Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-12
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Kept
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
- Keep: appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Barack Obama on The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan - 8 January 2009
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CCA release JeepdaySock (talk)
This speech was made outside of the course of official work. I believe it remains under copyright and thus, in the absence of any free-use license, it cannot be included in Wikisource or Wikilivres. --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- But it was on change.gov, so said copyright would seem to be licensed CC-BY-3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Covered by transition site Change.gov Creative Commons license George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, PD-Gov JeepdaySock (talk)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, PD-USGov JeepdaySock (talk)
- As part of the GPO's "Collection of Presidential Documents," this looks like a clear-cut case of {{PD-USGov}}. --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, PD-USGov JeepdaySock (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Robert Gates may have been a U.S. official at the time, but this speech was not in the course of his official work or duties. I believe it remains under copyright and is ineligible for Wikisource or Wikilivres. --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- what's the definition of a Secretary of Defenses' official duties exactly? George Orwell III (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is in the course of his official duties; at least, whenever I give a speech saying "[My boss] sends his greetings [...] First, some context on how we got to this point. [My boss]’s budget proposal is [...]", it's because my boss told me to and is paying me for it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The source page has moved from the URL given in this article's discussion page. I had to find it with a search engine. But since it's on a federal government website, I feel better now. :-) So keep. —LarryGilbert (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Barack Obama's election victory speech in Chicago - 4 November 2008
The following discussion is closed:
keep, PD license provided. Jeepday (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Excerpted from the book Obama in His Own Words, published by the Bureau of International Information Programs, a publication of the U.S. Federal Government. A reasonable assumption can then be made that it is excluded from copyright under title 17, making it PD-USGov.
George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)- George Orwell III (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept, CC 3 per below. Jeepday (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: duplicate of Barack Obama's first president-elect press conference, initial remarks (below). George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Barack Obama's first president-elect press conference, initial remarks - 7 November 2008
I'd consider president-elect good enough for PD-USGov. And below.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- This treads a really fine line drawn by the Presidential Records Act. See 44 USC §2201. Presidential records are considered public ownership of the U.S., but that does not extend to "personal records." Such personal records are defined to include "materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency…." That suggests that works of his as President-elect are not covered by the PRA and thus are still under copyright to him (or possibly to the Democratic National Committee in some instances). But since he did take such an active role in the transition between administrations and he was still (I think) a U.S. senator during that time, it's hard to argue that his work was "relating exclusively to [his] own election to the office." Thus it seems very murky to me. --LarryGilbert (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing murky in my opinion. If it appeared on change.gov, then its material willingly allowed for redistribution under CC 3.0 George Orwell III (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I keep forgetting how much Obama material is released under a Creative Commons license. I was just saying that being works by a president-elect does not necessarily make it public domain in the same way general works by the U.S. Government are in the public domain. If it's under a CC-BY license, then that makes the question moot for our purposes. --LarryGilbert (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing murky in my opinion. If it appeared on change.gov, then its material willingly allowed for redistribution under CC 3.0 George Orwell III (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: in light of keeping the duplicate above. George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted as duplicate of Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 7 November 2008. Jeepday (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, PD license provided. Jeepday (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep I changed the license from PD-manifesto, as it was a 1918 speech, and unless I'm completely wrong, the translation was done on Wikipedia and is thus under Wikipedia's license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very good discovery. That page was started in 2007 when Wikisource did not yet use cc-by-sa-3.0, but since m:Licensing update says that those already under GFDL may also use cc-by-sa-3.0, the licensing looks fine to me. However, I have not re-tagged most other Wikisource translations.--Jusjih (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, PD license provided. Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This user simply used the wrong template. It was established by Carl Lindberg and others that captured Nazi government documents are not eligible for URAA restoration of copyright under Germany's copyright laws (meaning regardless of the date of death of the author). The template I used for the Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality is the following:
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
| Original: | This foreign work was not registered for copyright in the United States upon first publication prior to 1964, and is not entitled to URAA restoration of copyright. It is also in the public domain in other countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 60 years or less since publication. |
|---|---|
| Translation: |
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse |
ResScholar (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then we should consider making a new copyright tag, though your way is the same as write-in, like commons:Template:PD-because.--Jusjih (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, PD licenses provided. Jeepday (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, A PD license has been provided. Jeepday (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, PD license provided. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, A PD license is provided. Jeepday (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
PD license is provided. Jeepday (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
PD license provided. Jeepday (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
keep, PD license provided. Jeepday (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Barack Obama: Remarks On Patriotism - 30 June 2008
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, PD-USGov, work published by US State Dept. George Orwell III (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
In Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2009-08#Democratic_Response_to_George_W._Bush.27s_Sixth_State_of_the_Union_Address.2C_Democratic_Response_to_George_W._Bush.27s_Seventh_State_of_the_Union_Address there was some discussion of the copyright of the speeches of federal senators. User:BD2412 wrote "I have searched diligently, and am unable to find an instance in which a member of Congress (or a governor, for that matter) has attempted to assert copyright over a public speech made by them. To the contrary, there are plenty of cases where members of Congress seek to shroud themselves in the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause for their public comments, which is essentially a concession on their part that such comments are made pursuant to their offices." and based on that, I'm tending to accept that we can take speeches like these by senators of the US government as PD-USGov. I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept that everything they say on the subject of politics falls under the aegis of their employer, but that seems to be the precedent here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Excerpted from the book Obama in His Own Words, published by the Bureau of International Information Programs, a publication of the U.S. Federal Government. A reasonable assumption can then be made that it is excluded from copyright under title 17, making it PD-USGov.
George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)George Orwell III (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Keep, PD via CC-3.0-US release by Change.gov/Whitehouse.gov George Orwell III (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- As Mr. Orwell III has pointed out, this and most other material from Change.gov has a CC-BY-3.0 license. --LarryGilbert (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- One more note: A lot of these press conference texts are transcripts from an unknown source, not the prepared remarks published on Change.gov. In particular, there are question-and-answer sessions that do not appear to be published on Change.gov. It would not be a good idea to claim those bits as having the same license as Change.gov unless they can be found there. --LarryGilbert (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would the text of question-and-answer sessions be copyrightable? Those are not written down beforehand, as speeches presumably are, and I think the U.S. has a fixation requirement in cases like these before you can copyright stuff. I suppose someone could copyright a transcription, but that copyright can't prevent someone else from doing their own transcription, correct? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Iowa stump speech - 10 November 2007
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, many of the authors works have been released under CC 3.0, but a PD release for this particular work has not been identified. Jeepday (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Campaign speeches are not part of a U.S. official's work or duties. Thus this would still be copyrighted, ineligible for Wikisource or Wikilivres in the absence of a free-use license. --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was a public speech. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the argument being made is that just because it was made in public, doesn't cancel our copyright ownership, well not sufficiently for us to house the work. billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right. But allow me to go back a bit and highlight something else I said above: "...in the absence of a free-use license." Barack Obama published much of his presidential campaign and administration transition material under a Creative Commons license, so the stump speech may be covered by that. But we should make sure there's a positive indication of that. Actually, let me go check that out and post an additional update here. —LarryGilbert (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I found it on a blog on my.barackobama.com, but that site does not have a Creative Commons license. And I couldn't locate it on Change.gov (which does). I doubt Obama would be against it, but legally we have to cross our i's and dot our t's [sic]. —LarryGilbert (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, Larry, you are missing the point. The copyright status of public speech is a positive right in the U.S. -- it is a right which must be actively claimed. The government can't require someone to utter some magical phrase (such as the GFDL) in order to allow their speech to be reprinted freely; that would completely violate the third article of the United States Bill of Rights, otherwise known as the first amendment to the Constitution. It's instead incumbent upon the speaker to claim ownership of said words.
- Right. But allow me to go back a bit and highlight something else I said above: "...in the absence of a free-use license." Barack Obama published much of his presidential campaign and administration transition material under a Creative Commons license, so the stump speech may be covered by that. But we should make sure there's a positive indication of that. Actually, let me go check that out and post an additional update here. —LarryGilbert (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the argument being made is that just because it was made in public, doesn't cancel our copyright ownership, well not sufficiently for us to house the work. billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you imagine that every person who speaks to a reporter intones under their breath at some point the GFDL, you are living in a fantasy world. If you think every reporter is a criminal for reprinting such speech without obtaining a GFDL from their subjects, then likewise. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that someone claim a copyright for it to exist. If you have some knowledge that there is some exception for public speech, please cite the (post-1989) law or court case. Reporters work in fair use, which is forbidden on Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note, in particular, w:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the public performance of his speech did not constitute "general publication" and thus by giving this speech in public he did not forfeit his copyright."
- Bull pucky. Of course there is such a requirement. And that case, in particular, was never decided one way or the other. Are you telling me that because a huge rich corporation, CBS, was shamed into settling out of court with the poor widow of one of America's most famous martyrs, that this somehow negates the Constitution? -- Kendrick7 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care what CBS did; I care what the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided, because those judges have a lot more experience than I do, and because that case is going to be cited in any lawsuit about the matter. That's the applicable case law on the subject, and saying "bull pucky" isn't going to change that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Bull pucky. Of course there is such a requirement. And that case, in particular, was never decided one way or the other. Are you telling me that because a huge rich corporation, CBS, was shamed into settling out of court with the poor widow of one of America's most famous martyrs, that this somehow negates the Constitution? -- Kendrick7 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note, in particular, w:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the public performance of his speech did not constitute "general publication" and thus by giving this speech in public he did not forfeit his copyright."
Barack Obama: The Great Need of the Hour - 8 January 2008
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, many of the authors works have been released under CC 3.0, but a PD release for this particular work has not been identified. Jeepday (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This speech was not part of the senator's official work or duties. I believe it remains copyrighted and thus ineligible for Wikisource or Wikilivres. --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not covered by any Creative Commons license that I can find. I'd only have questions about this one if had been given in Illinois, which he was representing at the time, rather than in Georgia - though technically we have no legal definition for what comprises a U.S. Senator's "official duties" as it applied in this specific instance so who can really say for certain.George Orwell III (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, there is no evidence that the speaker has claimed copyright here, which is required under U.S. law. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is no longer required under U.S. law. Copyright is automatic. Speech is not necessarily copyrighted though -- there needs to be a fixation. But if this speech was written down beforehand, as most of this sort of thing is, then it is copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Again, there is no evidence that the speaker has claimed copyright here, which is required under U.S. law. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Barack Obama press conference regarding the economic crisis - 23 September 2008
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, many of the authors works have been released under CC 3.0, but a PD release for this particular work has not been identified. Jeepday (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Not covered by any Creative Commons license that I can find George Orwell III (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No claim of copyright that I can find. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
delete
Deleted on 11 June 2011 by Billinghurst.--Jusjih (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted June 2011,
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted June 2011
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
PD-ineligible, as extemporaneous speech, perhaps?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder where the source of the text is.--Jusjih (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia, apparently the aide speaking was making a recording and after she resigned turned the tape over to the press.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.
Deleted as the contributor never showed credible copyright permission.--Jusjih (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.
Deleted for no license.--Jusjih (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Here I disagree, my understanding of PD-Manifesto has always been for exactly this kind of work, a criminal writing an "open letter". The rest of them make sense, this one I think should stay as it is the definition of PD-Manifesto. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 10:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that the argument being made is that PD-Manifesto has no basis in law. An open letter basically would allow fair-use, it does not seem to revoke copyright under the law. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. (Note that this version includes 2005 additions, there should be a 1912 version that would be PD. Jeepday (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
Report to the President for the White House Conference On Hate Crimes - 1 November 1997
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Still have questions about ths one only because it seems as if this and similar "reports" were requested to be compiled & submitted by some established intiative prior to President Clinton convening the Conference on Hate Crimes, 10 November 1997 George Orwell III (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Gandhi died in 1948, and India has a general term of 60 years pma, so any text would no longer be copyrighted there. On the other hand, the U.S. copyright may have been restored via the URAA, and if so would still exist. And on the third hand, if the text was not written down beforehand, then it actually may not be copyrightable. Twisted issues. The first two speeches though say they were given in Hindustani; there is no information on who the English translator is, and if there is any derivative copyright on that. No source given that I can see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD Manifesto has been abandoned as a viable PD license, no other PD is shown. Jeepday (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Here I disagree, my understanding of PD-Manifesto has always been for exactly this kind of work, a criminal writing an "open letter". The rest of them make sense, this one I think should stay as it is the definition of PD-Manifesto. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 10:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given here, an argument for PD is given on the talk page, but does not provided sufficient for PD on this work. Jeepday (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
None
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted June 2011
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no arguments or support for PD are given. Jeepday (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Tagged, not recorded
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is a public and political speech made by Soong Mai-ling(Madame Chiang Kai-shek) in the USA Congress on February 18, 1943, advocating the US military aids for the Republic of China. It should be in Public Domain, since on that occasion Soong May-ling was speaking on behalf of Republic of China, she was the de facto ambassador of China.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of your reasoning here. I don't know how exactly to argue this one; it was a US work at a time when US works required additional care, and it was published in a dozen publications in the 1940s (according to Google Books), so it would seem that it should be PD-US-no-notice or something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, Release does not meet our PD requirements. Jeepday (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I dug through Conservapedia. (And so I'm going to be taking a very thorough shower after this.) ;-) Its license is unique but looks about as free as is possible without actually putting things into the public domain. However, the site reserves the right to "clarify and amend its copyright" (license, I assume) at any time; I don't know whether there's a precedent for handling such things. Maybe a "Libre-Conservapedia" template or something just for them would be in order. --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: See discussion at Wikisource talk:Copyright policy. Prosfilaes points out that any revocability clause renders a free license essentially non-free, at least as far as Wikisource is concerned. I don't know about Wikilivres. --LarryGilbert (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This was a public speech. I'll fix the template if someone points me to the correct one. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll further point out, that Hoffman, the author of a work entitled Steal This Book would likely be horrified, were he still alive, that his anti-Government speech was now being suppressed because he failed to utter the text of the GNU Free Documentation License at some point, which didn't, obviously, exist in the 1960s or his lifetime. The besides of which, it has been reprinted and republished (as one of the "Great Speeches of the 20th Century") a number of times without challenge either from him or his estate. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad he'd be horrified that we don't steal. The publication in 1969 may have put it into the PD if he authorized it and it didn't have a copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- facepalm.jpg. There's no such thing as a copyright notice on speech. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Questions to answer: (1) Was the original in English or was this a translation? (2) What is the source of the translation? (3) Was this copyrighted or in the public domain under Zimbabwe law as of January 1, 1996 (assuming it was first published in Zimbabwe)? --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Other
Based on the consensus at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Move_PD-manifesto_works_to_Canadian_Wikilivres.3F I hereby nominate the following articles tagged {{PD-manifesto}} as possible copyright violations. If acceptable here with more proper licenses, including {{PD-ineligible}}, they are to be re-tagged. If no proper licenses apply to them but fitting Wikilivres:Template:Manifesto, I would like to prepare sending them to Canadian Wikilivres where any types of copyright licenses applicable in Canada is accepted, even if non-commerical and/or non-derivative. Otherwise, I suggest deleting them.--Jusjih (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I see no reply to many of these works, I am deleting some of them per Wikisource:Scriptorium#Canadian_Wikilivres_and_final_notice_to_fully_abolish_PD-manifesto posted on 2010-07-18.--Jusjih (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Many works listed at Category:Possible copyright violations
The following discussion is closed:
All the works currently listed in the category are listed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Jeepday (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There are a plethora of works listed at Category:Possible copyright violations that are not listed here for discussion. If someone has some spare time, it would be good if they could perused/pruned/culled or brought forward for discussion. billinghurst (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aren’t the great bulk of those instances of {{PD-manifesto}}? In that case, they are already being discussed here at /Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto, rather than cluttering up this page. Tarmstro99 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Works that may not be Edicts of Government
The following discussion is closed:
link to main discussion, no action required. Jeepday (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Works tagged PD-manifesto
The following discussion is closed:
All the articles have been individually addressed, those where PD licensing other then manifesto was available were kept, those without were deleted. All the individual discussions are closed and are/will be archived. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
While deprecating {{PD-manifesto}} being used in more than 100 pages, I would like to propose a subpage like /Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto, which is being used on Chinese Wikisource. Otherwise, listing the 100+ titles will make this page too long.--Jusjih (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever makes the discussion clear and managable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Started the subpage at /Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto.--Jusjih (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Archive, some of the above discussions are closed the closed ones have been archived to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2011-04. Please take a look at the remaining articles, many have no comments. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Archived more, closed discussions. Jeepday (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Closed a bunch more discussions, will let them mature a while before archiving and coming back to see what is left. Jeepday (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Many works listed at Category:Possible copyright violations
The following discussion is closed:
All the works currently listed in the category are listed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Jeepday (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There are a plethora of works listed at Category:Possible copyright violations that are not listed here for discussion. If someone has some spare time, it would be good if they could perused/pruned/culled or brought forward for discussion. billinghurst (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aren’t the great bulk of those instances of {{PD-manifesto}}? In that case, they are already being discussed here at /Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto, rather than cluttering up this page. Tarmstro99 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I announced a separate subpage at #Works tagged PD-manifesto, but many articles in questions have not received any comments about what should be done. Please comment as far as you can to help close the backlog with 100+ articles, while Chinese Wikisource has cleared all 45 works tagged PD-manifesto (retagged, sent to Canadian Wikilivres, or deleted) and finally abolished this type of assumed "public domain".--Jusjih (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (your only Chinese-speaking administrator here)