UK until 2039 so it would need to be hosted locally. There is the also the question about whether the following editorial revisions might make it a derivative work with a separate copyright (I suspect not) t: "The text has been rendered so as to allow it to read as easily as possible, while preserving its more significant idiosyncrasies. I have corrected most of Stevenson's misspellings (e.g. "nieghbourhood" for "neighbourhood") and faulty punctuation (e.g. erratic use of quotation marks). I have kept original spellings, however unusual, where they are repeated (e.g. "animalculae" as the singular as well as the plural of the noun "animalculus"), or where they seem to be typical of orthographic practices of the day. Where the standard spelling has changed since Stevenson's lifetime (e.g. "caraffe" to "carafe"; "cocoanut" to "coconut"), and where adoption of upper- or lower-case letters is unorthodox or inconsistent ("tory" to "Tory"), I have preserved Stevenson's usage. I have omitted Stevenson's deletions from the text. Whereon revision Stevenson has added words, I have included these in the text, but have not indicated in the text itself that they are a later addition. Finally, I have changed all of Stevenson's underlinings to italicizations." MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any of that being copyrightable in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is copyrighted in the UK until 2039? Xover (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

From "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988"

Copyright in the following types of work lasts until 31 December 2039:

• unpublished literary, dramatic and musical works of which the author has died (unpublished in the sense of the proviso to s. 2(3) of the 1956 Act);

From the 1956 act:

Provided that if before the death of the author none of the following acts had been done, that is to say,—

(a) the publication of the work,

(b) the performance of the work in public,

(c) the offer for sale to the public of records of the work, and

(d) the broadcasting of the work,

the copyright shall continue to subsist until the end of the period of fifty years from the end of the calendar year which includes the earliest occasion on which one of those acts is done.

MarkLSteadman (talk) MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. enWP has a cogent summary of the relevant issue too. Definitely in copyright in the UK and ineligible for Commons. Should still be fine in the US and eligible to be hosted here. Xover (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman@Prosfilaes@Xover Thanks everyone. If I get around to replacing the unsourced versions currently on WS with scan backed ones, I'll make sure I only upload it to WS, noting I'll probably need to redact the rest of the paper that is wrapped around them. Chrisguise (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Could somebody better familiar with copyright templates suggest which template should be used on these works (and, generally, on works by authors who died prior to 1954 that were unpublished until after 2003)? -Pete (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's {{PD-old-US}}. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it to these stories, and I'll add it to some other pages I've been wondering about. -Pete (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

F. R. Benson's Richard II

Currently unsourced, but the text is available on Google Books, as part of a collection of essays first published in 1984 and republished in 2015. The copyright page claims All rights reserved for the entirety of the book, although it confirms that the text was first published in 1899. Is the work still in the public domain, or has something happened to it and it is now a copyvio? Thanks for any help you can provide. Cremastra (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: The collection is protected by copyright, but the original essay's copyright has expired. We can re-source this to either a scan of the Manchester Guardian for December 4th, 1899 (where it was first published), or to the first reprint in a book in The Manchester stage, 1880–1900 (1900). UK newspapers are hard to find scans for, and newspapers in general are hard to transcribe with our tools, so the book is probably the best bet. Xover (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Copenhagen Document" (1990)

This can be found online in a few places ([8], [9]) but there's no indication it has been released into the public domain, so I assume the copyright holder is still the OSCE. Cremastra (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a little complicated because as mentioned it is available both at the (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a part of the US Government) and the OSCE which is the successor to the (Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe). Since it was a governmental conference at the time it is unclear whether the copyright was owned by the governments or the conference and then transitioned. If it is part of the US Government it is in the PD in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The GPO lists Congress as the author: https://catalog.gpo.gov/F/XHD8EBQQYPDVIT7JSR8LRGN7JFUNDA1L27NJ578YI7ESKLD23Y-02849?func=full-set-set&set_number=001000&set_entry=000001&format=999 MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep sourced to this scan: https://books.google.com/books?id=jEKASGidb8MC as a US government work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What would be the reasoning for considering the conference qua conference to be a legal entity capable of itself being the author of a work for copyright purposes? The straightforward interpretation would be that its products are a joint work of the participants, (including any non-government entities iff any were present). And if the work in a practical sense was the product of the conference, why would we consider it to be authored by just one arbitrarily picked participating government for copyright purposes? Xover (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason is that the US Government is relevant for US copyright which is relevant for Wikisource. Presumably there could be a UK version that might have Crown Copyright in the UK but that wouldn't be able to be asserted against the US. A book might have US and UK rights owned by different publishers and with different copyright statuses, picking the US status isn't arbitrary it's required by our polices. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not following. We're not talking about which jurisdiction applies (that's the US, by policy), we're talking about who was the author of the work for the purposes of copyright. That a work may have multiple geographically-exclusive licensing deals does not affect its actual authorship or copyright status (and in any case is unlikely to be pertinent here). Xover (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The authors are presumably the representatives of the various governments, so for the US Jim Baker / Steny Hoyer / Max Kampelman, Denmark Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, etc. just as for this The Jeddah Communique: A Joint Statement Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is its Joe Biden and Mohammed bin Salman, but no one is suggesting that what year Biden's death happens is relevant. I would expect that the US Government would have the US copyright in such situations, not Mohammed bin Salman in his personal capacity. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be a joint work of the US government and the Saudi government (personal monarchies make that a little more complicated, but let's for the sake of argument pretend Saudi Arabia is somewhere with a slightly less medieval system of government) and both would hold the copyright together to the degree they are capable of holding copyright (no for the US due to {{PD-USGov}}, but probably yes for Saudi Arabia and any number of other countries). Unlike {{PD-EdictGov}}, {{PD-USGov}} is not "transitive": other governments' copyrights are valid in the US (through Berne etc.; and keep in mind that the US government can hold copyright on works in other jurisdictions, so long as that jurisdiction doesn't have a transitive government works exemption). Xover (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That is the point of discussion here: Is the copyright split (the US Government having exclusive control in the US, the Saudi Government having exclusive control in Saudi) or joint (the US Government and the Saudi Government both have copyright in each). I would think that the US Government would tend towards exclusive control within the US relying on agreements around classification when it wants to restrict in other countries rather than copyright. There may be case law around exactly as you say, the US trying to enforce copyright in other jurisdictions and vice versa for such joint work, IANAL. I would tend to see this like many joint commercial ventures where for example a US and a UK publisher both are involved in the creation as a joint venture, and leave with sole ownership respectively in each country, but of course that is generally more explicit than governments. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a potential argument of it being a {{PD-EdictGov}} because it has a legislative component, if the same legislators brought the text up for a vote (they may have) it would follow under it or it is incorporated into a resolution by reference, etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Xover here. The question of authorship comes before the question of copyright status. If non-U. S. government authors share ownership, PD-USgov does not apply. -Pete (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ownership is exactly the question here. Who owns the US copyright of a meeting at the White House between Biden and anyone not in the US government at the oval office? Is the contract between DoD and a defense company owned by the company? Etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: Is your position that the each government has the right to make copies or license the content, independent of the other governments party to the agreement? If so, this is a new notion to me, but in the case of contracts it makes intuitive sense, in terms of accountability/enforceability. Every party to a contract should be able to distribute the document to others, in order to ensure that its terms are being met. Do I understand you right? -Pete (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Sort of. My position is that when it says "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government" that means that when a DoD lawyer sits down to negotiate a contract with say Boeing when the document is fixed it becomes a US Government work and is not eligible, irrespective of the level of input of the Boeing lawyer. If Biden or a US Ambassador meets with Zelenskyy and drafts a statement Zelenskyy can't claim copyright in the US on the statement because Biden's/the Ambassador's statement is a US Government work. The statute doesn't say solely produced or without any non-governmental copyright etc. Now if after the meeting Zelenskyy makes his own statement, that is his / the Ukrainian government's own work so it is eligible irrespective of the level of input Biden/the Ambassador, it doesn't magically become a US Government work merely because Biden has a joint authorship claim. Authorship comes first of course, to be a government work it needs to be authored by a US government employee, but the statute isn't merely about authorship eligibility, it is about works. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So, I see three overarching/intersecting issues at play:

1. US gov is a co-author and therefore a (co-?)owner of the work
2. US law declares its own works PD in the US
3. Wikisource policy cares only about US copyright

Seems like the sticking point is in the connection between 1 and 2. I'm backing off any strong opinions, at this point just trying to follow along. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is that basically correct. Just that the definition of a "work of the United States Government" is a "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." So it's not quite authorship and not quite ownership. It is certainly possible to read that as "work prepared by only an officer ..." or to read that as to not apply to going to a meeting and agreeing to a joint text, IANAL, maybe that was explored in case law, etc. but my take is that going to a meeting with someone, working back forth on an agreed text, and leaving with a document meets that statute definition of prepared. Other speeches at the conference are not covered, if the US packed up and left and the others agreed on a document without the US it wouldn't be covered, etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I could see a claim that these all are derivative works of unpublished draft texts which are not US government works and so eligible for copyright protection under the Berne convention. I have never heard the argument made about other works, e.g. that publishing a Jane Austen previously unpublished manuscript draft of Pride and Prejudice in 1990 would place it back under copyright until 2047. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the "sweat of the brow" doctrine issue of creativity/originality (see here) is important to this example. (Not following how this example connects to the Copanhagen document though.) -Pete (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Biden is giving a speech in London. White House person prepares a speech draft, great PD, prepared by a US employee. Downing Street person same time prepares a speech draft, great, has crown copyright, under Berne it is copyrighted in the US. Downing street emails draft to the White House, White House person revises the draft and incorporates the Downing Street suggestions, great document is prepared by a government employee, Biden gives speech great all done. Now if it is all in 30 days the work counts as first published in the US, the Berne copyright doesn't apply. But what if is not.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're off in the weeds here. Authorship comes before ownership. Ownership can be transferred, authorship cannot. If the US government and Boing write something together it is either so interwoven that you can't distinguish who wrote what (a joint work) or each's contributions are seperable (a collaborative work). In a collaborative work each party owns the copyright for the part they contributed. In a joint work the parties jointly own the copyright in the whole work. For a joint work you need the permission of all the contributors. In a collaborative work the US government is prohibited from claiming copyright protection in the US for their contribution, but they can claim copyright in the rest of the world for it. In a joint work, since you cannot distinguish the PD-USGov contributions, PD-USGov has no real bearing (it's a noop, essentially as if the US government hadn't been involved).

A movie is a classical example of a collaborative work. The score is easily seperable from the rest of the movie. The same for a collection of short stories or essays: each essay or story can easily be separated from the whole. w:Good Omens is an example of a joint work. You can't really meaningfully separate out which bits are Gaiman's and which are PTerry's. They both own the copyright and both need to agree to license it. Now both of them have separate publishers for the US and the UK, with which they both have to sign the contract, but that just licensing (transferring some bits of the ownership). They are both still the authors for copyright purposes, retain all the rights they have not licensed away, and both enjoy the special non-transferrable "moral rights" to be recognised as the authors (and a few other things, depending on jurisdiction). Xover (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That is the point of disagreement, in cases of joint works (as opposed to collaborative, contracted / granted or derivative where copyright transfer is required for the non Gov work):

a. The government contribution makes it a government work: e.g. "More specifically, where there has been a Government contribution in connection with the preparation of the work, e.g., use of Government time, facilities, equipment, materials, funds, or the services of other Government employees on official duties, and the subject matter of the work directly relates to or was a type involved in the employee’s field of governmental employment, then the work generally is presumed to be a “Government Work” and not available for copyright." [10] ("any work of the United States Government")

b. The non-government contribution makes it a non-governmental work ("as if the US Government hasn't been involved). I guess the example here is that US Government employees are similar to employees at an private nonprofit that says all our works are released into the public domain. I understand thinking that for a UK - Canada agreement both recognize each other's copyright under Berne, and also the US. That making it a US - UK - Canada agreement doesn't really change things that much. Or similarly that two companies entering into an agreement is similar to the two plus the US government,

I have been trying to find the basis for b. and am struggling based on the text of statute, as well as the lack of any statutory mandatory licensing back to the US Government, requiring presumably a separate agreement for the US government to use the joint work. It also seems unlikely on government intent grounds: that large swaths of DoD documents or Department of State documents are outside of US Government control and under the copyright control of foreign governments within the US (e.g. a joint US / Iran effort in the 70s would require a license in the 80s) or for the public to loose access to government creations by having the government do a joint work with someone (e.g. to an EPA cleanup plan if developed jointly with the responsible party). The idea is precisely that a commercial agreement with the US government is fundamentally different as there is now a compelling interest of the public of having access, among other things to prevent the double payment: the public pays to create it using government resources, hands it over to a public company and then pays again to license it back, that is why a CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) is necessary for transferring the rights back when using a government lab [11], because it is decided that having the research is worth the US Government investment in the lab. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I think you're off in the weeds here. There is nothing magical about the government's contribution to a work. The bit you quote is about distinguishing whether a singular work was a government work or the work of the federally-employed author as a private individual. That's a separate issue. For the text in question the US contribution came from the "high representative of the US" so there's no question that their contribution was a government work. But US government contribution to a work is not contagious: the US can't claim copyright, but it doesn't nullify anybody else's copyright. And the public's interest is a matter of just precisely public access, which exists irrespective of copyright. Xover (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If Rodgers and Hammerstein had a falling out and Rodgers refused to go along with the copyright claim out of spite, Hammerstein couldn't have filed independently a registration with the copyright office, that isn't some magic nullification. All this is saying is that if Hammerstein and a government employee made a joint work, the public interest is for the government employee to (effectively) not file (be rejecting it), rather than file and transfer the copyright to Hammerstein. Now of course the filing / claiming isn't necessary as a step, but the rejection still happens. (To be clear this should be {{PD-in-USGov}} as said we are only talking about the US status here). MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI here is the House resolution on this document which was adopted: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/232/text, "Whereas the Copenhagen Conference on the Human Dimension (CDH) document declares that the will of the people, freely and fairly expressed through periodic and genuine elections, is the basis of the authority and legitimacy of all government;" . It was also referenced here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/37/text. From the Chairman of the CSCE at a Congressional hearing: "The U.S. and the participating states agreed at that conference to the Copenhagen Document, which included a commitment to invite observers from other participating states to observe national elections. The U.S. was a major advocate of that commitment, since the Berlin Wall had just fallen and many nations were about to hold their first real elections in decades. OSCE participating states reaffirmed this commitment at the OSCE's 1999 Istanbul Summit." But apparently I can't print what the commitments the US made unless I get permission from 60 countries, some of which no longer exist. It's a neat trick to be able to make any government policy statement not accessible by making it a joint document. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

So for example: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/2532 [PL: 102-511]. Requires "adhering to the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Charter of Paris;". The Charter of Paris [12] contains "Proceeding from the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension, we will cooperate to strengthen democratic institutions and to promote the application of the rule of law." "The function of the Office for Free Elections will be to facilitate contacts and the exchange of information on elections within participating States. The Office will thus foster the implementation of paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE' (the relevant provisions are contained in Annex 1)." On the EU side, the association agreements have language like: "CONSIDERING the commitment to the implementation of commitments made in the framework of the CSCE, in particular those set out in the Helsinki Final Act, the concluding documents of the Madrid, Vienna and Copenhagen meetings, those of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the conclusions of the CSCE's Bonn Conference, the CSCE Helsinki document 1992, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Energy Charter Treaty as well as the Ministerial Declaration of the Lucerne Conference of 30 April 1993" http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/1998/98(1)/oj . I think that it is reasonable to interpret this document as incorporated into legislation and hence eligible for EdictGov. Another example is the Istanbul Document signed by Clinton [13] . "In this respect we reaffirm our commitments, in particular under the relevant provisions of the Copenhagen 1990 Human Dimension Document, and recall the Report of the Geneva 1991 Meeting of Experts on National Minorities" MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the spare cycles to give that side the consideration it needs, but, yes, {{PD-EdictGov}} would seem to be one possible avenue for this document. There's currently case law that says adopting a model code into enacted code makes the model code into essentially EdictGov. Things like technical standards merely incorporated by reference are currently up in the air because there's case law from a lower court suggesting the former logic may apply to the latter situation (cue the inevitable copyright-flamewars and community split on Wikimedia projects). I don't personally think things incorporated by mere reference can "inherit" EdictGov status because the results would be obviously untenable (and courts tend to reject reasoning that leads to such results), but the waters here are very muddy until we eventually get clarification from the courts. For the Copenhagen Document though, it is possible the way and extent of its incorporation into something covered by EdictGov pushes it towards the more plausible side of the grey area there. Or not. I am very conservative on what uncertainty we should accept in such cases, so it would take quite a bit to persuade me with such an argument. Xover (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That is why I prefer the US Government explanation, but yeah it is on the type of document, how it is incorporated as requirement, the commercial harm tests, etc. in that gray area but that is all very messy, as well as the large amount of work to dig through exactly the legislative history of the US Government and the CSCE / OSCE to find exactly the legal basis for those commitments. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Grandson, on thy Second Birthday

This page has no source. The only asserted date I could find is 1934, on the author page, but there's no indication where it was published, or whether copyright renewals have been checked. After checking renewal records from 1961 and 1962 ([14] [15] [16] [17]) it seems plausible that the copyright was never renewed, but without knowing where it was published or whether the 1934 date is accurate, it's tough to say with confidence. (I did a few web searches including Internet Archive and have not been able to find this poem. There is a different poem by Sheehan that has an interesting OTRS release, so I searched Commons as well, but found nothing to match this file.) -Pete (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Though if it was only published in Ireland, or the UK, there wouldn't have been need for a renewal, would there ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No, its US copyright would have been restored by the URAA in 1996 to a publication +95 years term. We need to know where it was first published in order to determine that its copyright has expired with any plausible level of certainty. Xover (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question: How should one proceed in a case like this? (For my own edification, hoping to get a better feel for Wikisource processes.) Feel to reply on my user talk or email. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what it is you're asking? If we can't find evidence that at least makes it plausible that it is in the public domain or compatibly licensed it will have to be deleted. But others may yet do research and uncover more information, and in cases like this I tend to do at least a cursory amount before closing to see if something obvious was missed. In other words, if you cannot find any more information yourself then it's just a matter of hoping someone else does before it comes time to close this thread (and WS:CV is even more backlogged than usual right now, so it might be a while). Xover (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Xover: Sorry, I guess my question was vague. But your answer addresses it fine. Basically, I'm making more posts to the boards lately than I have before as I try to help with the copyright tag backlog and would be happy for any feedback or tips on how I'm using them. If just letting this one alone after making the report is the way to go, that makes sense; but if I was expected to escalate it at a certain point to the deletion board, I'd have wanted to know about that. -Pete (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Petro Poroshenko's Inaugural Address

This was published in 2014, so it would appear to be copyrighted, BUT it is public domain in Ukraine, where it was published. BUT, in my understanding, Wikisource operates under United States copyright laws (as opposed to Ukrainian ones). If this was an "edict of government" it would be eligible for PD in the United States, but it is not of a legal nature, it is a public speech. Is this public domain for Wikisource? Cremastra (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t thank it is in the public domain in Ukraine. The only exception which seems relevant is Article 10(c), which seems to track the edicts-of-government exception. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hm, you're right. I assumed it was because the tag was there (which in retrospect is a bad kind of assumption to make). Cremastra (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  The presidency website now has a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Deed license but I don't think it had it historically (all rights reserved) when this speech was posted: https://web.archive.org/web/20140607165241/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30488.html. Of course I can't find it on the current website, and it mentions a 2022 cut off date so I don't think it applies retroactively. MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Indian Philosophy Volume 1.djvu

This seems to be a London published edition from 1948, not a 1927 one. The author died in 1975. Can someone please check the copyright status in more detail?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• It was reprinted in London in 1948, but this newest changes come from the second edition (1930). I’m not sure if the changes are original, or what they were, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Commencement Address, William & Mary's College

Although there are several copies of this address around, I cannot see one which is an official one from Jon Stewart, which I understand means that it is still under copyright. -- Beardo (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked, the "official" one is probably the one posted by William and Mary on both their website and the actual address on their YouTube channel. and both are restrictive ("Standard YouTube License"), so I don't think it was released under a CC license  Delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Miser's Gold

This topic also applies to many (but not all) of the poems listed at Author:Robert Ervin Howard/Poetry. There is no source and no explicit claim of a free license or public domain status. After some hunting I found the poem here, but while this claims to be part of the "opensource" collection on the Internet Archive, there is no explicit license named, and the book appears to be a self-compiled work (with none of the ordinary front matter a traditional publisher would include). It does not mention copyright status or licensing on the IA page (beyond the "collection") or in the work.

My best guess is that this, and numerous other, of Howard's poems were unpublished in his short lifetime. He died in 1936. Perhaps their copyright has not been vigorously defended, and while much of his work has fallen into the public domain due to lack of copyright renewal, I believe unpublished works would not require a renewal.

When voting, please indicate whether your !vote should apply to all of Howard's poetry that was unpublished in his lifetime, as there appear to be many such poems on Wikisource. -Pete (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I now see {{PD-old-US}} which seems to address these pages. My apologies. -Pete (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: The copyright situation for Howard's works is hyper-complicated, which, in addition to his prodigious output, is why we have about a bajillion of his works in various states of insufficient copyright tagging. He wrote a massive amount of poetry in letters to a small group of friends, that was unpublished at the time of his death. There has been wrangling over his copyrights for a century, including at least two transparent land-grabs. One of those was a poetry collection published in 2002 (I'm fuzzy on the details: it's been a while) specifically to secure copyrights. It's an utter mess and means we need to do diligent research for each of his poems individually to figure out their publishing history. A lot of Howard's material is in the public domain, but a significant chunk is not, so we can make few blanket assumptions. The good news is that Howard fans have cataloged first publication info for a whole lot of these, so it's often entirely possible to come to a conclusion; it just takes some effort. Xover (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I continued to poke around I found this discussion, which has links (including archival) to Herman's work. @Xover: would you consider the most recent revision of his document ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190715192544/http://www.robert-e-howard.org/AnotherThought4rerevised.html this one, unless there's a newer one not mentioned in that wiki discussion) authoritative for any works at all (either demonstrating that something is or is not in copyright), or merely a launch point for more authoritative research? (Note that Miser's Gold does not appear in that document, so I should probably remove the tag I added and bring that up for deletion. I'll hold off on further action till I hear back though.) -Pete (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Note, technically the unpublished works written after 1928 do not fit in the Wikisource inclusion criteria. I'm not proposing anything radical, but just noticed that; perhaps some should be deleted, or perhaps the policy needs some finessing. -Pete (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So far as I know none of these are actually unpublished today. The issue is whether they were unpublished at the magic dates in 2002/2003 or thereabouts. Xover (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, indicative rather than authoritative; you need to check the claims it makes. Not least because we have access to a lot more information now (online) than what Herman had in 2007, and the applicable copyright issues are now much better understood. Xover (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out, that all makes sense. (I don't understand what's "magic" about 2002/03, but happy to take your word for it.) -Pete (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In the US there are special rules for works that were unpublished at certain dates. Unpublished works created before 1978 and published between 1977 and 2003 are in copyright until the longer of pma. 70 and December 31st, 2047. If they were created before 1978 and published after 2002 they are covered by a pma. 70 copyright term. Since Howard died in 1936 any of his pma. 70 terms will have expired. Meaning that if they were unpublished on January 1, 2003 they are now public domain ({{PD-US-unpublished}}). Which is why one of the many entities vying for Howard's copyrights published several collections of his previously unpublished works in 2002: they wanted to preserve the copyright until 2047. Xover (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling it out. One by one I'm grasping the various rules about renewals... -Pete (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed Muizz's Inaugural Address

This work was uploaded with no license tag. It is not an edict so {{PD-EdictGov}} does not apply. I don't see anything at commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Maldives that would suggest that this speech is automatically in the public domain in the Maldives either.

The work is copied from the website of the Maldivian President's office, whose copyright policy is rather unhelpful—it states that public domain content on the site is in the public domain, and copyrighted content on the site is copyrighted (and that content submitted by visitors to the site is CC-BY-4.0, but that wouldn't apply to this page).

—Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

From THE COPYRIGHT & RELATED RIGHTS ACT (2010) has the standard edict exception and nothing broader which doesn't really apply ... "(b) any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation of such documents." MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Also checked the youtube page, no indication of CC license there (although YouTube is much less helpful now in that regard). MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's essentially the same type of content that is covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}, which this is not. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Page:NBS_Technical_Note_11176_(1983)_(IAutilityprogramsf1176dick).djvu/24

The LOMEM utility mentioned, I found the original publication - https://archive.org/details/Apple-Orchard-v1n1-1980-Mar-Apr/page/n14/mode/1up?q=LOMEM - and I can't find any notices (or as yet a registration within 5 years), Can someone here do a more detailed check? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Alma Mater (Adrian C. Wilcox High School)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept; both works were proven to be published without notice before 1977.

 Keep Alma Mater per evidence at Commons:File:Alma Mater (Adrian C. Wilcox High School).jpg of a 1961 dedication with no notice. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Fight On Wilcox (Adrian C. Wilcox High School)

Possibly copyrighted. On a positive note, if these indeed originated in the early 1960s (the first was cited as 1961), I'd wager copyright renewal would have been quite unlikely which would place these in the public domain. But the sources used are a 2024 school handbook and a modern YouTube video respectively, so they could represent later editions subject to separate copyright. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to add that these are the contributions of a new user, The Sands of Time 0. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of copyright laws, but I'll try to find an original source. The high school's gym has a plaque with the lyrics to both songs, and for "Alma Mater" it has "Dedicated 1961" written at the bottom. Would this be good enough? Thank you for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Sands of Time 0: This would appear to place the Alma Mater in the public domain. Would you mind uploading a picture of it to Wikimedia Commons, through the Upload Wizard, and then link the picture here? I would encourage releasing the picture with the license "CC0" since this will make the image in the public domain as well as the content of it. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: Here is a link to the picture. Is it enough to place Alma Mater in the public domain? Thank you so much for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Sands of Time 0: Okay, Alma Mater should be good to go, then. But for "Fight on Wilcox", you'll need to find out when that song was first published. If it was published after 1988 it's guaranteed to be copyrighted, to put it simply. So here's to hoping that it was published somewhere before then. 🤞 SnowyCinema (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: Amazing! Thank you so much! I'll look into when "Fight On Wilcox" was first published. Unfortunately, there isn't a reliable source of it online, so I'll need to get in contact with someone at the school who can help. I'll let you know if I have any more questions. Thank you again for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Sands of Time 0: Thanks. What you will need is some kind of document (such as an old school yearbook, catalog, or the like), or some other kind of physical evidence of publication. Someone's word wouldn't be enough to satisfy this discussion. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: Understood! Thanks again. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: I've found the original lyrics to Wilcox High School's fight song in a 1970 yearbook. Unfortunately, the formatting doesn't reflect how the words are sung. Could I reformat the lyrics (keeping the same words) or do I need to transcribe them exactly as written? Thank you so much for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Sands of Time 0: Does the song contain a copyright notice around it? Or, does the entire yearbook? If not, you should be good to have it here, although preferably (eventually) this would be replaced by a transcription of the entire yearbook issue. And yes, we would need to transcribe it exactly as written. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: Thank you for clarifying! Neither the song nor the yearbook have a copyright notice. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard letters to Weird Tales

There are three letters showing with no license:

• Robert E. Howard to Weird Tales, Apr 1930
• Robert E. Howard to Weird Tales, Jan 1931
• Robert E. Howard to Weird Tales, Mar 1932

All three of those are in issues marked as having had copyright renewed here - https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/weirdtales - I assume that the copyright includes the letters pages. -- Beardo (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination -Pete (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete though I think the copyright was the Howard's, not the Weird Tales's. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 23:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Room to Roam

This appears to be a 1990 song by the Waterboys, a more modern phrasing closely based on the poem quoted, which appears in chapter 22: Phantastes/Chapter XXII I see no reason for the poem to appear independently on Wikisource, though I also see no reason this page couldn't be made into a redirect. -Pete (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article on that album, that song is described as credited to "George MacDonald, arranged by the Waterboys". I don't know if the song had an independent existence before the Waterboys. -- Beardo (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment If this page is to be made into a redirect, Roman numeral chapters (Chapter XXII) should be changed to Arabic (Chapter 22) since this move will eventually happen anyway. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

Modern non-US speech without any license, with no translator listed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Earliest source I found is, Google Books . https://web.archive.org/web/20020222073541/http://www.balkanpeace.org/cib/kam/kams/kams19.shtml from the same time period has "Compiled by the National Technical Information Service of the Department of Commerce of the U.S." MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sons and Daughters of Saint Lucia

I see no reason why this should be PD in the US. -- Beardo (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Spanish wikipedia, the author lived 1897-1985. I suppose it is possible that the words were written before 1928, and only adopted as a national anthem in 1967, but I haven't found any indication of that. -- Beardo (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

He was born in England and only arrived in St. Lucia in 1928 so that is unlikely. The more likely path is that it was published in the St. Lucia Gazette and so would fall under EdictGov. in St. Lucia on the URAA date so it would no be restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If the words were written previously, would them being published in the Gazette alter their copyright status ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Possibly? Depends on how it is exactly printed, which is the problem, someone needs to go digging into the archives of law libraries for each of these national anthems and look exactly how it is adopted via law. Is it like this with it printed in an act: Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia/321/National Anthem of the Republic of Namibia Act? or does it just mention by reference? Re the general principle, I doubt people would say that if a group proposes a constitutional amendment whose wording is then adopted that group then has a copyright claim on the country's constitution (e.g. that if the National Women's Party text of the ERA was adopted then the National Women's Party would have copyright over the US Constitution), PD-EdictGov never invalidates a copyright claim of an author then it is kind of superfluous no if it only applies to already uncopyrighted edicts? MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As an extreme example, HMG drafts a white paper of "Secret Crimes we won't tell people about Act", claims crown copyright, parliament passes the exact text of the bill. The idea of EdictGov is that HMG doesn't have an "out" to have a secret list of crimes now protected by copyright no one can publish so you can never know about them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve sent for Saint Lucia’s book of ordinances from that time, so I should be able to tell soon one way or another. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Old Bugs

This is a short story written by H. P. Lovecraft likely in 1919. It was apparently first published in 1959 in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces, a posthumous collection of Lovecraft's works. I can't find the exact book, there's a similarly-titled book on the Internet Archive but it doesn't contain Old Bugs. There is a copyright renewal from June 1987. There's a note on Wikisource suggesting that copyright will expire in 2055, I'm not sure the basis for that. But regardless, it seems to me that as of now the copyright is in effect. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am sure that the mention on the author page here refers to the title story (which apparantly is more Derleth than Lovecraft). See discussion above about "The Mysterious Ship", which was also first published in that collection. The copyright on Derleth's work published in 1959 and covered by that renewal will expire in 2055. It seems that Derleth's heirs were probably not entitled to make the renewal on the pure Lovecraft items (and claiming that "H. P. Lovecraft" was a pseudonym of August Derleth wouldn't alter that). The wikipedia article on Lovecraft says "Searches of the Library of Congress have failed to find any evidence that these copyrights were renewed after the 28-year period, making it likely that these works are in the public domain. However, the Lovecraft literary estate, reconstituted in 1998 under Robert C. Harrall, has claimed that they own the rights." -- Beardo (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is it at Google books Google Books and it contains Old Bugs on pages 76-84. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that MarkLSteadman.

The copyright situation seems complex, and I'm maybe only grasping parts of it. It seems the search mentioned at Wikipedia may have simply been insufficient to find the result I found, in which case it should be disregarded? The link may not work without re-running the search. I searched for "Shuttered Room" and scrolled through the results to find the "Derleth" entry. Its contents are pasted below:

Extended content

The Shuttered room and other pieces. By H. P. Lovecraft, pseud. of August...
Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000341797 / 1987-06-12
Renewal registration for: A00000441004 / 1959-11-17
Title: The Shuttered room and other pieces. By H. P. Lovecraft, pseud. of August William Derleth.
Copyright Claimant: April Derleth Jacobs & Walden William Derleth (C)
Basis of Claim: New Matter: new except six prev. pub. titles, The Commonplace book, The Books, The Gods, Dagon, The Strange high house in the mist, and The Outsider.
 
Variant title: The Shuttered room and other pieces.
Names: Derleth, August William, 1909-1971
Jacobs, April Derleth
Derleth, Walden William
Lovecraft, H. P., pseud.

Beardo: Your comment suggests to me that there's a somewhat delicate task of evaluating the legitimacy of (both?) Derleth's initial copyright claim, and the renewal. Is that correct? I'm not sure how to evaluate that, but want to make sure I'm at least understanding the question that needs answering. (Did Derleth really represent himself as having the name "H. P. Lovecraft," for the purpose of establishing copyright over something written by the original H. P. Lovecraft?? I'm not a lawyer, but the idea that such a maneuver could carry any legitimacy seems insane! But maybe I'm misunderstanding...) -Pete (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The book just says copyright Derleth without giving details. It was his children who claimed that Lovecraft was a pseudonym for Derleth on the renewal. I suppose that was possibly true for the stories which Derleth wrote from brief fragments, but not for the unpublished works. -- Beardo (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So @Beardo: would you advise declaring this {{PD-US-unpublished}} with an explanation on the talk page that there was not a legal copyright attached prior to 2003? -Pete (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Based on my understanding of the publications, the works which are joint Derleth–Lovecraft works are copyrighted until 2055 because of the renewal of Derleth’s portion of the work; as joint authors, either of the two’s heirs could renew, and Derleth’s did. This renewal also covers the copyright in the collection &c. of the stories into the collection. However, if any of the works in The Shuttered Room were written only by Lovecraft, then those works were not renewed. They were copyrighted, however, and so the license tag should be PD-US-no-renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Pete, Beardo (people in the discussion): I have ordered the book, and it has just come in. The book is credited to August Derleth as compiler with a copyright notice on the back of the title page saying as much. That page also lists copyrights for the six other works excluded in the renewal claim. The work includes (1) material co-authored by Lovecraft and Derleth, (2) works authored only by Lovecraft, (3) editorial material both explicitly and implicitly credited to Derleth, (4) several plates, and (5) a number of other writings about Lovecraft by other authors (neither Lovecraft nor Derleth). The renewal was by Derleth, and thus covers (1) and (3) (in addition to a compilation right in the entire work). The copyrights in (4) depends on who took the photographs, and thus cannot be determined without significant research. The copyrights in (5) would need to be renewed by the authors of those works pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(C). The most difficult case is (2), which is of course the one which matters. That copyright is governed by 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B), which states in relevant part: “In the case of … any posthumous work … upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof … the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal ….” I do not believe that Derleth actually held the copyright at that time, so I do not believe that he had the right to renew them, either. In any case, I have scanned “Old Bugs” and can scan other parts of the book if desired. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

An End to the Armed Campaign

I cannot find any reason why this work would not be subject to automatic copyright, and I do not see any release of the statement under a free license. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Contribs! 02:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to have been released to the press, intended for circulation. I don't know if that would affect the copyright status. -- Beardo (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Letter from Chiang Kai-shek to Adolf Hitler

No evidence of the translation being in the public domain. While it might have been translated soon after the original was written, there is no sign of its publication until recently: I have found it only at the NY public library digital collections and in a 2023 book. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Also - why would the original be in the public domain ? Does it count as an edict of government as far as the US is concerned ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that depends when and where it was published. If in the PRC Article 5 of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) might prevent restoration, if ROC https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Annotated_Republic_of_China_Laws/Copyright_Act/1998 would cover official documents. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But do those affect the US copyright status ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It would fall under {{PD-1996}} (for the original). MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: I added {{cv}} to that page, do tell me if it was intentional to not put it.

 Delete as there is no indication of the source of the translation. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 21:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As-Sahab Interview with al-Libi and Author:Abu Laith al-Libi

This is a post-2007 transcript of a translation of an "interview" (propaganda message) by w:As-Sahab (the propaganda arm of w:Al-Qaeda) with w:Abu Laith al-Libi (1967–2008). The text specifies no source, and makes an implausible and unsubstantiated claim that the author has released it into the public domain. Xover (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The Shipwrecked Sailor

This translation has no license, and states that it was modernized by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton, with no reason to believe that Arkenberg released his edits under a compatible license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - the document is taken from here - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/2200shipwreck.asp - which states "No permission is granted for commercial use." -- Beardo (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per all above. -Pete (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Beast from the Abyss

Despite the fact that the author died in 1936, the work was first published in 1971 in The Howard Collector, #15 Autumn 1971. I couldn't find that exact issue, but the previous issue does have a copyright notice as was required at the time: [18]. If I'm understanding the copyright guide correctly, this means this is under copyright until 2066. BrandenJames (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement

Custom software license, itself distributed under a custom text license:

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document. You may use content from this license document as source material for your own license agreement, but you may not use the name "Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement," ("HESSLA") or any confusingly similar name, trademark or service-mark, in connection with any license agreement that is not either (1) a verbatim copy of this License Agreement, or (2) a license agreement that contains only additional terms expressly permitted by The HESSLA.

This custom license is not a free license in that it only permits reuse of the text "for your own license agreement" and for no other purposes. Xover (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto_of_the_league_for_social_reconstruction

This document's copyright would have been restored by the URAA, meaning that in the USA it is in copyright until 1932+95 years = 2027. (I think. Please correct me if I misunderstand.) -Pete (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Note the Canada was a +50 country until 2022 so 1932 does not necessarily mean it was copyrighted in Canada on the URAA date, although it is likely owned by Frank Underhill (d. 1971) / Francis Reginald Scott (d, 1985). That said, if it was first published in April 1932 of The Canadian Forum of Toronto, Canada it is possible it was published in the US within 30 days, The Canadian Forum was a political magazine, a bunch of volumes are in the LOC (https://lccn.loc.gov/26007376) etc. I will let those more in the know evaluate the simultaneous possibility. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Good points, but can we keep it on the basis that it might have been published in the U.S. within 30 days? Is anybody actively researching whether this actually happened? Seems to me like  Delete is the best option, without prejudice to restoring if somebody finds evidence of that. -Pete (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Life's Mystery

According to https://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/poetry/p353.aspx the first publication of this poem was in 1977 in A Winter Wish. This would mean if the book has a proper copyright notice that this poem would be under copyright until 2072. However, I am unable to confirm if it does have a notice or not. BrandenJames (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems to indicate there was a notice: https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/31631253583_3.jpg MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case it seems this should be deleted under the speedy deletion policy. BrandenJames (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This might be worth addressing as well: File:Life's Mystery (Lovecraft).wav -Pete (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Early Autumn (Langston Hughes)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept—loads of evidence that this is PD. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Early Autumn (Langston Hughes)—"Per https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-understand-early-autumn-2990402 - "originally appeared in the Chicago Defender on September 30, 1950, and was later included in his 1963 collection, Something in Common and Other Stories. It has also been featured in a collection called The Short Stories of Langston Hughes"" Apparently the original Chicago Defender issue was renewed, although I don't know if this means that the stories within were renewed by extension... Pinging @Beardo, @Peteforsyth, @BrandenJames:

(If we determine this is in the public domain, our transcription needs to be sent to WS:PD after this because it suffers from many other problems.) SnowyCinema (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't nominate it because my understanding is that copyright for pre-1964 works had to be at 27 years, but this was done at 32 years. I'm not sure whether the copyright renewal was valid/effective, hoping for insight from somebody better versed in US copyright law. -Pete (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You can ignore the links at the talk page. The Chicago Defender "renewal" links to a registration of 1978 copies of the Chicago Defender, not a renewal, and the "renewal" for The Short Stories of Langston Hughes was a link to a registration of a new edition with a fresh introduction. (If you're looking for renewals, those are the registration numbers that start with RE.)

I couldn't find a renewal. If this was published in the Chicago Defender with the title "Early Autumn" on September 30, 1950, I'm fairly sure it wasn't renewed. It's just that there's renewals for Langston Hughes in the Chicago Defender like "Issue 23Sep50. Simple says if he is not wanted where he wants to go, woe! Pub. 1950-09-18; B00000264568." and "Issue 7Oct50. Simple says if he was a landlord all tenants would have their own bells. Pub. 1950-10-02; B00000266500." (done as part of a renewal of several "Simple" pieces as RE0000004322) If it was originally printed as part of one of those, it could be easily renewed.

Something in Common and Other Stories was renewed; RE0000555363. It says "New Matter: compilation of 5 works", so it wouldn't have had any effect on the copyright status of the original story, though I'd feel a lot more comfortable to working from the Chicago Defender version than any later version.

If "originally appeared in the Chicago Defender on September 30, 1950" is correct, I believe this is in the public domain. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• SnowyCinema, Pete, Prosfilaes: Here’s the file: File:Early Autumn (Hughes).pdf. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I've moved the page here and attached the scan, updated header, banners, etc. I began proofing and will finish later today, it's a slightly different version of the story. -Pete (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the rather extensive small differences, I'd guess the previously-transcribed was indeed a later edited version of the story, and likely under its own copyright. Might be worth a revdelete upon close. -Pete (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Senator Christopher J. Dodd’s address to supporters after the Iowa Caucuses

2004 speech by a candidate for the U.S. presidency. No reason to think this was in the public domain or subject to a free license. - Pete (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

2007 Democratic Debate - 26 April

This page, as well as the following pages 2007 Democratic Debate - 3 June, 2007 Democratic Debate - 28 June, 2007 Democratic Debate - 26 April, 2007 Democratic Debate - 23 July, and 2007 Republican Debate - 21 October. These all appear to be transcripts of various televised debates. No reason to think they are in the public domain or subject to a free license.-- FPTI (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination. -Pete (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

2008 Republican Debate - 30 January

Also 2007 Republican Debate - 5 September and
2007 Democratic Debate - 12 July

As above, these appear to be transcripts of various televised debates. No reason to think they are in the public domain or subject to a free license. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Delete at least as far as my knowledge goes, the copyright belongs to the stations etc. and not the federal government. Although on the positive side, usually Presidential candidates are already federal government employees, so maybe their words count as being in the capacity of their government activities, but I doubt it. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification, per the {{PD-USgov}} banner, it is works of the federal government that have a special public domain status. Often, such works happen to be authored by employees or elected officials of the federal government, but that does not mean that works by said people outside their roles as agents of the government have any special status. Running for office is something incumbent officeholders may do in their role as private citizens, but not as agents of the government. -Pete (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When Wendy Grew Up

The Wikipedia page says that this play was performed in 1908, but not published until 1957. If this is accurate, this work would still be under copyright. Another page says that it was "later published in Peter and Wendy", but it is not clear how much later. --FPTI (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. So far as I can tell, the 1957 publication was not renewed, so it is in the public domain. (Also, the 1957 first-publication date does seem to be accurate.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep per Teaeaea. Relevant links: IA [19] -Pete (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • FPTI, Pete: If either of both of you are interested, here is the book: File:When Wendy Grew Up.pdf. The images are local (because they need to be cut down to size and color-corrected): File:AnAfterthought-frontis.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p13.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p15.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p19.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p23.tif, and File:AnAfterthought-p29.tif. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Weird Tales/Volume 33/Issue 11/Second Night Out

This was added by an IP claiming it is a work by Frank Belknap Long published in 1933 in Weird Tales, Volume 33, Issue 11, but Volume 33 was not published in 1933 and there is no issue 11. I have therefore been unable to determine whether this is actually in public domain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is "The Black, Dead Thing" published in October 1933 (Volume 22, issue 4). MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Volume 22, issue 4 was renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment when this is resolved, the link on Author:Frank Belknap Long added here will need to be corrected or removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment The same IP has created The Black, Dead Thing, which is identical to the page currently under discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Scotch rhapsody

This poem appears to be published during, not prior to, 1929. As such I believe it will not enter the public domain until the first of next year. -Pete (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have said, it was published in 1929, and I haven't been able to find evidence that it was published in 1922 (as is claimed on Sitwell's author page). It may well have been, but I couldn't find it on the Internet Archive. Further research may corroborate this claim, though. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm pretty sure I was wrong, Facade appears to be a well known collection of poems, published several times prior to 1929. I hope somebody is able to find it and resolve this soon, I shouldn't have blanked the page with the {{cv}} banner so hastily. -Pete (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation that it was published in 1922. -Pete (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting that this page has been blanked with {{cv}} for 2.5 months, though I determined that the blanking was not necessary. I suggest unless I've missed something else, this would be an easy close, and could permit readers to view the material. -Pete (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Striking part of my comment, this is overstating it. It appears that the poem was composed in 1922, but I do not find definitive evidence that either (a) it was one of the Facade poems published that early, or that (b) it was unrevised in the 1929 edition cited by the present Wikisource page. There's some useful info on the English Wikipedia article, though the sources cited do not appear to be accessible online. If nothing else, this edition should fall into the public domain in a few months, so maybe the best thing is to wait and attach {{PD-US}} at that time. Another set of eyes would be helpful, but unless somebody is able to find an earlier published version of the poem, a definitive answer may prove elusive. -Pete (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Index:Property and Improperty.djvu

1937 work by a British author. No indication why this work was not URAA-restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Confessions of an Economic Heretic

1938 work by the same above author, added by the same contributor. Likely URAA-restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Monthly Weather Review

So the Monthly Weather Review (MWR) is a peer-reviewed journal owned and published by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). However, the gained ownership of it, from the U.S. government in 1974. Publications in MWR were entirely by the U.S. government from 1873 to 1973. To access these publications though, one has to go on the AMS website and access the same as a standard peer-reviewed journal. An example is this publication from 1873.

Since it was published entirely by the U.S. government until 1973, would all publications in MWR from 1873 to 1973 be public domain, or did some copyright thing transfer to AMS in 1974? At the bottom of the website, there is a "© 2024 American Meteorological Society", but the reason I am asking is the publications up through 1973 were U.S. government ones, with the example publication above being a signed document ("Desk Copy" as wrote on the paper) from the United States War Department Office of the Chief Signal Officer. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See: [20] Pete (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

And the details page. Seems that nothing prior to 1976 had a copyright notice, those should all be in the public domain. Pete (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The banner you could apply for all issues prior to 1976 is {{PD-US-no-notice}}. I'm not aware of any reason to prefer any banner over others (the others being {{PD-USGov}} and {{PD-US}}) for the issues prior to 1974 and prior to 1929. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:PD-American Samoa

A new contributor has created {{PD-American Samoa}} with the claim that: "American Samoa does not have any copyright laws, the copyright law of the United States only applies to works created by American Samoans in the United States, and the work is not registered for copyright protection in the United States." There are two works now bearing this template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that seems super sketchy to me at first glance, but the template is copied directly from Commons and commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa appears to corroborate what it says. The information there appears to date from 1993 though, so it could also be outdated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's an article about an American Samoan trying to introduce some copyright legislation as of two years ago, so it seems this is all legit. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Heh, while I'm here, I might as well upload it: Local musician petitioning for a copyright law to protect songwriters —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds sketchy because it is, imv, but I nominated the template for deletion on commons and it was kept. Prospectprospekt (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Beleg Tâl: The 1993 source is a U.S. government document, so I’ve ordered it and will scan it in eventually. The part about Title 17 specifically, though, I’ll upload locally so we can see what the government’s position is. We can then check to see whether it still holds by seeing if the Copyright Act has been amended in relevant part or if intervening Supreme Court decisions have made a difference. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• EncycloPetey, Beleg Tâl, Prospectprospekt: The source is available: The Application of Federal Laws in … American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands/Volume 2/Memorandum 17-1. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

National Weather Service - Partial not free-to-use (Question on how to deal with this)

So the National Weather Service is a branch of the U.S. government. For majority of their publications, {{PD-USGov}} works fine. However, NWS is a weird circumstance, even the Commons has a split copyright template for their stuff: Template:PD-NWS. Basically, NWS allows the public to give them pictures. The complication is that the public is asked if the images are to be released into the public domain or not. The answer to that is yes 99% of the time. However, sometimes that answer is no and we end up with non-free-to-use images in the middle of official government publications (noting the ones that aren't free are clearly marked as not being free as well). There are several examples of this happening, but for simplicity, I am wanting to get this StoryMap, made by the NWS onto Wikisource. Out of the (50+) images in the storymap, four are not free-to-use. Other images are present that are free-to-use, but not made by NWS, as they were given to NWS to be published into the public domain.

The whole thing is actually a neatly-made "printable" PDF, which split the pages nicely. However, how would this work, given the few non-free images. We can't say the whole thing is ineligible, as that would be directly saying publications by the US government are not eligible, as NWS did make the storymap as part of their official duties. Should those non-free images just get blacked out prior to uploading to the Commons? WeatherWriter (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Noting: This discussion has also been linked to the Commons' Copyright Noticeboard since this involves them as well as Wikisource. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• WeatherWriter: The usual practice in such a case is to redact the images (or text, as the case may be), preferably before the file is uploaded. The removed images are then marked with {​{image removed}​} in the transcription. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

British War Aims

It wasn't clear if this was a speech given under 'official' circumstances, as opposed to an address given at a private function. Eden (British) died in 1977. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It was published as Command Paper 6289 to Parliament (Vol. III, pg. 47). MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.. Is that scanned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I did a brief look and could not find a scan. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be available here: https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/uk-parliamentary-papers/ MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Implications of Trump v. United States

Today's decision seems to take a very broad view of what counts as presidential official acts: "Presidential conduct—for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, ... certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision", "For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities." Presumably, if an act is official it is covered by {{PD-USGov}}, although the decision states clearly: "The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging." I am curious how others here think this guidance applies to content such as convention speeches which we have historically considered outside of official responsibilities, although I suspect we will need to wait for additional guidance from the courts. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• “A work of the United States Government is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government ….” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The President is neither an “officer” nor an “employee of” the government; he exists separately from both processes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  That also is under discussion recently, K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, "The court agreed, stating this statute permitted President Trump, in his capacity as an "officer... of the United States", to remove the state suit relating to duties of his office to federal court." [21] MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Was the album material for Ere's 'Olloway renewed?

I know the recordings on Ere's 'Olloway (1958, Internet Archive identifier: lp_eres-olloway_stanley-holloway-the-loverly-quartet) are still in copyright, but the album cover and liner notes are interesting in their own right. Could someone check if the album material was renewed, and link where they looked so I know how to search for this information in the future? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• CalendulaAsteraceae: There is no copyright notice, so no renewal could have occurred. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, and thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Morse Code for Radio Amateurs

This pamphlet was published 1957 (found on the second to last page) in London, by Margaret Mills, the first woman allowed/drafted/invited commissioned into the Brits Signal Corps. I have not found birth or death notice for her. I have no idea if this is allowed here and if so, how to license it. IA thinks its okay but doesn't state the reason.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be OK if it was simultaneously published in the US without copyright notice/renewal, but almost certainly not otherwise. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, unfortunately the work seems still copyrighted in the US. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Letters to Barack Obama

The following letters addressed to Barack Obama do not seem to fall under any open license:

• Toni Morrison's letter to Barack Obama
• Ralph Nader's letter to Barack Obama
• Nicolas Sarkozy's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Tarja Halonen's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Tamil Youth Organisation of Australia's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Chuck Norris's letter to Barack Obama
• Willie Nelson's letter to Barack Obama
• Nancy Killefer's letter to Barack Obama

All seem to be written by private citizens or foreign dignitaries. Packer1028 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama was labeled {{PD-Iran}}; is there any reason to doubt that it was first published in Iran and thus is out of copyright in the US?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we cannot just suppose it was first published in Iran and not republished in the US within 30 days without any tangible evidence. Unless such evidence is provided, we have to consider it potentially copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete for Morrison, Nader, TYO, Norris, Nelson.

No opinion yet (haven't researched) on others. Sarkozy was in office in 2008, I don't know whether his letter would have been an official communication and if so whether it would be in the public domain. -Pete (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

McCain Addresses Boston College Convocation

This item appears to be a copyright violation. See reasoning and discussion here. Pete (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 07:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

First Affidavit of Steve Pitkin and Second Affidavit of Steve Pitkin

As we know, public record does not imply public domain. Is there any reason to consider these PD? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: I don't see any. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 15:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:Salvador Allende's Last Speech

Alright, I'll just jump right to the issue. Why can't we view it? Can we explain this confusing issue or resolve it ASAP? Thank you in advance. NSWM1911 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• NSWM1911: I’ve taken the liberty to change the title to the title we used before deleting it. The discussion is here. The basic idea is that the speech is not an “edict of government,” which would be an exception under U.S. law; Chile does not have a “government works” exception; and the fact that the translation is freely licensed is irrelevant because the original work is still copyrighted. The discussion was closed by Xover, who is generally knowledgeable about such topics. As to my opinion, while I believe that Xover’s phrasing of the “edicts of government” doctrine is unduly limiting (some Presidential works, like Executive Orders, certainly count), I generally agree that, absent some unusual circumstance seemingly not present here, an executive’s speech is not an “edict of government.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

FOIA Request DOC-NOAA-2019-002194 - Hurricane Dorian-Related Records, Interim Document Release - 0.7.2809.35180

The description of this page states: "As part of the United States Freedom of Information Act, this email's contents were released into the public domain, following a U.S. citizens request for it to be made public."

Now I am no expert on American law, but I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. According to this page, "Information provided in response to an FOI request or listed in Publication Schemes, may be subject to copyright protection. The supply of documents under FOI does not automatically give the person or organisation who receives the information a right to reuse the documents in a way that would infringe copyright."

It seems to me that this is a Green Eggs and Ham situation, and this document is copyvio.

Courtesy ping, @WeatherWriter: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the U.S. Justice Department on the FOIA copyright guidelines, it seems like the U.S. Government conceals copyrighted information under Exemption 3 or 4, and info that isn’t exempt is published. I could be wrong on that. This was released by NOAA, under a NOAA URL. Per the NOAA disclaimer, “The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” Since this is hosted entirely on the NOAA web servers (www.noaa.gov…) & since it isn’t marked as being copyrighted, this would be in the public domain as far as I can tell. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that per the discussion at [[Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Kamoliddin_Tohirjonovich_Kacimbekov's_statement]], this may not be hostable as a standalone work but only as a subwork of the whole 100 document release: https://www.noaa.gov/foia/reading-room/hurricane-dorian-related-records. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I would argue this is different. For those, it appears there wasn’t a direct government disclaimer for it. Here, we have a direct statement that things hosted on their web servers/web sites are in the public domain unless specifically annotated otherwise. I do not see any clear annotations to the contrary, so this specific document would be PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, but you see that document release is only a subwork of the whole NOAA website :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a true fact. However, the disclaimer does not say whole works or whole NOAA website. Just that things hosted on the web servers and web sites are free to use. That is on the web servers of NOAA. No indication that only whole works are PD and not subpages by themselves. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry - this tangent about whether it's a subpage or a whole work has nothing to do with whether it's PD :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good indication that this work is PD after all. We'll need to update the discussion page to say that it's PD because of this disclaimer, rather than because it was released under FOI. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter hold up a sec — the disclaimer you linked to, applies to National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites, but the document in question is on the NOAA website, not the NWS website, so I don't see how it applies here. From what I can tell, the NWS is only a part of the NOAA, so I don't see how the NOAA website could be construed as a NWS web site. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The statement in the FOIA notice (as to copyright) is incorrect. However, Gibbs appears to be an employee; as an employee, her e-mail is a work of the U.S. government, and is in the public domain for that reason. As to the separate-work issue, the e-mail is one work (even though included in a longer FOIA release), and can be hosted separately for that reason. (In any case, that’s an issue for proposed deletions, not copyright discussions.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom 2000-05-22

This is not a legal document at all, but an arbitral document. Even if it were legal, it is the equivalent of a complaint in a civil case, which is not the work of any government nor an edict thereof. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. Precedent was set in "Copyright status of court submissions" and "DNC_Lawsuit_against_Russia,_Wikileaks_et_al..?" that court fillings/submissions by private lawyers are copyright works to the lawyers. The same would apply to submissions to arbitral boards and other tribunals or in the case of this document the Permanent Court of Arbitration. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Pet the statement on the PCA webpage: "This website and its Content are subject to the PCA’s copyright, and may not be used, translated, or adapted for commercial purposes without prior permission from the PCA." For reference the case is here: https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/35/. 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The People of the State of California vs Sylvia Celeste Brown and Kensil Dalzell Brown

A complaint in state court, not a judgment (in federal or state court) nor a document to which PD-USGov applies. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Per w:en:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States there may not be copyright under California. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

A Gent from Bear Creek (novella)

This Robert Howard novella, according to the description on the page, was initially published in the UK in 1937 and later in the US in 1966. It cites a Gutenburg AU project that presents works in the public domain in Australia. There is no copyright banner on the page, and while I may be missing some nuance, it's hard to see where it would have lapsed into the public domain under US law, which is necessary by Wikisource's copyright policy. -Pete (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The PG notice is not for A Gent from Bear Creek (novella), but A Gent from Bear Creek (short story), which is also a chapter of A Gent from Bear Creek (novella).

As published after 1963, it's not eligible for {{PD-no-renewal}}, but as this is wholly unsourced and I couldn't find a scan of it I can't check for {{PD-US-no-notice}}.

I'd say  Delete as we can't establish a certainty that this is PD. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 12:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: The short story (and possibly the others) may also need to be deleted. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 14:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. The book is a fix-up novella, containing original short stories adapted to form the chapter of a continuous narrative. All were previously published in magazines (most of them in Action Stories). Which means we have the copyright status of the original short stories (first publication) to contend with, where "was copyright transferred to the publisher"-type problems are in play, in addition to the new copyright for the (modified) versions in the 1937 fix-up novella. And just to add insult to injury this edition is so rare that there are only 11 copies known in private hands and 7 in libraries, so checking one for the presence or absence of a copyright notice is… challenging. The 1965 US edition is known to have a copyright page which also lists that as the "First American Edition", so it was not simultaneously published in the US.

ISFD is a great resource for researching Howard works. Here is the overview for the novel (including links to overviews for the individual stories). Here is the overview for the first edition. And here is the first US edition. Xover (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: At least one of the British Isles libraries which owns it should be willing to send me a scan (of the copyright information); I’ve just sent for one. I’ll report back here once that happens. Hopefully it will have more detailed information on the original sources of the short stories. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Discourses on Livy (Neville)

There could be a copyright problem concerning Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. The text we have on Wikisource claims to be the Henry Neville translation (first published in 1675). But it doesn't read like a 17th century text.

According to the Talk Page, the text was apparently lifted from http://constitution.org/2-Authors/mac/disclivy_.htm, and a Note on the Text there claims it's the Neville text but with "corrected obvious typographical errors and misspellings" and apparently some other, vaguely-specified, changes.

But, even if we still allow this as public domain (which is questionable), it doesn't seem to be the same translation. The first sentence of Book One of the Neville translation (1720 edition) is:

Considering with my self what honour is given to Antiquity, and how many times (passing by variety of instances) the fragment of an old Statue has been purchas'd at an high rate by many people, out of curiosity to keep it by them, as an ornament to their house, or as a pattern for the imitation of such as delight in that art; and with what industry and pains they endeavour afterwards to have it represented in all their buildings.

whereas the opening sentence of the version on Wikisource is:

When I consider how much honor is attributed to antiquity, and how many times, not to mention many other examples, a fragment of an antique statue has been bought at a great price in order to have it near to one, honoring his house, being able to have it imitated by those who delight in those arts, and how they then strive with all industry to present them in all their work:

Finally, when I search for sentence fragments of the Wikisource text on Google Book Search, the earliest book which keeps coming up is: Anthony J. Pansini (1969) Niccolò Machiavelli and the United States of America. The Google Books blurb which accompanies the book says: "The commentary (p. 1-234) is followed by Pansini's translations based on the 1772 edition published in London under title: Tutte l'opere di Niccolò Machiavelli."

So is Wikisource hosting a 1969 translation by Anthony J. Pansini? Pasicles (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom; as far as I can tell this analysis appears to be correct. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Art of War (Neville)

I found this second Machiavelli text, on Wikisource since 2005, but with the same problem. This time the source is asserted to be: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/machiavelli-the-art-of-war-neville-trans, and again claiming to be by Henry Neville.

But, again the language is too modern, and once again a Google Book Search comes up with: Niccolò Machiavelli and the United States of America by Anthony J. Pansini.

A little bit about Pansini's book can read here. A hefty 1358-page tome written by an "Italian-American patriot" and enthusiast, keen to assert "the relevance of Machiavelli for the United States" or some such. Pasicles (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, I haven't checked to verify, but your analysis on Discourses on Livy (Neville) was thorough enough that I'm willing to take your word for it lol —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu

Although this work was published by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (a US government institution), its author was not an employee of the US government, so I am unsure whether {{PD-USGov}} applies. I do not see any other rationale for this work being PD in the US. (The author, Sylvia L. Asa, at the time worked for the University of Toronto and for Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: that USgov agency is only described as publisher, not author, so not PD. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment If this work is deleted, then the author page Author:Sylvia L. Asa should be deleted also, as well as the file File:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu on Commons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Open letter to the Assembly of the SFRJ and to the Assembly of SR Serbia by the Free University (1984)

No source, no license, no translator info, and no indication of PD status —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: although from talk it appears it was extracted from this book (also maybe confirmed by match of first words) in which case translator is likely author of that book Branka Magaš (as it matched nowhere else), but anyway this doesn't look like it's in any variety of PD so all of that doesn't matter. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment If this page is deleted, then the following Author pages should be deleted also: Zagorka Golubović, Nebojša Popov, Miladin Životić, Svetozar Stojanović, Mihailo Marković, Dobrica Ćosić, Dragoljub Mićunović, Ljubomir Tadić —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Some stories in Modern Japanese Stories

Some of the stories in this collection may still be copyrighted in the US. commons:COM:JAPAN#Terms says that works whose author died after 1945 were restored by the URAA, and several stories have such authors and were originally published after 1928. At a glance, these include:

• "Hydrangea" (published in 1931, author died in 1959)
• "Brother and Sister" (published in 1934, author died in 1962)
• "The Charcoal Bus" (published in 1952, author died in 1993)
• "Machine" (published in 1930, author died in 1947)
• "The Moon on the Water" (published in 1953, author died in 1972)
• "The Song Bird" (published in 1938, author died in 1959)

(not-yet-transcribed stories)

• "Morning Mist" (published in 1950, author died in 1990)
• "The Hateful Age" (published in 1947, author died in 2005)
• "Tokyo" (published in 1948, author died in 1951)
• "A Man's Life" (published in 1950, author died in 1972)
• "The Idiot" (published in 1946, author died in 1954)
• "Shotgun" (published in 1949, author died in 1991)
• "A Visitor" (published in 1946, author died in 1948)
• "The Priest of Shiga Temple and His Love" (published in 1954, author died in 1970)

Prospectprospekt (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Could you look closer at this? The collection was published in the UK, so lack of renewal would seem to be irrelevant. Did you find evidence that it was simultaneously published in the US? And while if the translations into English are all by Morris they might conceivably be PD with the collection, the originals (whether Japanese or English) were clearly not first published in this collection. In other words, I don't see by what path these could be public domain. Xover (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Index:Conversion of an existing gas turbine to an intercooled exhaust-heated coal burning engine. (IA conversionofexis00kowa).pdf

1990 Academic thesis. No indication author was a federal employee. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Author was at the Naval Academy, received a commission before [22] and served as an engineering officer in the navy [23] after. In theory he could have resigned his commission, paid back the tuition etc. attended graduate school and then joined afterwards, I am sure someone can find his service records to confirm, but I suspect he was serving in the Navy at the time. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the confirmation I need. Can you bookmark that resource for checking other NPS documents? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Model Engineer & Practical Electrician 1501.pdf

1930 publication of UK origin. - This is to recent to automatically apply a PD-US tag. The file as uploaded has no licence information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For our purposes, it's clearly a US work; see the top of the cover. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html lists every periodical that was first published before 1950 and renewed; it doesn't list this one, so it wasn't renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Spring and all - William Carlos Williams.djvu

This book was published in France, and is under copyright in that country until 2034, so the file will need to be localized to Wikisource until then. The copy on Commons violates their rules. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete on Commons, as we only care about the copyright status in the United States. Per c:COM:HIRTLE, the work is 100% in American PD.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

When we do that, it will disappear from Wikisource too, because it is currently on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure if the French copyright term of 70 years p.m.a (per c:COM:FRANCE) is retroactive, because if it is not then it should enter French public domain at 58 years p.m.a. (i.e. 2021, 1963+58). I left a question on Common's VPC. If the question is negative then probably I'll try to move the file here and start a deletion request on Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

All the EU extensions were retroactive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A possible problematic book - duplicated from the scriptorium

As @user:Beleg Tâl, noticed, and I am also confused about this publication's license to be considered in public domain Diamonds To Sit On.

This book is universally known as The twelve chairs.. and is also faithfully recreated comedy film by Mel Brooks. This title was published earlier in English.

The two books are identical. It's possible that this publication was to circumvent the then existing copyright laws? — ineuw (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not getting the problem. The underlying work was published in 1928 by authors who died more than 74 years ago, and thus are out of copyright in Russia and the US. They were also Soviet works, and the Soviet Union had no foreign copyright treaties until the 1950s.

So we're looking at the English translation, and I don't see any evidence that any translation was published under the name The Twelve Chairs until John H. C. Richardson's translation in 1961. HathiTrust doesn't have their copy visible, but https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007116969 is the earliest copy they have, and it's the same 1930 work published in the US, for which there's no copyright renewal. I don't know how this was circumventing any then-existing copyright law.

If someone can show an earlier publication or a renewal I somehow missed, then maybe it's still under copyright for a couple years, but it looks clear to me.

(And Twelve Chairs/12 стульев was a movie by famed director Leonid Gaidai. It even has more ratings on IMDB than the Mel Brooks adaptation, even given the IMDB's English bias.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I will remove the notices from the author pages. — ineuw (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ineuw you can't remove the {{no license}} tag from the author pages, without adding a valid license tag! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl What do you mean by a license tag on the author`s page? Do you mean the copyright license? Isn't it the wrong place? — ineuw (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright tag, {{PD-US}} or {{PD-old}} or whatever. You forgot to add one when you removed {{no license}}. It looks like they have been fixed now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My knowledge of current Author page requirements is very limited. The numerous updates to contributions I made prior to the past decade were made by User:Billinghurst, and other editors. — ineuw (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I scanned in the book and so did some bibliographic research with respect to it. It is at least in the public domain in the United States. The original text was published in 1928, and so is in the public domain owing to age. The 1930 translation was not renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Civil Code of Cambodia and associated pages

The text is a translation of the Civil Code of Cambodia by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). While Cambodian law are in public domain (cf. c:COM:Cambodia), the English translations are, according to JICA's site policy, copyrighted and all rights reserved (with reproduction prohibited as well). The texts are therefore clear copyright violations and should be deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Associated pages: Civil Code of Cambodia/B1, Civil Code of Cambodia/B2.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hope (Lu)

If this translation exceeds the threshold of originality, then do we have proof of authorized publication in the United States within 30 days of publication in China? Some of the Yangs' translations were published in the US by Cameron Associates in Chosen Pages From Lu Hsun, but we don't know when exactly that was published and if publication was authorized, especially since I've heard that the US didn't have copyright relations with China around the time of the Cultural Revolution? Prospectprospekt (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

How can I tell if something was published inside the US?

I'm working on a project to digitise public domain NZ novels, some of which may be suitable for wikisource. I've identified several authors whose works may fall under {{PD-1996}} (published outside the US, no copyright notice, died before 1946 so PD in NZ before URAA date). My problem is determining whether the works were published in the US. I can see multiple ways to check copyright renewals; is there a way to check publication?-- IdiotSavant (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see why you'd need to. The URAA, for copyright purposes, only changed non-US works from being public domain to being copyrighted. If a work was a US work, or was still copyrighted in the US, its status didn't change. If a work was renewed, then it might be copyrighted in the US (probably not if a significant number were printed without a copyright notice), but if it was published before 1963, and wasn't renewed, then the only question is was it in the public domain in 1996 in its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'd been using the {{PD-1996}} template as a checklist, so I'd regarded that clause as significant. If its not, then I guess I'll dig round for a candidate work to upload. IdiotSavant (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It would make a difference only if the work was published in the United States within 30 days after its publication outside the United States. Unfortunately, as far as I know there are no systematic ways how to check this. BTW, some time ago I was explained that "publication" in the sense of the US law means not only publication by a publisher, but it is enough if the work was merely sold or otherwise distributed in the US to be considered "published" there, but this is extremely difficult to track. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why does that matter as to the final state? For works published before 1964, you can simply check if they had a renewal; if they didn't, their copyright had lapsed in the US before 1996. If it was out of copyright in its home nation or it was published in the US within 30 days, the URAA wouldn't have restored it, so it's enough to know that it was out of copyright in its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

And what about works published before 1964 outside US which were copyrighted in its home country on the URAA date? If such works were published simultaneously in the USA and they for example do not have a copyright notice, they should be PD in the US. But if they were not published simultaneously in the US, they are copyrighted. Do I understand it right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, now I can see that the original question contained the information that the work was PD in the home country on the URAA date. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Related question: which country is the "home country"? To give a specific example, Check To Your King by Author:Robin Hyde (AKA Iris Wilkinson) was published in 1936 and has no copyright notice. The author is a kiwi (born in South Africa, lived in NZ, died in London in 1939). Its a New Zealand book by a New Zealand author. But of course the publisher is British, because colonialism (and Hyde had one hell of a colonial cringe; she wrote a whole novel about it apparently). If I go by the author, copyright expired in 1990, so no problem. If I go by the publisher, copyright had expired in 1990, but was retroactively extended on 1 January 1996 to last until 2010. Which I assume is a problem under URAA? IdiotSavant (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the "home country" is determined by the "printed in London", so we can't host that for another 8 years. — Alien  3
3 3 09:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I was afraid that would be the answer. So, if I want to take advantage of this, I would need to focus on things printed in NZ, with authors who died before 1946, and printed before 1971 (to cover typographical copyright). I wonder if there's anything which will qualify... IdiotSavant (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are also all the books published before '29, and all those whose authors died before '26. — Alien  3
3 3 10:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Though many of those have already been covered by NZETC, and I don't want to waste time duplicating their work (others may want to however). I've definitely got some candidate works they haven't covered lined up, however. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Western Front

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied; blatant copyvio.

Clear copyvio, it's not 2025 yet. No objections to restoration when it is out of copyright though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedied to avoid a zero-sum weeks-long discussion. It's a popular work from after 1928 from outside the US, so very obviously a copyright violation. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There may be some other speedies uploaded by the same contributor. Mostly blank placeholders. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP page for that does say The book entered the public domain in the United States in 2024, with [24], that looks mostly reliable, as a source. Sure it isn't? — Alien  3
3 3 16:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333: That is a fair point, so I looked to it. The original German version would be in the public domain since it was released in December 1928, but as a matter of fact Wheen's English translation is still in copyright for another few months. See Renewal R171516 from 1929, and also Renewal R200027 (must be some other edition) from 1930.

And anyhow, what was submitted at All Quiet on the Western Front was a bare copypasta with no formatting, and I mass-deleted about 17 other pages by this same user just a little bit ago on the same basis. In January, we should give All Quiet some justice with a good transcription. Now just isn't the time for the transcription, but it's never the time for the laziest solution possible. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Durruti is Dead, Yet Living

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept as PD-US-no-renewal

Allegedly published in 1936, but the source publication is not mentioned, just "Obtained from the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford, California" and the claimed licence is PD-US-no-renewal. However, the licence is impossible to determine without the source publication being given. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, but a scan of the microfilm is available here: https://archive.org/details/goldmanwritings9101emma_5/page/n233/. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The scans show it was published in 1936 (the english text is one page further down, there), and the stanford database has nothing, so I don't see why it isn't no-renewal. — Alien  3
3 3 13:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the scans, that settles it. I am going to speedy it as kept. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Songs for Children Sung in Japan

There are parts of the book by Japanese authors who died after 1945, which means the URAA would have restored their copyright, as Japan was life + 50 at the time. There's even authors like Author:Yaso Saijō, who died in 1970, and since Japan became a life+70 country, are still in copyright until 2040. Those authors would need to be removed to keep what's left. Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: Unless it could somehow be the case that any of those challenged poems were published in Japanese before 1929? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (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)