Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2013-10

Kept

Desiderata

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted as PD-US-no-notice.--Jusjih (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A court case^[1] and subsequent appeal^[2] have unambiguously judged this poem to be in the public domain in the United States. The details are outlined on W:Desiderata#History, and the full text of the poem itself is in W:Desiderata. As such, I propose recreation of Desiderata, or reversal of its deletion. Thoughts? —Hobart (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a little more research and I even found a better source:

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/archive/ar-1976.pdf [pg.16-17]

Rochefoucauld (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

References

1. Bell v. Combined Registry Company, 397 F. Supp. 1241, No. 72 C 1819 (Dist. Court, ND Illinois 1975) (“...the court finds that the author and copyright proprieter, Max Ehrman, both abandoned and forfeited the copyright in Desiderata.”).
2. Bell v. Combined Registry Co., 536 F. 2d 164, No. 75-1753 (Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1976) (“The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.”).

The Traffic Signs (Welsh and English Language Provisions) Regulations and General Directions

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Work properly licensed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Traffic Signs (Welsh and English Language Provisions) Regulations and General Directions 1985
• The Traffic Signs (Welsh and English Language Provisions) Regulations and General Directions 1985/Part2
• The Traffic Signs (Welsh and English Language Provisions) Regulations and General Directions 1985/Explanatory Note

Discussion migrated here from Scriptorium. I am proposing these for deletion because of concerns that although the legislation.gov.uk site is nominally Open Government License, there isn't a specfic statement confirming the specifc Open Government License release for contributions made by a third party ( which includes a specfic copyright indication.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just received confirmation from the National Archives - These are OGL with an attribution requirement :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted

Time Pawn

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, there is lengthy discussion about this work and similar works in general. In the end a consensus that this work is now PD was not reached. Jeepday (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

... by Author:Philip K. Dick that first appeared in the serial Thrilling Wonder Stories Volume 44, No. 1, Summer 1954.

A search of copyright.gov shows a Renewal registration for the original registration covering the contents of that issue (a periodical)

• B00000490065 / 1954-06-08
• RE0000112616 / 1982-01-07

Move to Wikilivres if appropriate; delete mainspace and Index: transcription if not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete. Dick died in 1982, so the work would still be copyrighted in Canada if it is copyrighted in the United States. I've realised what seemed familiar about this: it is related to the previous Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2013-02#Small Town deletion (and probably for the same reason; not realising that the periodical itself can affect the copyright). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish you geniuses had of had a look at this in the last six months since it was first put up as a transcription project before I fucking wasted hours transcribing this and proof reading it—unsigned comment by Coled (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2013.

For what it's worth: I apologise for not making the connection when I first became aware of this short story on Wikisource. I'll try to come up with something to prevent this particular situation from reoccuring. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The something you need to come up with is to request the paid legal staff to review the accuracy of the revisions of policy, guidelines, help pages and so on that you, AdamBMorgan, and George Orwell III have been making concerning contributions to periodicals and particularly to clarify the nature of a PCW copyright which you clearly don't understand. The definition, nature and scope of a PCW copyright can be unclear but making uneducated guesses instead of consulting authoritative legal references and/or knowledgeable attorneys is neither wise nor appropriate in these circumstances. I was initially uncertain whether a PCW copyright covered exclusive rights to the individual contributions during the time period relevant here and followed the advice I offer in the preceding sentence long before making any uploads. If I'd learned the PCW copyright renewals for periodicals containing real stories corresponding to deceptive false entries in RE0000190631 did somehow give exclusive rights to these contributions to the periodical owners and they'd amazingly failed to notice the infringements over the course of almost three decades I'd have informed them and hoped some would offer me something in the nature of a financial reward for drawing their attention to this. I certainly wouldn't have thrown away such an opportunity and instead risked severe financial and other legal penalties for uploading scans in violation of US copyright law.

All stories by Philip K. Dick which I've uploaded were in their first term of copyright on January 1, 1978. I draw your attention to 17 USC 304 as it existed from that time until amendment in 1992 with a link to the source I'm using.

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–307, § 102(a), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978.—Any copyright, the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for twenty-eight years from the date it was originally secured: Provided, That in the case of any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or of any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of forty-seven years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the Copyright Office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright: And provided further, That in the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work, the author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author’s executors, or in the absence of a will, his or her next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of forty-seven years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the Copyright Office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright: And provided further, That in default of the registration of such application for renewal and extension, the copyright in any work shall terminate at the expiration of twenty-eight years from the date copyright was originally secured.”

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–307, § 102(d), substituted “subsection (a)(1)(C)” for “second proviso of subsection (a)” in introductory provisions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/304?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8

KEEP. It's in the public domain in the United States. Request Wikisource/WMF legal staff to review recent revisions of policy, guideline and help pages concerning contributions to periodicals and some other matters. Major legal interpretations and "official Wikisource" statements of law are within the legal staff's scope of competence and authority and possibly solely within their authority.

Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Using what has been previously cited but reformatted for clarity and edited of all irrelevant provisos dealing with items other than the proprietorship to a specific issue of periodical vs. an individual's contribution to the class of periodicals (Note: bold-text, underlines and all-caps are mine, Italics are as codified), I'm going to try and explain this one more time. In addition, for proper reference and/or context, Public Law 102-307, as enacted (not as codified), is wikilinked just below. ..

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–307, § 102(a), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows:

“Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978.—Any copyright, the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for twenty-eight years from the date it was originally secured:
Provided, That in the case of any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or of any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of forty-seven years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the Copyright Office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright:
And provided further, That in the case of ANY OTHER COPYRIGHTED WORK, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work, the author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author’s executors, or in the absence of a will, his or her next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of forty-seven years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the Copyright Office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright:
And provided further, That in default of the registration of such application for renewal and extension, the copyright in any work shall terminate at the expiration of twenty-eight years from the date copyright was originally secured.”

That said, I'm kind of tired of being belittled at every perceived twist and turn that in reality is just going over the same ground on stuff like this. Off course, it is within any member's right to seek independent review and arbitration but appeals to some "higher" authority or power to 'check my work' because 'I clearly don't understand' is not exactly the way to go about it. I'm not a lawyer but I do have a fair amount of experience in matters of layout, format, style, interpretation and basis behind law-like works. So you can take the following for what it's worth at face value or investigate it yourself - the "higher authority" lawyer-review is unlikely to materialize regardless of which path is chosen.

1. Why Reformat the Clause at all? -- because it needed to be made clear that a list of provisos (3) exist.
2. Why bold-text the colon : and the signaled provisos that come after them? -- to illustrate the existence of a proper, narrative-style legal standard (i.e. <colon><Capital first lettered italicized proviso><comma><Capital first letter of the first word in the condition(s) or stipulation(s) that follow>
3. What the frack does any of this mean? -- a proviso, in general, contains one or more conditions (or stipulations) that a certain thing shall or shall not be done, in order a.) to move to address any provisos that may follow it under the same clause as the initial proviso; or b.) that an agreement contained/outlined in another clause shall take effect and supersede the attention of the initial clause.

In short, when interpreting multiple provisos (3 in this case) listed under a single clause (Section 304(a) as it was at the time in effect), you must ascertain if the condition(s) or stipulation(s) given in each proviso, and done in an order of succession starting with the first proviso to the next as listed (or depending upon), are satisfied (or not) to be able to determine if the need to address any other proviso(s) becomes paramount (or not). If there is only one proviso under a given clause, the question of what to address &/or in what order (most likely) moves to directly to the next clause in the listed order -- but determination still hinges on the same satisfaction (or not) of condition(s) or stipulation(s) as taking place beforehand.

In Section 304(a) of the Copyright law in question, the PCW related proviso is listed First, so the condition(s) and/or stipulation(s) outlined in it must be ascertained first in order to determine if the need to even address the Second proviso at all will materialize (or not). Only after a situation where both First & Second provisos have had their respective conditions ascertained would we ever get around to the remote possibility of a need to address the Third proviso actually materializing (or not).

A simple tabled depiction of the 3 listed provisos in question, with their ascertained conditional-dependent states for each (when done in the proper order), follows.

A.	B.	C.
True moot moot	False True moot	False False True

I'm saying the state of column A exists because (re-posted)... A search of copyright.gov shows a Renewal registration for the original registration covering the contents of that issue (a periodical / PCW)

• B00000490065 / 1954-06-08
• RE0000112616 / 1982-01-07

Since the condition for the First proviso is "True", the conditions outlined in the the Second and Third provisos do not need to be addressed, are in effect rendered moot by the nature of law and the interpretive focus of the law "should" move directly to the next clause in the existing listed order (Section 304(b) in this case) if need be. In order for this work to have fallen into the Public Domain and become OK to host on en.WS, a default (False/Fail) of the First and Second provisos must exist in order for the Third proviso to become "True" (that state is reflected by column C in the depiction).

... and my belief the state of column A exists is further supported by the underlined & All-Cap text I added to the Second proviso to make the conditional nature of such provisos as normally interpreted by the experts more clear to the reader. Pointing out the fact we do not have any evidence that Dick a.) affixed a second copyright notice independent of the proprietor's first (PCW) to be have been able to register the work in his name as an (A)uthor in the first place; which b.) is further evidenced by the lack of any registration no. provided to refute that apparent reality to date, might be redundant in light of the 'proviso rationale' I've laid out showing the work is still under protecion, but it is relevant in the context of the All-Caps wording of the Second proviso nevertheless (in order to "be" any other copyrighted work [i.e. not a copyrighted work already addressed by the first proviso], Dick would have needed to copyright the work in addition to the proprietor's copyright in his own name... and he didn't. = failing the opening condition as outlined in the Second proviso).

There is nothing that can render the First proviso "moot" here. The First proviso's condition(s) have to be determined to be either as "True" or as "False"; there is no lawful way to usurp, preclude or negate the rights properly executed & lawfully secured in a 1st renewal-term registration for copyright extension by the proprietor of the already 1st term copyrighted periodical/issue back on January 7, 1982 (given the particulars found in this case).

Hope that spells it out for everybody in terms that can be followed by anyone and every one.  Delete. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

George Orwell III (talk) it is not and has not been my intention to belittle you. Neither do I assume some of your statements here or in discussion of "Small Town", (which I intend to seek undeletion of when I learn how to request undeletion) have been intended to belittle me, insult me or that you are intending to abuse/misuse your status as an administrator. Neither is it my intention to belittle AdamBMorgan. In my previous statement it would have been more appropriate to state "apparently don't understand" rather than "clearly don't understand" and I apologize for whatever offense that may have given. Nonetheless, Wikisource's basic policies about what is or isn't acceptable are based on what relevant US copyright law is "as a practical matter". (By "as a practical matter" I mean regardless of whether you, I or other editors agree with Congress and the courts about the validity of parts of the law.) IIRC, there is some high level WMF policy that essentially says relevant to this that basic determination of what copyright law is, is reserved to the foundation and a sort of "compulsory concensus" though I'm sure "compulsory concensus" is not how it's worded. Regardless, I believe the most responsible thing for the administrators to do when there is reasonable disagreement about what the law is regarding a major question relating to public domain, is to ask the legal staff and get what is presumably knowledgeable and authoritative guidance from WMF personnel who have the training and resources to properly research and understand the law. This concerns whether potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of works are acceptable to use on this and other WMF projects.

I've little doubt you are correct there will be no policy/guidelines/help pages review for legal accuracy by anyone from the legal staff unless administors request one. And I won't hold my breath while hoping any administrators make such a request or will even inform me of what, if anything, I'm allowed to do to try and get some legally knowledgeable people from any source involved in this discussion. Or what, if anything, I'm allowed to do to try and bring this discussion to the attention of a wider audience of editors. Heck, I wasn't even informed "Time Pawn" was being proposed for deletion. I just chanced across a blog post of some sort by AdamBMorgan which mentioned it and implied I had not uploaded "Small Town" or "Time Pawn" in good faith. However, I will attempt to defend this upload from deletion as time and other circumstances permit in hopes some administrators will look into the law and/or what is said by us and anyone else who comments and decide on the merits as they perceive them.

BTW, you can expect me to reference Copyright Registration for Single Serial Issues (the claim and the extent of the claim) and several sections of The Copyright Act of 1976 (which I believe Wikisource has a copy of and think copyright.gov has as an Appendix to Circular 92).

For the moment, to show some evidence of actual intent to defend against deletion of "Time Pawn" and because I still have a little computer access time I'll note that a search by registration number of copyright.gov shows two renewal registrations based on the original registration number B00000490065. Something that is hardly compatible with an assumption that the PCW renewal creates exclusive rights for the PCW claimant to the individual contributions which were protected by the "blanket" copyright notice or to your previous statement that an author of an individual contribution needed to obtain a seperate original registration for his or her contribution to retain ownership or to be able to renew copyright on the contribution. The normal practice for indivdual contributions to such composite works was to use a single orginal registration number for the periodical as a whole and for any seperately copyrightable material it contained. Indeed, if you do a moderate amount of searching for renewals of works from SF magazines of the 1950s you'll find instances where there was no orignal registration at the time and the Copyright Office created an original registration number (usually a TX number) for the benefit of authors who wanted to renew their copyrights and needed an original registration to renew. [I've been somewhat careless at various times and places in stating a work's copyright was originally protected by Copyright Registration Number ____ when publication with notice is what actually protected the copyright and what registration protected was the right to take legal action for infringement.

Type of Work:	Serial
Registration Number / Date:	RE0000569063 / 1982-02-18
Title:	[The Education of Drusilla Strange, and other contributions] / By Theodore Sturgeon.
Copyright Claimant:	Theodore Sturgeon (A)
Contributions:	(In Galaxy science fiction, Mar. 1954) The Education of Drusilla Strange. Pub. 1954-01-25; B00000454597. (In Galaxy science fiction, May 1954) Granny won't knit. Pub. 1954-03-18; B00000464442. (In Thrilling wonder stories, summer 1954) The Golden helix. Pub. 1954-06-08; B00000490065. (In Galaxy science fiction, Jan. 1955) When you're smiling. Pub. 1954-11-22; B00000505594. (In Luke Short's western, Oct.-Dec. 1954) Cactus dance. Pub. 1954-10-05; B00000512982.
Copyright Note:	C.O. correspondence.
Other Title:	Galaxy science fiction, Mar. 1954 Galaxy science fiction, May 1954 The Golden helix. Thrilling wonder stories, summer 1954 Galaxy science fiction, Jan. 1955 Luke Short's western, Oct.-Dec. 1954
Names:	Sturgeon, Theodore

Type of Work:	Serial
Registration Number / Date:	RE0000112616 / 1982-01-07 Renewal registration for: B00000490065 / 1954-06-08
Title:	Thrilling wonder stories. Vol. 44, no. 1, summer 1954.
Copyright Claimant:	C B S Publications, the consumer publishing division of C B S, Inc. (PCW)
Variant title:	Thrilling wonder stories.
Names:	CBS, Inc. C B S Publications

Above copied from search results by registration number for B00000490065 after clicking on All and then clicking the button to format them for Save/Print. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have legal staff in the sense you seem to mean. There is Geoff Brigham, general counsel on the WMF staff, and a small team (click "see the team" for their names) but I don't think he works in this capacity. According to meta:Legal and Community Advocacy, he advises the Foundation itself, not editors on any of the projects. Nevertheless, all the contact details are on those pages if you want to try. I would actually like to see an official response on this matter myself.

I'm not following your line of reasoning as presented here. Yes, authors and publishers both made renewals. That doesn't change the wording of the law. There are cases of publishers not renewing, which defaults to the author's renewal, and then (if neither exist) puts the work into the public domain. At least, as far as I understand copyright law. To me, the duplicate renewals look like a belt-and-braces approach to maintaining the intellectual property.

These aren't duplicate renewals and have nothing to do with defaulting ownership other than both Sturgeon and CBS avoiding such defaults for the different works they renewed. Sturgeon renewed copyright registration for an individual contribution to a collective work and was able to do this because he was the copyright owner of that work. CBS renewed copyright registration for the collective work (composite work), which under these circumstances includes a non-exclusive right to use the individual contributions that are components of the composite work within rather narrow limits; CBS was able to do this because it was the owner of copyright in the collective work. Read the law at Copyright_Act_of_1976 and its Legislative History and you'll see these are entirely different things and you'll see the wording of the law which I'm making no attempt to change or miscontrue. I can go into detail later when I get computer access if necessary. Sections 101-106 and pretty much all of chapters 2-4 are probably the most important parts relating to this. Also see http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/4/404/notes and read relevant circulars at copyright.gov. I know the latter part of that is vague but as an administrator attempting to apply the law which is relevant to Wikisource you need to know what it is (including case law and I'm too out-of-date to recommend any specific textbooks on legal research, Shepardizing, etc. though I will suggest learning this well pretty much reguires access to a law library or maybe Lexis/Nexis and possibly some formal training through classes in a paralegal program or something of the sort). You might also want to google "contribution to a collective work". Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has disputed your latest directly above. The difference, however, is both Sturgeon & CBS lawfully followed their respective paths for securing protections to each's specific class of work. If Dick is "Sturgeon" and Thrilling Stories is "CBS", how does the lack of action on Dick's part extinguish the rights lawfully secured by Thrilling Sories? If Sturgeon didn't register anything at all (exactly what Dick did), how would that supersede CBS' registration?

The hypothetical lack of a Sturgeon registration wouldn't automatically "jump" CBS's lawful registration and default the work into the Public Domain would it? So too is the case in these PCW collective works.. Nobody is questioning what you keep insisting is under question when everybody proactively secures registration for their respective class of work or works - but that logic does not apply when one or more parties did not secure and/or then waive protections; it cannot default into PD unless the work is free and clear of all claims of lawful copyright. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not just a Wikisource issue by the way. Project Gutenberg got in trouble for this sort of thing with Poul Anderson's works from the same period (via Greg Bear). See Locus for an example, or search Google. That's probably why this work isn't being hosted by PG either.

I believe you misunderstand what Greg Bear was claiming though I've no time to reread that dispute right now. And frankly, my recollection is that Project Gutenberg got in trouble much like I once got in trouble as a cashier when a man with a shotgun wanted the money in the cash register. Regardless, it's well worth noting that PG has many works from magazines which did renew PCW registrations and that everything PG hosts has to get a lawyer's OK on the PD status before it even gets to the transcribing process. IIRC, that OK is called something like a "clearance ticket" and is required in order to upload a scan. PG has no "safe harbor" like Wikisource does and could easily be destroyed by the expense of litigation even if it was in the right 99 and 44/100 percent of the time so it has rules and procedures that are far more restrictive than the law is. BTW, it may only have been one work by Poul Anderson that PG actually took down, the reason was never really explained (possibly a rare instance of an exception to a general legal presumption) but I think Bear's claimed reason was a flat contradiction of the law and speculate there was some contract breach involved which shouldn't be remedied at the expense of the innocent public instead of the negligent publisher but is or in this particular instance might be even if the circumstances aren't what the law requires. "So it goes." Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to put it "on the record", I think it is very biased to tag something like "Time Pawn" with possible copyright violation and hide it but not to quote the uploader's description of why it is PD and a brief statement of why whoever tags it disagrees or at least has doubts. The current practice gives anyone noticing the dispute little reason to consider looking into the matter and the uploader's rationale isn't even mentioned here if someone does follow the link to here. I'll not eleborate on this as I've got to get off the computer right now. More about the proposed deletion later. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

About the blog post, which is here for everyone else, I meant that Coled completed the proofreading in good faith and that Coled was not the original uploader. It was only when looking back on the wording just now that I realised the "not the uploader" could be taken as "not uploaded in good faith by the uploader". I was a little down that Coled appeared to be helping Wikisource and has (potentially) lost all of his/her work; which is my fault for not having put the pieces together earlier. I'm sorry if I appeared to insult you.

(NB: I put your examples in tables to make them a little easier to read.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I was unclear - I did not mean to infer that Authors (A) needed to register for first term copyright protections at the same time the (PCW) registration was obtained - only that if Authors wished to contest, assign, license, etc. during the (PCW) first term protections do they need to separately affix notice and register separately as an (A) author under what today is the provisions outlined Section 304(a). What you have correctly pointed out is a contributor to a periodical work that enjoys the ability to "renew" even without securing a separate first term copyright as an (A) author under what today is outlined under Section 304(c) (automatic termination of any previous assignments or licenses granted/negotiated under the first copyright term and/or any promises made regarding the 1st renewal term). Only one copyright.gov entry directly affirms the "blanket" renewal (Sec. 304(a)) while the other only cites it as a precursor (Sec. 304(c)) to the establishment of terminations (if any) at the end of the first copyright term. They are two separate actions, the latter not being something Dick practiced either way. In order to renew under Sec. 304(a), Dick needed to have practiced Sec. 304(a) at or around the time of first publication.

The problem is still your belief the lack of action on Dick's part, be it under Sec. 304(a), Sec. 304(c) or both, somehow invalidate's the (PCW) registration & renewal and makes the work automatically fall into the public domain. The only way Dick's work could have fallen into the public domain is if no (PCW) renewal took place and that is just not the case in the instance of this work. The absence of one (A) renewal does not negate the existence of the other (PCW). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take a read of "Renewal and Extension of Copyright" by Seymour M. Bricker. My copy is from "Copyright and Related Topics" from The Los Angeles Copyright Society and The UCLA Law School. The last I looked you could get to it from Google. It has an interesting discussion on this issue. PG's take is that the magazine collective copyright MAY renew the copyright on the contribution depending on what the publishing contract was and that the contract is not publicly available.—unsigned comment by 66.37.59.194 (talk) .

Been there; done that. Those papers are in line with the others previously listed elsewhere. The overall point is generally the same - most authors never envisioned the issue their story was published in to ever amount to anything years later (never mind decades later). Unless the illustrator of that same issue happen to gain fame or something later on... or you we're smart enough to place the issue straight into into air-tight plastic baggie or something, a contribution to a periodical was more for building exposure & a paycheck to pay the bills than a means to build a fortune or literary legacy upon (getting a proper book/movie deal was). Even then, the scarcity and quality of an original print dictates the value of an issue and it's contents in today's terms; - but that's all about ownership not authorship anyway.

Had the majority of the contributing authors of the day known back then that the digital age & the internet would breathe new life/leverage into these works, I'm sure the negotiations for PCWs and/or the transfers of outright ownership wouldn't have turned into the hot sloppy mess like they have. Again, a handful of author's followed the copyright procedures to the letter and their kin still enjoy the benefits of that diligence today. Plainly put; Philip K. Dick simply did not exercise a huge swath of his copyright rights in a timely and ernest manner (and this story is but just one example of this). -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Red Terror (Memoirs)

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, probable copyvio, unclear translator. Jeepday (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The work is originally Russian, written c.1918, and has a copy of the original cyrillic, though the translation has no information available. I have my doubts that the work would have been translated into English at the time of the work. Putting a note onto the contributors' page and will refer them here to add their information. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete as we can't verify the translator, and therefore the translator's copyright, at the moment. We can restore it if this information becomes available but it has been a few months now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Affidavit AY from Phil Lib to SRF 1953.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, copyright status unclear. Jeepday (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a notorised document, but I am not sure that it has been published and therefore able to be reproduced as it would still have copyright applied to it. Document dated 1953. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment this is related to the discussion at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2012-11#Autobiography of a Yogi - Chapter_49 and is an attempt on the part of the uploader to prove that that work meets WS:WWI. See also WS:RFA#How to add a file for inline reference. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Eleven Letters

The following discussion is closed:

Unable to show copyright status appropriate for WS. No objections to recreation (and split) if copyright can be clarified. Jeepday (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Series of eleven letters from the President of Eritrea to the UN SecGen. 2005 addition, and no copyright notice. No notice of the source of the letters. No information at Commons about Eritrean copyright law, so we are going to need to look further afield. Parking here, and we are going to need to do some research for appropriate copyright law. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing evident as applying copyright law in Eritrea [1], so I am not sure what that indicates. May be that only US law applies. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Roman Fever

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted by Kathleen.wright5.

1934 short story by Author:Edith Wharton. According to the wikipedia article, this was first published in the magazine Liberty. This Google Books copy of the Catalog of Copyright Entries renewal registrations shows that it was renewed under R284352 in 1961. (Liberty was always renewed too.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete per Adam's [verified] findings. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Quest of the Gazolba

The following discussion is closed:

Exported and deleted after no objections. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A stray possible copyright violation of a short story by Clark Ashton Smith. Published in Weird Tales (Sept '47), which was renewed as a periodical. There have been multiple copyright deletions related to Smith in the past, including 2013-03 (A), 2013-03 (B) and 2010-08. The blanket copyright covers this story in the United States but it should be in the public domain in Canada. Like several of the others, I suggest moving it to Wikilivres. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete here on en.WS and move to Wikilivres as described if that's been the standard operating proceedure to date - George Orwell III (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Other

Revisiting no-renewal for unvested works

The following discussion is closed:

This discusion appears to have concluded Jeepday (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion concerning works statused as PD under the 'no-renewal-unvested' guidelines on the associated template's Talk: page. Feel free to move the discussion here if (or when) doing so is deemed more appropriate for proper consensus. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)