Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2013-06

Kept

Copyright of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, properly licensed work, No expectation of copyright protection for response to direct questions from Supreme Court. Jeepday (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Oral argument

I've added a transcript of oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, at Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Oral argument.

The text of the transcript is from Oyez Project, and there is some minor de minimus header background info in the way of case information at the top from LexisNexis.

Presumably testimony and oral argument before a federal court in any lower or upper jurisdiction of United States federal courts is public domain as a direct product of the United States federal government.

The audio version is copyrighted by Oyez Project, but I don't think the text-based transcript itself of proceedings in open court can be subject to any copyright except public domain as a product of the U.S. federal government.

Just checking here, to see if that sounds right?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In my memory when similar questions have come up in the past, the decision was that content otherwise copyright protect did not loose that protection as being part of court case. I have browsed the archives, but was not able to locate the past decisions. Per Wikisource_talk:Possible_copyright_violations#Speeches_.26_manifesto a speech that was prepared for would have a written foundation that would automatically be copyrighted. Though impromptu speeches (as in replies to direct questions, without an expectation of privacy) would not by copyrighted. Parts of oral presentations of federal employees would be treated differently then private citizens per {{PD-USGov}}. Jeepday (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so this would be the response to direct questions from Supreme Court justices and thus not subject to copyright, correct? -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would think so. Oral arguments in the Supreme Court are almost always interactive, and, because of that, the exchanges take place on-the-fly while an opening or closing statement is more akin to the typical uninterrupted, well-rehearsed speech or address. Vote to Keep. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, if it wasn't obvious before, I would also like to Keep, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Slash and burn

The following discussion is closed:

Keep OTRS validation and release CC-BY-SA-3.0 Jeepday (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure this is to be hosted here. I left a post at User_talk:Svedjebruk#Slash_and_burn. And if so, is it OK from Copyvio perspective?--Mpaa (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like an English translation originally taken from HERE. I can't make heads or tails what it says about copyright there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate turns "Denne publikasjonen må gjerne siteres og brukes. Copyrightreglene tilsier at kildehenvisning blir oppgitt." into "This publication may quote and used. Copyright rules dictate that attribution is given.".--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The no.wikisource version has a history going back only to March 8, 2013 and only the single user has edited it. There is no license template on the work, there is an ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5 posted in the header. In a random google search for phrases only found the no.wikisource version posted on line. Searching the ISBN link at no. got me to here and searching Svedjebruk / Per Martin Tvengsberg got me to google books Svedjebruk. All of this combined makes the user name posting the work a book title, of a 2010 work by Martin Tvengsberg, who I am unable to find a wikipedia entry on in en.wikipedia or no.wikipedia for. The author has published works dating from 1973 to 2010 here A global user search for ’Svedjebruk’ finds little more then works we are discusing, barring some verifiable indication of CC on the orginal work, both language versions would seem to be copyvios. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just tagged the work with {{copyvio}} and found this message at the top "This publication may be quoted and used. Copyright rules dictate that the source reference is given. Author's address: Per Martin Tvengsberg Warangu Mois EE-46231 Varangu Estonia E-mail: warangu@gmail.com Publisher: Finnish Norwegian Forest Museum N0-2639 Grue Finnskog E-mail: post@skogfinskmuseum.no Flisa Trykkeri AS. ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5". Thoughts on if this is compatible with CC? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am Per Martin Tvengsberg. Bj;rn Eggen is helping me in publishing this in English. I want this to be translated and published.I have written to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to get the nessesarry documentations, please write to me at: warangu@gmail.com and tell me what to do or to my helper bjorn@driftskonsult.no. Excuse me for beeng an old man and not very good at internet. —unsigned comment by Svedjebruk (talk) .

We will not delete the work while there is reason to believe that you are still working through the permissions process. For legal reason the content should remain hidden, as it currently is. As a rule we don’t send emails but will leave a note at User talk:Svedjebruk or no:Brukerdiskusjon:Svedjebruk. As you move through the permissions process please leave a note here with any updates. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am Bjørn Eggen. The Slash and burn site in Enhlish is a translation of the book Svedjebruk HERE and the original book Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5. —unsigned comment by Svedjebruk (talk) .

I used http://translate.google.com/#no to read no:Brukerdiskusjon:Svedjebruk and see you are working through the licensing and uploading to commons of the original book there. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Did you translate the book to English? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)

I am Bjørn Eggen. The Author; Per Martin Tvengsberg translated it. I am Bjørn Eggen. Nothing is happening. No responce in the permission process. They do not even answer the application.We tried once more today:

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: "Bjørn Eggen" <bjorn@driftskonsult.no> To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Subject: Fwd: Publishing "Slash and burn" in Wikimedia Date: 13. april. 2013 12:13

The Norwegian version is on Wikikilden and the English on Wikisource. The original book is scanned in here: http://no.wikisource.org/wiki/Side:Boken_p%C3%A5_norsk_Prosjekt_1.pdf/1 and the email address in the scanned book is the email address the Author is using when he emails you. The Project is holtet in wait of your response. Please acknowledge you have received this application and let us work on the project while you decide.Best Regards

Bjørn Eggen

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: "Per Martin Tvengsberg" <warangu@gmail.com> To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Subject: Publishing "Slash and burn" in Wikimedia Date: 13. april. 2013 11:47

Hello

I am Per Martin Tvengsberg, the author of "Svedjebruk" ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5. Bjørn Eggen is helping me on translating and publishing both english and norwegian version of Svedjebruk, english version is called "Slash and burn". What is necessary to do to get permission for publishing these in Wikimedia?

Per Martin Tvengsberg —unsigned comment by Svedjebruk (talk) .

• It can take 3 or 4 months for the request to process. During that time the work will remain hidden by the {{copyvio}} this is for legal reasons. You may continue to work on the translation, but the {{copyvio}} must stay at the top of the page. (edit correct major typo- Once the copyright status is confirmed we can unhide your work.) If you have any questions just ask. Jeepday (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have prodded at OTRS boards and I will see if we can get someone to look in the Commons' queues and respond here. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

  • OTRS Received An email regarding the article above has been received but has not yet been processed. It is currently filed under Ticket # 2013040210010711 in permissions-commons queue. Morgankevinj (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am Bjørn Eggen: The following confirmation is from the Publisher: Finnish Norwegian Forest Museum and is sendt to permission-commons:

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: Dag Raaberg <dag@skogfinskmuseum.no> Date: 15 April 2013 15:55 Subject: Copyright to "Svedjebruk", Norsk Skogfinsk Museum 2010 ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5 To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: Per Martin Tvengsberg <warangu@gmail.com>

Per Martin Tvengsberg has the copyright and can translate and change the written text in this book.

Norsk Skogfinsk Museum

Dag Raaberg (Director)

We got OTRS ticket number 2013040210010711, please release this site. Bjørn Eggen

Second John A. Macdonald death threat

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, license with {{PD-Canada-anon}}. Jeepday (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This work is only licensed with {{PD-Canada}}, as I am pretty sure that Anonymous did not die in the last 50 years. I am unsure if it could be called Published 50 years ago under crown copyright, the licenses would seem inappropriate, so are there any suggestions for licensing? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia says in w:List of countries' copyright lengths that Canadian anonymous works get 50 years from publication or 75 years from creation, so a 1889 work is out of copyright in Canada. For US law, either this counts as legally published pre-1923 or never legally published with permission of copyright holder until 2002 (where as an anonymous work it gets a legal presumption of 120 years from creation). It seems pretty clearly PD in the US and Canada.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, here is the official law the work was created in 1885. that is more then 75 years so it is PD-Canada. It is interesting to note the neither our template our nor commons list this… Ok here it is commons uses commons:template:PD-Canada-anon, we should probably create it here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I imported the Commons licence and localised it: {{PD-Canada-anon}}. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted

Book of Common Prayer (1987)

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, unable to show appropriate licensing. Jeepday (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Book of Common Prayer (1987) was recently just Book of Common Prayer. I moved it after it was pointed out on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help‎ that we have multiple versions. However, it was also pointed out, and backed up here, that this text is based on a 1987 Cambridge University Press edition of the Book of Common Prayer, which incorporated modifications made in 1964-68. The original Book is clearly out of copyright by age (outside the UK anyway) but I am honestly not sure about this edition. I think the modifications might initiate a completely new copyright (from 1968 if not 1987), so I have brought it here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Verified the bit about those modifications made in the 60's being in the 1987 "edition", and would tend to agree with Adam's assessment as a result, but I'm not totally convinced the "modifications" made by the Clergy were actually "new" (i.e. never published before) additions. The modification could merely have been a return to [re]include just-as-old, previously published content that was omitted/lost for a period of time for some reason - the rest of that source page seems to show an instance or two where bits and pieces of the same original content was included or excluded from edition to edition depending on the era the official book was [re]published.

Admittedly, I'm so not the organized, religious type to be 100% sure I'm properly perceiving all that I'm reading however and I don't remember if the merging of previously published public domain content with other previously published public domain content constitutes enough of a "spark of creativity" to be considered a new & copyright protected work or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost sure it isn't, but considering we have the 1892 printing, we don't really need the edition that may or may not contain copyvios, as the two are probably over 95% identical. The text of the 1987 printing can be used as a basis for proofreading the pages of the 1892 printing, though, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to delete it. Angr 11:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote the above I didn't realize the 1892 printing uses 17th-century spelling. It would be unfortunate if we didn't have any version of the Church of England's BCP in modern spelling (of course the ECUSA BCP is in modern spelling). Angr 12:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, while the original Chinese text is PD, the Japanese translation to English is not shown to be PD. Jeepday (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems really close to the discussion that closed a similar work -- Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2011-04#Struggle_of_the_people_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands_against_U.S._occupation -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I will remove the Chinese txt from the article leaving only the English except. --Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed US and China copyright law. The article is public domain in China from 1990 and thus it is public domain in US.

In China, the article is public domain. w:en:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990)

Article 5　This law shall not be applicable to:

(2) news on current affairs;

Article 22　In the following cases, a work may be used without permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work shall be indicated and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law shall not be prejudiced:

(3) use of a published work in newspapers, periodicals, radio programmes, television programmes or newsreels for the purpose of reporting current affairs;

In the United States, the article is public domain.

Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad 1923 through 1977

Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996[1]

Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Even if all that was indeed the case here - the remaining problem is that the translation is merely an excerpt and not the full translation of a WS compliant transcription of the 1953 Chinese article as it was originally published. We don't host excerpts per policy. And any translation to English must be in full as well as attributed to the proper translator under an acceptable license. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, unclear copyright status. Jeepday (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced {{PD-EdictGov}} is broad enough to cover documents like this, which are essentially a declaration of aims. Prosody (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Land Letter

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, No indication of PD release. Jeepday (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty open and shut. Letter by private citizen to US President made in very recent past. No reason for it to meet our copyright criteria. —unsigned comment by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) .

• Actually a letter made by the head of a public policy organization but still no indication they've released it for further public use See Website. Delete. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

End-of-ceasefire declaration by CPN (Maoists), 2 January 2006 - unofficial translation

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, no indication of release. Jeepday (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation of a fixed text made by a representative of a non-governmental political party in 2006. Nepal's a party in the major multilateral copyright treaties. Can't think of any reason why the original wouldn't be under copyright and the translation a derivative work. Prosody (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete as described. This might be similar to the various political campaign material and manifestos that get listed here a lot. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Leon Cantelon

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, no indication of release. Jeepday (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Letter written in 1957, no indication it was legally published. licensed with {{PD-Canada|1979}}, which as the DOD is less then 50 years indicates not PD. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete The uploader may have assumed crown copyright because the author was Prime Minister. However, it looks like a private letter, so I don't think that applies (and he was just an MP at the time anyway, this is dated three months before he took office). The licences used for the original on Commons conflict with each other, so that doesn't help. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Speech to the Conservative Party Conference

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Not likely PD-EdictGov. No British license proven.--Jusjih (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1980 speech by Margaret Thatcher. Unlicensed and, as far as I can tell, still under copyright until 2083/84. This is partly related to the concurrent discussion about {{PD-EdictGov}}, with which I would have tagged this work until today. This is not a law, judicial ruling or anything of the kind. Additionally, I don't think party conference speeches are covered by any similar case (ie. {{PD-USGov}} in the US, because they are not given in the course of Federal government business). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• delete — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Other

PD-Canada

The following discussion is closed:

request completed.

Would someone be willing to put the author DOD parameter on the template {{PD-Canada}}? Jeepday (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The template has been suitably complicated, using bits from {{PD-US-no-renewal}} and the existing text. Is that what you wanted? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for working on it, can you make it so it does not say is in the public domain if the math is wrong? i.e. Author:Louis St. Laurent DOD 1973. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Moved to Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty.

copyright status of Gandhi's original works?

The following discussion is closed:

General discussion on copyright status for author. Jeepday (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is the copyright status of Gandhi's original works in Gujarati?

Sorry, but from what I know, I'm not sure that they are in the public domain in the US.

I assume that Gandhi's works in Gujarati have never been published in the US.

Gandhi's writtings are in the public domain in their country of origin, India, since it applies a term life + 60 years.

But the rule of shorter term isn't applied in the US. So the full term (life + 70 years) is to be applied.

I come to the conclusion that Gandhi's already published works in Gujarati will enter in the public domain in the US not before January 1st, 2019.

Could you confirm whether Gandhi's original works are in the public domain in the US or not?

Many thanks for your help, --Ousia (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi's works published prior to 1923 are in the public domain in the United States, regardless of language or country first published in. Everything else is as you say. Prosody (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Only unpublished works and works first published after 2002 are life+70. Anything published 1923-1977 gets 95 years from publication, and works published 1978-2002 expire in 2048.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlicensed Debates

The following discussion is closed:

unlikely to be copyright violations in these works. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

While cleaning up after the closed discussion Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#2012_Presidential_campaign_works I noticed that the two pages Author:Barack Obama & Author:Joe Biden are pregnant with works that would seem to have the same licensing issues related to campaign work for 2008. Is there a volunteer to go through and suggest which ones should be listed here? Jeepday (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the Obama Administration exercises an additional CC-BY-3.0 license (very bottom of his Author: page) for everything ex. that appears on the Whitehouse.gov website or sites not already covered by usual copyright exclusion for Federal workers. The same applied for his transistion site, Change.gov, back in 2008-2009 after he was elected but before he was sworn in. In short, most everything post Nov. 2008 posted on any Executive Branch website not already excluded by "works of a Federal employee..." are released under the CC-BY-3.0 license instead. A few pieces from 2008 campaign days have been (re)released in various forms &/or at various sites since first made as well. (Again, as mentioned elsewhere, works in this vein for most "dead" Presidents are now PD because their Presidential Libraries are established with the help of NARA and that pretty much forces anything and everything (within reason) related to that President into PD. Its all going to be PD one day; just not all today) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)