Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2021

Summer (Abay) and Rysbekova

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

These translations of poems by Abay Qunanbayuli are from Selected Poems, published 1970 in Moscow. I could not find any indication of the dates of death of the individual translators (Dorian Rottenberg and Olga Shartse) and I suspect they are still living. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

License for Trump-Raffensperger Call Transcript

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-ineligible}}: the call consists entirely of off the cuff remarks which do not merit copyright protection, and the recording is unlikely to have independent copyright that concerns us.

Not sure about this one. It's a transcript of the call between you-know-who and the Secretary of State for Georgia. As a state official, Raffensperger's contribution isn't covered by {{PD-USgov}} (which applies to the federal government).

Courtesy ping to @Marcosoldfox: as the uploader. Also, could you indicate the source of the transcript? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I got it from CNN, from here "Read the full transcript and listen to Trump's audio call with Georgia secretary of state". . To be quite honest I thought that since it has become a public thing the copyright wouldn't be that much of an issue, but it's straight from CNN, which is a reputable news source. I copy-added the text into the transcript and added in the spacing and bold text afterwards. It's from here: "Read the full transcript and listen to Trump's audio call with Georgia secretary of state".  I'm not sure about the copyright issue, but I thought that since it's become a public thing, that it wouldn't matter that much. Plus, it's CNN so it's really verifiable. Marcosoldfox (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marcosoldfox: if it had been a call between Trump and a senator, it would be unquestionably PD under US law. If the White House released the transcript, then I'm not sure where it would be. Copyright law is a bizarro world. Sadly for us, just because something is public, and by public officials in the course public duties doesn't necessarily make it public domain.

Thank you for the source! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment You're welcome. I guess I should've actually added it was from CNN in the comments section somewhere, but I didn't know exactly where to put the references. Honestly it's a bummer it isn't considered in the public domain even though it was said by a public official, but I think it definitely should be, considered how public this is becoming as of lately. But if the page is to be deleted, then that would be completely understandable, to be quite honest. I do understand that it is an ongoing issue just like the Watergate back in the Nixon days but I think that CNN still holds the rights to it in some form, even if it was said by a public official. I think that if it's deleted it'd be OK, even though I'd still like if it could be up so that editors could use it as source for reference, writing, etc. Thanks for commenting.

@Marcosoldfox: We'll have a discussion about it first. I'm not 100% sure where this falls, since Trump + team's contributions are PD as they are all federal employees.

I do hope you're not too discouraged (If it helps, my first-ever WS contribution was summarily nuked over at deWS with much less discussion.) and we can persuade you to stick around for some other juicy political shenanigans? Perhaps The Pentagon Papers or many many smaller pieces around the place? I'm more than happy to faff about with scans and stuff for you to work with :-) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment It is a conversation, it is not an artistic work, so my understanding is that copyright does not come into play. => {{PD-ineligible}} Works Not Fixed in a Tangible Form of Expression. Some could say that all words from Trump are a work of fiction, however, we have USGov employee to cover that at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be great if some way to include this were found, but I am afraid PD-ineligible is probably not the right one: Unless recorded, an oral communication, such as a personal or telephone conversation, cannot be copyrighted. And our conversation was recorded. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the statement, there is no direct inverse. Cannot be copyrighted in circumstance A, does not mean that all other circumstances are copyright, just that circumstance. The recording itself may have copyright for its recording value, but that does not copyright the words. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

True. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. A logical (like that counts for much with copyright!) view is that if the conversation cannot attract copyright on its own, then making a recording of it doesn't retrospectively conjure up a copyright of the conversation, but it could well create a copyright for the recording. In this case, the fact that a recording popped up some time later shouldn't (in a sane world) retroactively copyright the conversation that would have been PD-ineligible until the recording appeared. But, then again, URAA teaches us that snatching things back from the PD can happen sometimes. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment A couple of factors…
  First, as there are multiple people on the call, all in different roles and capacities, we would need to assess copyright individually for each of their contributions. And it is not at all clear what roles each participant is acting in in this call: it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that Trump cannot be acting as POTUS here, since election interference is a federal crime, and is thus not covered by PD-USGov exemptions. But that's mainly going to be irrelevant, because…
  This is a telephone conversation consisting entirely of off the cuff remarks (not even Meadows' opening spiel reads as if it was prepared in advance), so the conversation as such is ineligible for copyright. Straight audio recordings—which is the most likely way this was fixed in a tangible form—are also not eligible for independent copyright. And simply transcribing such a recording as text involves no creativity that would rise above mere mechanical reproduction. Barring truly exceptional circumstances then, there is nothing here that is eligible for copyright protection.
  However, there are non-copyright issues we need to consider. Where did CNN (or was it WaPo originally?) get this transcript? Is it actually a public record? Was the recording legal (states' laws and federal law vary on legal requirements for recordings of telephone conversations) in the first place? Was the path through which the media got the transcript a legal channel? The media have rights, protections, and legal defences that do not apply to us or our reusers. If this was illegally recorded or illegally leaked (think Manning), or if the transcript is considered classified, our reusers could end up hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. I don't think any such factors apply here, but I haven't looked closely enough to feel at all certain about it.
  As a purely personal opinion, I think things like this should be out of scope for enWS as mere data rather than something that has been actually published and contextualised. It's not out of scope under current policy, so I won't belabour the point, but it is a bad fit for us in every way and we bring very little added value here. --Xover (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, bro, it's fine. I don't know about every non-copyright issue out there though so I don't know all of the little details on every issue about this sort of stuff. I mean, I literally put in the references on CNN and so it was reasonable to assume it would go but not with the copyright stuff. Most I was concerned though that they'd copyright-claim it like they'd on YouTube. I mean, I literally just copy-pasted it from CNN and it's referenced, and it's got no copyrighted images/video so it was reasonable to assume it'd go fine but I wasn't so sure about copyright; but hopefully they wouldn't copyright-claim or anything. If there are any non-copyright issues there then I can't know every single one of them; it came from CNN though and it's referenced. With copyright I'd justifiably think it's fine though but can never be too sure."Read the full transcript and listen to Trump's audio call with Georgia secretary of state".  The text comes straight copy-pasted from CNN and you can see it yourself. I mean, it was literally copy-pasted from CNN. I'm not sure though about all those problems that you mention but if it's that problematic with both copyright and non-copyright, then I'd think it'd be cool to delete it for the time being. I mean, other pages get deleted for much less all the time, wikipedia or otherwise.

If it's that problematic then put a deletion tag on it, please. Other articles/pages get that all the time that don't even deserve it sometimes. So if it could become that much of a problem then it's fine to delete it. I mean, I think it's fine too, but it's just a page for a hobby time killer after all; so if cause of copyright or other it gets taken down because it doesnt go with wikipedia policy or public domain, then that's fine. It's really too much time and effort spent just to pass the time either way. If you really feel like it is difficult to categorize it then I think it's reasonable to speedy-delete/G6. I mean, I'd think it'd go with what's acceptable to post on wikipedia but I don't know every issue that you mention -- ends up just making it a bore to post, respectfully. So if it really does pose so many hypothetical stuff as you're saying and there's little to add, then please delete it. If you really believe there's little value to add, then I'd appreciate it if you could put a speedy deletion for the time being. Thanks a lot --- I appreciate it.

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Revolutionary Nudism

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as clear copyvio.

IMO clear copyvio. The original English translation of the 1934 French Émile Armand’s text can be seen e. g. at https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/emile-armand-revolutionary-nudism. There is written that the text was "retrieved on September 14, 2011 from kropot.free.fr", which is in French, so it means that the translation is only 9 years old. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

• {{PD-PRC-exempt}} does not apply on the Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, as it is not any "government and judicial documents, and their official translations", or any other excluded works as stated on the templates. Moreover, the quotations are also not government edicts as defined in {{PD-EdictGov}}, so the PD-PRC-exempt is invalid.
• According to the relevant English Wikipedia article, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung is first published in 1964. Mao Zedong dies in 1976, so the quotations are not in U.S. public domain per {{PD-1996}}.
  • Also refer to s:zh:Author:毛泽东 on Chinese Wikisource, which stated that Mao Zedong works are not in local Chinese public domain.
• When considering the translation by Peking Foreign Languages Press in 1966, there exists another copyright enjoyable for them, which further concludes that the quotations are copyrighted and not in U.S. public domain.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Also refer to this Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion, which establishes that Mao's quote does not qualify PD-PRC-exempt.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment It's unclear to me, but since the original book was compiled by the PLA Daily and originally published by the PLA General Political Department, does that make it a "government document"? The Foreign Languages Press is state-owned, so presumably it's a governmentally-commissioned translation. I have no earthly clue where that puts it though. If it is not a government work, the compilation by the government doesn't trump Mao's personal copyright, or the translation is not it's not in the Public Domain (which is particularly ironic in this case), as 廣九直通車 says, via the 1996 URAA restoration, and our descendants can revisit this in 2059. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nope, the Foreign Languages Press is a state-owned enterprise, as per their official website (外文出版社有限责任公司, Foreign Languages Press Limited). Also, not all Chinese government works are in local public domain, they are only limited to government edicts as per PD-PRC-exempt. Even if they qualified, they would have not pass the US copyright requirement of {{PD-EdictGov}} — still copyrightable in the US.
• Also what I mean is that the copyright held by Mao (, his descendants) and the Foreign Languages Press don't fulfill the URAA limitation to enter US public domain. Per c:Template:PD-China, Mao's copyright enter's Chinese public domain after 50 years pma (i.e. 1976+50=2026), while the one held by Foreign Languages Press enters Chinese public domain 50 years after publish (i.e. 1966+50=2016). Both obviously exceeds the URAA year of 1996.
• Hope these helps, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ah, another similar copyright discussion has been found here, hope these also helps, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Yes, you are right, the actual wording of Article 5 is laws, regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations;. Which I remember now that I've seen before. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

On Spiritual Warfare

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced by On The Spiritual Battle, an updated translation which does not contain quotes from non-free sources and which both the translator and the editor released into the public domain. The original page On Spiritual Warfare was changed into a redirect.

Tagged as no source, no license, unidentified translator since 2011.

However, on the talk page, MarkLSteadman identified the translation as [1]. The editor says:

This translation is under no copyright protection. It is my gift to you. You may freely copy, print, and transmit it, but please do not change or sell it.

This is self-contradictory and probably a misunderstanding of copyright: the translation is from 2009 so is copyrighted, and the statement includes no-derivatives and non-commercial clauses which are incompatible with our copyright policy. Additionally, to be nitpicky, the translator ought to grant any license in the translation, not the editor.  Delete BethNaught (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Could one argue that, if the translation is under no copyright protection, then derivatives and commercial use are permitted by law, and the stipulation to not change or sell it is a request that can be legally ignored? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically to Beleg Tâl's point, it's not technically self-contradictory; one can make requests like "please do not change or sell it" without affecting the underlying public domain grant. But anyway you cut it, it's a dreadfully ambiguous license, and I feel it less than likely the intent was to put it in the public domain and not to restrict changing or selling it. If they were in a community that puts emphasis on open/free licenses, they would have written CC-Zero but we request you don't, or something like that. And does this work? In the US this might, though I think lawyers would much prefer "I, Joe Schmoe, place my translation in the public domain" to a statement that reads more like a (false) statement than a grant. My understanding is that EU law and most copyright law not based on US law dislikes the whole "dedicate to the public domain" thing, which is why CC-Zero is so much longer, so the fact the translator is Czech might be a problem.

And going back to BethNaught's point, did in fact the translator put it in the public domain? This whole thing is a careless sloppy mess, and I'm not really thrilled to have it here, unless someone can get clarification that the translator did in fact make that offer, and preferably a CC-0 license from the translator making their intent perfectly clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and the document says "The source text for this translation is Eduard Petrů’s Little Writings (Drobné Spisy), published in 1966. I have used the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible except where the translation was closer in the King James (KJV)." So the source text has at best a complex relationship with the public domain, and the translation of the Bible most used is non-free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to get contact to Charis Enns to ask for clarification.

As for the Bible translation, there are only short quotations, which I think is permitted by copyright laws. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: If you follow up there, make sure to use the OTRS process so we get all our p's and q's in order. --Xover (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The NIV has pretty broad rules about using verses from it, but I'd argue fair use is pretty weak on a substitutable work like a Bible translation where the author is saying nothing special about the NIV, and the real issue is we don't permit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: The right to quote has always been accepted by various world jurisdictions and e.g. Berne convention accepts it too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Fair Use and the Right to Quote are the same things, but e. g. Wikipedia does not allow fair use but allows quoting and I have never noticed there any copyright issues raised against it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I have realized that English Wikipedia allows fair use, my mistake, but e. g. Czech Wikipedia does not while quoting is allowed there. I guess it is similar with other Wikipedias too. So that is why I assume that the right to quote is different from fair use. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not separate in the US, and I don't think it was intended to be separate in Wikisource policy. (The legalities don't concern me as much, though unless you're following the NIV explicit permission, I'm concerned how much quoting is allowed in various countries, and in the US, you're using a very replaceable translation for its underlying work, not the translation itself, which would weaken fair use justifications.) I am concerned about Wikisource policy; it at best pushes the line to be reproducing a serious bit of a modern copyrighted translation here for any purpose.

Also, edition copyrights are hairy and unpleasant; we wouldn't generally reproduce a new edition produced in 1966, and while some editions are mild spelling changes and a few choice decisions about readings, you can get some pretty distinctive merging of seriously different originals in some cases, distinctiveness that would show up clearly through translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete per Prosfilaes. --Xover (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Keep I have contacted the translator Charis Enns and both she and her co-worker Tom Lock have agreed to release the translation under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. I can now take further steps and upload the PDF copy of the work to Commons and verify it through OTRS, but before doing so I would like to close this discussion reach agreement first because I do not want to do all the work and bother both translators with sending further emails to OTRS should this work be deleted in Wikisource anyway. Although I understand the concerns raised by Prosfilaes, I hope they are not a real obstacle for keeping this translation after the translators released their work under a free licence. Pinging also @BethNaught, @Xover:. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If we can get it released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, that's great. Barring concerning evidence about the matter, I'm willing to drop worries about the underlying edition. But I'm still concerned about extensive quoting from non-free sources. We or they could switch to something like the American Standard Version or its recent updating the w:World English Bible / Bible (World English).--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You've addressed my original concerns, but I'm still unsure about the NIV issues Prosfilaes raised. Firstly, the work does not reproduce the copyright statement required by the NIV licensing rules. Secondly, even if that were remedied, I'm still concerned about quoting so much non-free text: is it in line with our copyright policy? It's not fair use (which is forbidden) because, modulo the missing copyright statement, it seems to comply with the NIV license. But does that license impose too many restrictions on downstream users to be considered non-free according to our free content definition? BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    After further discussing the issue with both the translator and editor of the text, they allowed me to replace the NIV quotations with those from the World English Bible, which I did. The editor also dropped out the note forbidding changes to the text and its commercial use, so now it is in public domain. I also found and corrected there a minor mistake in a quotation number, and one external link to a dead site was updated in a footnote. After checking it they published the updated text at http://www.nonresistance.org/pre-1800.html (PDF here), so if you agree, I will upload the PDF file to Commons, found the page On The Spiritual Battle, change the current page On Spiritual Warfare into a redirect, and hide all non-free revisions of that page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

    @Prosfilaes, @BethNaught, @Xover: I think I did not perform the ping properly, so one more try. Apologies, if you get it twice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

    Done, see On The Spiritual Battle. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

    Thank you! I'm happy with that. Only thing left is to verify permissions from Enns and Lock using OTRS, but I'm sure you have that in hand. BethNaught (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

    Tom Lock has granted the permission directly in the Editor’s note. I have asked Charis Enns to send a confirmation email to OTRS. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

    So Charis Enns has written the confirmation email to OTRS, but she received an answer that they need not only her consent, but the consent of Petr Chelčický too :-D. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

    Confirmed in OTRS. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Governor's Speech at Farewell Ceremony of Hong Kong Handover 1997

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The text is a speech made by Christopher Patten at 1997-06-30. As a Hong Kong official work (not a government edict, because it has no administrative/legislative/judicial purposes/functions), it is protected by government copyright according to Template:PD-HKGov, and as it is first made after the URAA date of 1996-01-01, the text is still copyrightable in the United States.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What is an Anarchist?

The following discussion is closed:

Original is PD through expiry, translation is released under {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}

Source seems https://www.marxists.org/archive/armand/1925/what-anarchist.htm which would imply expiry 95 years after publication (1925) of the original and the translation is CC-BY-SA which would imply it could be hosted correct? MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On upload they cited http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3778, which then referred elsewhere. If we can determine that this is the translator, then I would agree with you. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah http://www.revoltlib.com/anarchism/what-is-an-anarchist/view.php?action=display references http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emile-armand-what-is-an-anarchist which references the link I posted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A Life

The following discussion is closed:

Not documentable as public domain.

Une vie (aka. L'Humble Vérité) is an 1883 French novel by Guy de Maupassant (1850–1893). It was first translated into English as A Woman's Life, and was included in multiple The Works of … collections up through about 1909. None of these, that I have found, identify the translator and I have found no third party source that discusses it.

Our text is titled A Life (arguably both better and more accurate) which is, aiui, a more modern (latter half of the 20th-century) translation of the title. It also has several features of being a modern text, looking not unlikely to have been copied from a modern ebook edition. Except my recent cleanup it has essentially no wiki formatting: it's just the raw text. But it's not OCR text, so whatever the source was it was formatted by humans. It also does not identify the translator, nor even assert a translation license.

Unless someone can identify the specific translation this is from, I think we'll have to assume it's a modern one and still in copyright. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nature articles

The following discussion is closed:

Original article as published is not freely licensed. If proper permissions under a compatible license is documented through OTRS it can be uploaded, but otherwise not.

In the paper I recently uploaded here it is part of a seminal science series which outlines the discussion and proposals of international changes to global species management. The first paper in the series was published in Nature, which is owned by Springer, published here. From my knowledge of Springer and the journal Nature, I am imagining there is no way this one will meet copywrite requirements here. Would I be correct in this? Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: I see no indication this article is compatibly licensed, no. However, for your project it may be worthwhile to contact the authors. Depending on their contract with Nature it is possible (unlikely given what little I know of those contracts, but possible) they retain sufficient rights to publish a copy under a compatible license. --Xover (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: yeah thats what I suspected. I know the aithors they are my coauthors in other papers in this. I doubt Nature, or in reality the publisher Springer, left them with such rights, I have published there too. However I will ask the authors if they would contact Nature for permission in writing. See what happens. Nature were actually very happy with this series of papers, including the parts they did not publish, and may like to see all the parts of it together, so long as they get due credit for the one paper they published. If they say no nothing has changed. Its not uploaded yet I wont upload anything that breaches copywrite. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: They can use the OTRS process described at c:COM:OTRS process. They can make permissions enWS if they so choose, or they can do Commons+. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Anthem of antioquia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The national anthem of Antioquia, originally a 19th-century poem now long out of copyright. However, I can find no provenance for this English translation. The anthem was officially adopted in 2010, and the text was added here the same year so it seems likely the translation was made that year. Absent specific information to the contrary it seems we can only conclude that this is a modern translation. --Xover (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Caracas Commitment

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A resolution from the "First Latin American Meeting of the Encounter of Recovered Companies" which took place in 2005. From what I can tell the original was in one of the Latin American languages, and I can find no provenance for this translation. It was added in 2009 and 2011 by Toussaint (no longer active) and RayneVanDunem (still edits intermittently). Absent information to the contrary we must assume that both the original and the translation are still in copyright. --Xover (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

People's Daily Editorials

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probable copyvio. Contributor was requested to provide licensing information over a year ago with no response.

Do we know if works of the People's Daily are copyrighted in the United States? I would guess that those before 1970 are copyright-free in China due to expiration but only those before 1946 when the URAA went into affect are copyright free in the US due to expiration? However, some of them may have been published in translation before 1964 and then covered by non-Renewal (e.g. by Foreign Language Press)? I don't think it counts as an official government work. Some works I found here are:

• THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMRADE TOGLIATTI AND US
• ON THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
• More on the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat

MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Delete{{PD-PRC-exempt}} doesn't cover official documents other than government edicts, and the fact that we don't even know the author and year of publication make determining whether the texts are in U.S. public domain almost impossible.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The author is presumably corporate as an editorial. The publication dates in China were Dec. 31 1962 (https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Differences-between-Togliatti-and-Us.pdf), March 4 1963 (https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/More-on-Togliatti-1963.pdf) and April 5 1956 (https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/More-on-the-historical-experience-of-Proletarian-Dictatorship-CC-of-the-CPC-1956.pdf). I would assume it would work as non-renewal if that came out within 30 days in the US of being published abroad? MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Remarks by President Biden in a CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper deleted

The following discussion is closed:

Undelete declined. Interviewer's questions etc. are covered by copyright.

User:Billinghurst deleted this with the rationale that one of the two persons in the conversation is not a federal government employee. Is there a copyright for seemingly spontaneous comments that mostly cannot be copyright-able due to their length and lack of creative complexity? To see the conversation: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/02/17/remarks-by-president-biden-in-a-cnn-town-hall-with-anderson-cooper/ Additionally, there are audience questions: it's not clear to me that these are copyright-able either. Does anyone have a perspective on this? If there is something that could be covered by copyright, maybe it's the introduction that could be something considered copyright-able for its length: if so, let's remove that and keep the question and answer portion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The previous commentary for interviews is that they have levels of preparation and scripted questions. Each interviewer and questioner owns the copyright to their component. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

But you can't have a copyright on "And considering that hybrid and virtual school instruction have been in place for nearly a year now, what is the plan and recommendation to get students back into the brick-and-mortar buildings? As a parent of four children, I find it imperative that they get back to school as safely as possible." that is not sufficiently original or creative as a work. And questions like, "So when do you think that would be — K-through-8, at least five days a week if possible?" are both too short to copyright and are spontaneous speaking. What other than possibly the introductory material could be copyrighted? Even that is fairly brief and could be easily excised. What precedent is there that "What about the Uyghurs? What about the human rights abuses in China?" is something that can have a copyright in the United States? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, yes you can. Length is not in itself determinative of eligibility for copyright. Interview questions and overall plan for the interview are inevitably prepared in advance; the interviewer will have researched the topics to prepare for the interview; and someone's perceived skill and popularity as an interviewer hinges in part on that preparation. Unless there is some novel factor in play here, this work is still in copyright and ineligible for hosting on Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

To note: Author pages can have links to externally hosted works—when within our scope—that are published elsewhere and are not a breach of copyright. So fair use works, CC-NC licensed or where the author has published the work are acceptable. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: "Length is not in itself determinative of eligibility for copyright" You are directly contradicted by the United States Copyright Office: "Words and short phrases [...] are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combina-tions of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words... Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to support a claim in copyright include... Mottos, slogans, or other short expressions". Where are you getting your information and why are you saying that this circular is incorrect? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is rather more than "short expressions": Cooper's contributions are multiple sentences. A single sentence like "I saw a picture of you with your grandson recently." is almost certainly not copyrightable, but his entire contribution to this document is (since it's not an off-the-cuff conversation, c.f. Trump-Raffensperger Call Transcript, but a semi-scripted, pre-prepared event). The guidance you reference is more about disallowing slapping anyone using basic linguistic constructions with a copyright suit. It was a dark and stormy night. by itself probably wouldn't attract copyright, but the text of Paul Clifford would be (it were published today). It's an limitation of the principle that you can make a copyrighted text out of words, even if words themselves are public domain, to set the threshold above building blocks of language like phrases, and to avoid Marvel being able to sue anyone who dared to utter "You're not going alone!" because it was in one of their films.

Mottos and slogans can still be protected under trademark rules. Examples of where copyright doesn't apply, but trademark does is the Google wordmark. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, responding here by request, even though Inductiveload covers the essence above.

The Copyright Office's Circular 33 does not actually say that text that is shorter than an arbitrary length is ineligible for copyright. In addition to the distinction between what the law is and what are mere practices of the Copyright Office (which distinction is mainly academic), what they actually write is Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. That is, what makes them uncopyrightable is not their length but their insufficient amount of authorship, and the length is just a proxy for that. The distinction is relevant because "short" can be quite subjective, as aptly demonstrated by the kinds of things they list as an example:

• The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names)
• The title or subtitle of a work, such as a book, a song, or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work
• The name of a business or organization
• The name of a band or performing group
• The name of a product or service
• A domain name or URL
• The name of a character
• Catchwords or catchphrases
• Mottos, slogans, or other short expressions

That is, their intended interpretation is not the colloquial "short" but rather something like "extremely short". For the two latter bullets, think "Bazinga!" or "Stop the Steal!" rather than "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; / Or close the wall up with our English dead.". A Haiku, for example, is eminently copyrightable: "The west wind whispered, / And touched the eyelids of spring: / Her eyes, Primroses." And the questions in that interview are mostly into the haiku length rather than "Bazinga!".

But as Inductiveload points out above, that all is mostly irrelevant because you can't really separate out shorter and shorter pieces of a whole in order to call it uncopyrightable. You can't assess a single sentence out of a book as too short and cumulatively end up with a whole novel that is uncopyrightable. The questions exist in a context and make up part of a whole; so for copyright purposes we have to assess the work as a whole. --Xover (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Of course, I am not suggesting that you can cut any copyrighted text into individual letters and therefore, you can add them up to a non-copyright-able work (i.e. w:en:heap paradox); I'm simply responding to your claim that "Length is not in itself determinative of eligibility for copyright" which is not the case: if you have a short work, there can be no sufficient level of originality or authorship for copyright purposes. I agree that one can construct an entire interview or dialogue made up of short pieces that themselves add up to a copyright-able work. @Inductiveload: "Mottos and slogans can still be protected under trademark rules" sure but that was never in dispute. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Early Christian Attitude To War/foreword

The following discussion is closed:

File moved locally due to non-expired UK copyright in Foreword.

In checking up on the authors of this with a view to uploading scans from internet archive for this work, I found that the Foreword is by Rev. W.E. Orchard (20 November 1877 – 12 June 1955). The foreword is thus not necessarily PD outside the US for another 6 years or so, It is PD in the US (as pre 1926)

The rest of the work IS pd in the UK as Cadoux died in 1947.

I am bringing this here for a second opinion ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Your assessment sounds correct to me. --Xover (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I uploaded a scan to Commons. If it needs to be amended, please {{Ping}} me and I will take out pages, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf: I wouldn't take out the pages, I would just load blank pages in their place and upload with annotation, and then get the first version deleted. Doing it that way allows for the easy revert in the years ahead, when that copyright has expired. Voila! the full work will be back. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct: Strictly speaking, "taking out" pages would impact the pagination, which actually matters for print sources. Good distinction. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Since it's a 1919 publication, it's automatically PD-US per publication +95, so just upload it at enWS and we can move back to Commons after 1955 + 70 (so, 2026)? You only need to blank pages if you must have it at Commons. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf: Per Inductiveload above, you need to reupload the PDF locally here on enWS and then tag it for deletion at Commons (before someone else does it). Tag the local file with {{do not move to commons|expiry=2026}}. enWS only considers US copyright (while Commons also considers status in country of origin), so you can usually assume any work published more than 95 years ago is sufficiently public domain for enWS (I'm sure there are exceptions somewhere, but as a rule of thumb…). We can transwiki back to Commons with FileExporter once its UK copyright expires. --Xover (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Remarks by John McCain at the 1988 Republican National Convention

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus to delete; but neither is this (lack of) discussion any kind of precedent for future discussions.

I think Remarks by John McCain at the 1988 Republican National Convention is not covered by the copyright it is tagged with. This was not a work McCain created in his capacity as a federal employee. He delivered it as a private citizen. I believe that this, like the speech being discussed above by Ivanka Trump at the 2020 RNC, needs to be deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep McCain was a sitting Senator at the time, meaning wide latitude for public appearances to fall within his duties. I would personally be inclined to exclude anything at the national conventions (or other election events) from PD-USGov, but in this case that would be inconsistent with our practice. --Xover (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry press statement of April 23, 2014

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Translation of a press statement of Turkish politician. I don't see that political statements from Turkish politicians are in the public domain. Looking at Commons there is no evident exclusion that we can apply. Further the translation is unsourced, and just says unofficial so no knowledge whether it is by the contributor or just taken from somewhere.

if we delete the page, then we should also delete Author:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with our usual wording of no works in the public domain; alternatively shut it down with a {{copyright author}} statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dead Sea scrolls/11Q13

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The source document of this page is unclear. The English content may be drawn from The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation - Revised Edition, published 2005, in which case it is probably a copyright violation. I haven't investigated the other sources linked on this page but they seem likely to be under copyright as well. I also have not investigated the Korean content, but that doesn't belong on English Wikisource regardless.

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete These are all extracted from various post-1990 publications and the transcriptions and translations are all under their respective authors' copyright. They are also blatant enough that I'll speedy them shortly. --Xover (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dead Sea scrolls/4Q158

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Translation by Warren Rohde & Rick Bohn, prepared for a course at St Joseph's University, no indication of a free license whatsoever. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dead Sea scrolls from Scrolls from the Dead Sea

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Several translations from the Library of Congress exhibition Scrolls from the Dead Sea have been uploaded with a note that, since they are from the LoC website, they are in the public domain. I am inclined to disagree with this assessment.

• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q201 = Dead Sea scrolls/4Q420-421 = The Enoch Scroll by J. C. Greenfield, original source not cited, possibly this was an original translation for the exhibit?
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q396 = The Torah Precepts Scroll by J. Strugnell and E. Qimron, from Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, X. Oxford, forthcoming.
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q403 = The Sabbath Sacrifice Scroll by C. Newsom, from Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Atlanta, 1985.
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q448 = The Prayer For King Jonathan Scroll by E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and A. Yardeni, from "A Qumran Scroll Containing Part of Psalm 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and His Kingdom," Israel Exploration Journal, forthcoming.
• Dead Sea scrolls/11QPs = The Psalms Scroll by J. A. Sanders, from The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs^a). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, IV. Oxford, 1965.
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q166 = The Hosea Commentary Scroll by M. Horgan, from Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Washington, 1979.
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q285 = The War Rule Scroll by G. Vermes, from "The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research: Seminar on the Rule of the War from Cave 4 (4Q285)," Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (Spring 1992):85-90.
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q271 = The Damascus Document Scroll by J. Baumgarten, from "The Laws of the Damascus Document in Current Research." In The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Edited by M. Broshi. Jerusalem, 1992.
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q258 = The Community Rule Scroll by E. Qimron, from "A Preliminary Publication of 4QS^d Columns VII-VIII" (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 60 (1991):435-37.
• Dead Sea scrolls/4Q321 = The Calendrical Document Scroll by S. Talmon and I. Knohl, from "A Calendrical Scroll from Qumran Cave IV -- Miþ Ba (4Q321)" (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 60 (1991):505-21.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Beleg Tâl: As mentioned up above I found these all to be blatant copyvio. Did you find any in there that weren't at best questionable? --Xover (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Xover: I thought you were just referring to the one page in question. I found a couple that appear to be user translations, but that's it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2020 Republican National Convention/Ivanka Trump's speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No evidence being covered by PD-USGov. May be undeleted only with better evidence.

This is not a public domain speech. It is irrelevant that Trump is a government employee. This speech was not part of their government work, and therefore is not automatically public domain. I tried nominating it for speedy deletion on these grounds (it is quite cut and dry: since it's not part of her work as a government employee, it is not automatically public domain), but someone stopped that wrongly arguing that, because of her government employment, there is nuance to it. There is no nuance. This was entirely a campaign speech, not a speech delivered as part of her government work. SecretName101 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It has been the practice to maintain those convention speeches of those in government employment, well specifically the politicians. There is plenty of previous discussion in archives that should be read as part of the contemplation. Interestingly as her own job was contingent on the speech. If it was anyone else but the Trumps you may have an argument, however, this family has done their best to take the government and the political into the private. . — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment For reference:

• Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2013-03#2012_Presidential_campaign_works (which it says could be revisited if the Obama stuff was released by his Library (?))
• Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2009-08#Democratic_Response_to_George_W._Bush's_Sixth_State_of_the_Union_Address,_Democratic_Response_to_George_W._Bush's_Seventh_State_of_the_Union_Address

Since this stuff comes up every election, we need to write it down somewhere if we have decided something. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

+

• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-04
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-09
• Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2018

and my memory was that we basically fell into the space of an active Federal government politician / employee at the convention was pretty much fair game. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, the Trumps are not treated any differently by copyright laws than anyone else is. Her job was not "contingent" on this speech. While they are, perhaps, related, this speech was simply not a part of her official role as advisor to the president. Only speeches written and delivered in her official duties would be devoid of copyright protection as works of a federal government employee as part of their job.. SecretName101 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete PD-USGov is contingent on the person's duties, and has wide latitude. If you make a speech as an otherwise private individual, at the local ornithological society for example, and your federal government job was watching seagull migrating from Russia for the NSA, your speech would probably be considered to fall under PD-USGov. Representatives' and Senators' duties include lots of speechmaking, including kissing babies and schmoozing, and any number of things that would count as the very opposite of "doing your job" in any other profession. Their speeches and statements can usually be assumed to be PD-USGov unless specific factors suggest otherwise. However, normal executive branch federal government employees are forbidden from electioneering, so a speech by such an employee at a party conference is ipso facto not a part of their official duties. In this specific case, in other words, Ivanka Trump's speech at the 2020 RNC is not covered by PD-USGov and her personal copyright applies. --Xover (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Works by Saša Milivojev

The following discussion is closed:

Out of scope, and with insufficient copyright provenance.

These works are being added partly by user:Milivojevsasa and partly by an IP address. I can see there two problems:

1. Copyright.
   • The contributor adds {{PD-author-release}} to the works, but there is no sign if he is really the same person with the author Saša Milivojev. The poems come from a selfpublished webpage, where it is written that the work is copyrighted, see e. g. The pain of the world.
   • The poems were translated into English by another author who also does not seem to release the work under a free licence
   • Some of the poems were published on a site which also claims copyright to all their published materials, e. g. the poem New Oath was published by Lyrics.com which claims all rights reserved for all material contained on this web, and so I think we would need not only the consent of the author and the translator, but also consent of this publisher too.
2. Scope. After the contributor was notified that it is not enough if the poems were just selfpublished, he started adding comments into the code, referring to web pages where the poems have appeared. Some of them are copyrighted (see above), but others like poetsindia.com just seem to publish everything somebody sends them, without any editorial control of professional poetry reviewers.

Unfortunately, the contributor does not react to what people write him on his talk page.

BTW, all this seems to be just an action of selfpromotion. Everything began with founding the page Saša Milivojev starting: Saša Milivojev is a famous writer, poet, journalist columnist and political analyst… The same wording can be found in the selfpublished web page of Saša Milivojev and the same wording can be also found Milivojev’s profiles in the web pages where he sends the poems, which again suggests that they simply accept everything what somebody sends them without any editorial control, including the characteristics of the person, and so are not a good source for us. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Milivojevsasa All poems already published in books and many websites and printed in many newspapers and magazines in different languages. Deleting these poems is vandalism and discrimination on the Wiki network

@Milivojevsasa: Can you say which books, newspapers and magazines were they published in? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Books: When the Firefly is Gone; The Boy from the Yellow house, The secret behind a Sigh, in Shashati Magazine in Egypt, in Horreyati magazine in Egypt, in Anba News in Saudi Arabia, in Al Akhbar, in WRITER’S JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF SERBIAN WRITTERS, in Pravda dialy Newspapers. And for everything we have proofs. Some poems have been printed in a million copies in dialy newspapers and author don’t need “self promotion” on Wiki network, but Deletion is vadalism and discrimination. Some poems even you can find recited by famous actors in public. and all poems are available on various websites, so why not “Public domain” license tags

@Milivojevsasa: Just to make things clear, may I ask if you are Saša Milivojev, the author of the discussed poems? Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: He is with me right now in coffeeshop, he don’t know editing on Wiki networks, he is author of poems and he can send permissions by email if need. Thank You

@Milivojevsasa: If you are not yourself Saša Milivojev, why have you registered an account in their name? What, exactly, is the relationship between yourself and Saša Milivojev? What is it you hope to achieve by posting these works to Wikisource? Are you and Saša Milivojev aware that by releasing these works into the public domain anyone is free to reuse and modify them in any way they choose, including exploiting them for commercial purposes? And that this may negatively affect the original author's ability to get them published or to get paid for them?

Also, you list a lot of places that have allegedly published a work by Saša Milivojev, but not in any specific terms. Could you please pick one of these works and specify exactly where it was previously published in a way that would meet our inclusion criteria? Please pay particular attention to the "editorial controls" aspect. --Xover (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek:

@Xover, @Xover: It’s already published everywhere and everyone can use it. For Example: Eyes Its published in a book “When the Firefly is Gone”, in Serbian, English and Arabic, publisher: Filip Fišnjić, Belgrade, Serbia, 2010. Кад свитац одлети (When the firefly is gone, ساشا ميليفويف - عندما تحلق اليراعة), (Филип Вишњић, Београд, 2010). ISBN 978-86-7363-630-6. Check

Serbian original This website have editors. This is the website of the Association of Poets of Serbia

These verses r also published with interview of ySaša Milivojev for Pravda Newspapers in Serbia:

Famous acctress reading these verses, you can find on YouTube also

@Milivojevsasa: Filip Fišnjić does not appear to have any presence on the web, and I am having trouble finding other works they have published. Can you provide more information about this publisher? Also, if you could address my other questions that would be good. --Xover (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have contacted Saša Milivojev using the email from what seems to be his own website. I have received a confirmation that the user using here the username Milivojevsasa is a person known to him and that the poems were added here with his consent. He also asked for advice how to confirm the release of rights. Supposing that the mentioned webpage really belongs to this author and that I really communicated with the author, it seems that the copyright problem could be solved (although we still do not know the opinion of the translator too). What remains to solve is the question of scope… Unfortunately, I failed to find any bookseller offering a book called "When the Firefly is Gone". I also tried searching the ISBN 9788673636306 and one searchmachine found the book (here), but it seems it is in Serbian, not in English, and I was not able to check the content. So, although I am not as convinced about the deletion as I was in the beginning, I am still quite hesitant. What do others think? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is more info on the book: [2]. It seems it contains poems in 3 languages including English. However, I am not sure how to contact translator "Alchemist" and how to verify their identity. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Milivojevsasa

@Jan.Kamenicek:

The contents of the book “When the Firefly is Gone” are poems published on WikiSource. The translation agency “Alkemist” was paid more than 10 years ago for the translation, and only the author of the book has the copyright according to the agreement, and according to the Law on Copyright in Serbia. We can sign the translators under each poem, not problem. The same songs were published on the website of the author sasamilivojev.com, on the website of the Association of Poets of Serbia poezija.rs, on the website poetsindia.com, and others, in many newspapers and magazines around the world that no longer have an online archive, but we can find proofs if need more something. You can find each poem separately on other websites and please do not delete it, we can use free license tags with the consent of the author.

The Publisher “Filip Višnjić printed and published the book without a written contract, only the author has all the rights

filipvisnjic.co.rs

@Milivojevsasa: Filip Višnjić does not list this work in their catalogue, nor does it appear in most other bibliographic databases under this publisher. Filip Višnjić also appears to be a special-interest vanity press rather than a general purpose or academic publisher; and as a primarily Serbian nationalist publisher they appear to exclusively publish works written in Serbian (and in fact publish several works hostile to the main English-speaking countries). Are you certain the English-language edition of this work was published by Filip Višnjić, rather than by a cooperating publisher?

But you have still not answered my questions from a previous message: If you are not yourself Saša Milivojev, why have you registered an account in their name? What, exactly, is the relationship between yourself and Saša Milivojev? What is it you hope to achieve by posting these works to Wikisource? Are you and Saša Milivojev aware that by releasing these works into the public domain anyone is free to reuse and modify them in any way they choose, including exploiting them for commercial purposes? And that this may negatively affect the original author's ability to get them published or to get paid for them?

Finally, if the author's intent is to release these works as {{CC-Zero}}, why are those licensing terms not evident on the author's website? That would be the very simplest way to apply the relevant license to the works. --Xover (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover, @Xover:

See, sold out Its online bookstore, you can see who is publisher, isbn, reviews and details. Its book in 3 languages: one page English, one page Serbian, one page Arabic, total 205 pages. I am sister of the author, I am using his account bcs I want to help him to re-publish his poems on WikiSource, he already personally gave his consent to :@Jan.Kamenicek: by email. “Filip Visnjic” is one of the most reputable publishing houses in Belgrade. They published one book in 3 languages. They also published several novels and historical literature in English, the publishing house is very old. The author agrees to make his poetry available to anyone on WikiSource under a free license. The author's website does not specify a license because the website designer does not know how to use it. These poems are certainly available to the public, on websites, on public domains, these poems have been published in poetry anthologies, newspapers, magazines and have been recited on televisions

@Xover, @Xover:

No, that's definitely not true. Publisher “Filip Višnjić” has no political preoccupation, it is an independent publishing house, not nationalistic, they have published very important scientific studies, academically, professionally, in its history they have collaborated with well-known authors and university professors. You can also contact the National Library of Serbia to find out more about publisher, and even the Museum. Its not important Who is publisher, anyhow they don’t have contract with the author, it is important that the author agrees to republish his poetry on WikiS

This is in Library catalog

@Milivojevsasa: Filip Višnjić's catalogue would seem to disagree with you, but be that as it may… I think you may be misapprehending a few things. First, the purpose of Wikisource is not to enable someone to (re)publish works that they cannot get published through a traditional publisher, typically through a literary agent. If your goal is to get these works published you need to talk to a traditional publisher. Wikisource is not a "free web host" for random excerpts of works that may or may not meet our inclusion criteria: there are any number of other places on the web where you can publish whatever you want, including your own website (so I still wonder why you would want to host them here instead of your own website). For modern works we need to establish that a given work meets certain criteria, such as being published in some fashion that applies proper editorial controls etc., and so far these works do not appear to pass that bar. Secondly, and as a separate issue, we also need to ensure that a work's copyright status or licensing is compatible with our copyright policy. So far we have multiple assertions that they are public domain, but at the same time you do not leave the impression that you actually understand what the legal implications of this term are. That you have a personal website that you refer to as the source for these texts, but at the same time assert that the licensing terms cannot be added there because "the website designer does not know how to use it", is simply not a plausible explanation. --Xover (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover, @Xover:

You want to say that “Filip Višnjić” did not publish his book? - I'm finding all this pretty pointless, bcs You just want to delete his poems. You can see the book registred in libraries and there is publisher name in details, everywhere informations r avaliable to everyone. You have personal reason or you are paid to delete. I understand very well. So if you will be happy when you delete his poems - delete them. These verses have been published all over the world in several languages, professional, in dialy newspapers, in anthologies, in reputable magazines, and these verses from this book have been recited on national televisions by famous actors. Contact me by email and I can send you everything if you want to see

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Translation:The Man Who Planted Trees

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Wikisource translation of a 1953 French novel. The translation as such is fine, but the original is asserted to be "public domain" due to a letter from the author quoted on the work's talk page on frWS. It has been deleted and restored multiple times due to questions about the copyright on the translation, and was finally retranslated by Wikisource contributors. However, in all this back and forth nobody seems to have actually checked the (unverified, btw) text of that letter. What it actually says is that the author has permitted several translations of the work for free (that is, the author has not charged the translators a licensing fee). There is no mention of any release of rights into the public domain, or any other sort of free(dom) license. In fact, since this is an explicitly ecopolitical work and the author permitted translations explicitly to spread their message, there is every reason to suppose that he would have been opposed to allowing anyone to modify the work in any way. In other words, this is an obvious copyvio hiding under a smokescreen of advocacy. --Xover (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete not only because of copyright. Wikisource:Translations clearly states A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki… but I failed to find any scan in fr.wiki. As for copyright, I cannot speak French so I just assume that it is as Xover has described and that there are no signs of releasing the work under a free licence. In that case I agree with his reasoning and just note that the fr.ws original should definitely go from fr.ws too, as it is not acceptable when a Wikimedia project hosts texts which have not been clearly released under a licence allowing their translation for other Wikimedia projects (see meta:Copyright#Basics). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Mer Hayrenik

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

"Mer Hayrenik" is the national anthem of Armenia. Originally written as a poem in the 19th century, it was briefly (1918–1920) the national anthem, fell out of use, and was the re-adoped as the anthem in 1991. Our copy of the text has no translator specified (and no translation license), and given the history it seems most likely to be a post-1991 translation. --Xover (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nocturnal (Silva)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Published posthumously in 1908, "Nocturno" is the best known poem by José Asunción Silva (1865–1896). Our text is an English translation copied from AllPoetry. Their licensing statement is "© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes". As such it is incompatible with our copyright policy. There are other translations of this poem, but they are all modern and still in copyright. --Xover (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete, not compatible with our licenses. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Last Sermon of Muhammad by Shia Accounts

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Pasted here by an IP in 2008. Based on the footnotes it looks like it might be cobbled together from multiple partial published translations. Googling various parts of the text finds other online English versions, all of whom are asserted to be modern and in copyright (the veracity of those claims is questionable, but not obviously false). There is an issue of scope if this is indeed cobbled together from multiple sources, but ultimately it is a translation without a specified source or translator so its copyright status is impossible to ascertain. --Xover (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thirty-Six Strategies

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The Thirty-Six Stratagems are ancient Chinese proverbs on the theme "devious tactics in war" (think: Sun Tzu meets Machiavelli). Our current text has no source or translator specified, and according to Wikipedia: The original hand-copied paperback that is the basis of the current version was believed to have been discovered in China's Shaanxi province, of an unknown date and author, and put into print by a local publisher in 1941. The Thirty-Six Stratagems came to the public's attention after a review of it was published in the Chinese Communist Party's Guangming Daily newspaper on September 16, 1961. It is thus extremely unlikely that any English language translation existed before closer to 1970 (and thus are all still in copyright). --Xover (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the explanations were added in 2005 w:Special:Diff/20159025 (and seem to be of fairly crap copyright provenance, but nearly all the links from then are dead, so that'll need more research to actually nail down) and have mutated since then. But that is all moot: these explanations are not even part of the original work, which is just the 36 proverbs as we see at zh:三十六計. A Wikisource translation of these is one thing (and easy enough, but maintaining an aptly-in-this-case-named w:Chinese wall is theoretically required), but the explanations are not in our purview. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Treaty of Kars

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A treaty between the USSR and Turkey, signed in 1921 and ratified in 1922. Originally written in French and Russian. The English text was copied here in 2007 from Wikipedia, but tracing it back through revision history there shows the ultimate source to be Armenian News Network around 2004, and thus very much still in copyright. --Xover (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Informatics metrics and measures for a smart public health systems approach: Information science perspective

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.

There is the licence {{CC-BY-4.0}} at the bottom of the page, but the given source speaks about a different licence which is not compatible with the given one, as it does not allow creation of derivatives. Maybe it can be even speedied? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Says 4.0 and I don't see an NC note there.

“

Copyright © 2017 Timothy Jay Carney and Christopher Michael Shea. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

”

— billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Jan.Kamenicek: I can't find any mention of a -ND (no derivative works) license, just plain CC BY (attribution). Can you explain where you found the mention of the -ND limitation? --Xover (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Xover: I did not see any mention of an -ND licence (which explicitely forbids derivatives), I just wrote that their license does not allow derivatives. It explicitely permits use and reproduction, but it does not say anything about derivatives. However, CC-BY licences do explicitely permit creation of derivatives and so it is imo not compatible with them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: Ah, I see. Yes, CC BY allows derivative works (you have to explicitly use -ND to forbid them). The -SA (Share Alike) we usually see is actually a form of additional limitation: it requires you to license derivative works under the same license, so that you can't, e.g., make the derivative work -NC or similar. But, in any case, are we then satisfied that this work is compatibly licensed? --Xover (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Xover: If we were, we would have to devise a different template, because the template that was used with this work explicitely says that derivatives are allowed, while the license accompanying the work in the source page does not say anything like that. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  I have always understood that derivatives have to be explicitely allowed by the copyright owner, that it is not enough when they just do not mention derivatives in their licence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: In terms of copyright in general, yes, anything that isn't explicitly permitted through a license is reserved for the copyright owner. But the Creative Commons licenses (and other "copyleft" licenses) turn this on its head. If you look at the license deed for CC BY 4.0, you'll fid it says "You are free to: … Adapt—remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." It doesn't use the term "derivative work", but that is what it is referring to. CC BY is the basic CC license, and on top of it you can add various limitations on what people can do with it: -NC (not for commercial purposes), -ND (no derivative works), and -SA (you have to license derivative works under the same license). -NC and -ND are incompatible with our licensing policy, but base BY (requires only attribution) and SA are compatible. SA is odd in that it is a limitation, but it is a limitation that forces reusers to freely share their work under equal terms. --Xover (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  OK, so when they say "Creative Commons Attribution License" they mean the basic CC-BY which includes allowance of derivatives by default, and so their following specification ("unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited") does not have to include it, because it can only add other conditions. Well, I am not really sure if the authors meant it that way, because their specification in fact chooses only some conditions from CC-BY, it does not try to add anything, but I admit that your explanation is possible too. So if my point of view is isolated, I am willing to withdraw the proposal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: That's another nice feature of the CC licenses: you are not allowed to add additional restrictions (see caveat below). "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." So by having labelled it as CC BY the rest of the text there doesn't matter, it is the well-known terms of the license, and only the terms of the license, that matter.

  The only caveat is that there may in some cases be non-copyright limitations in play. For example publicity rights, privacy, etc. The license doesn't affect these rights since it only addresses copyright. But these are unlikely to be applicable to a work of this kind (I haven't checked specifically, it's just unlikely). --Xover (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Index:Modern French Course Part 1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted; under US copyright until 2026

Work is a Canadian edition of a work by - Mathurin Dondo (1884-1968.) Whilst this may be a reprint of a US publication, given where the author was working, I'd like a second view, as 1968+50 would be 2018 which is post URAA date for Canada. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1926 through 1977 Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal) // Published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad, without compliance with US formalities, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 => 95 years after publication date — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

kept, public domain in USA

Author is Rev. William Alexander Leslie Elmslie (1885-1965), This is NOT PD in the UK. At the very least the scans cannot be hosted on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Fair dinkum you know that 1916 works in the English language are acceptable here, no matter where or by whom they are published. If you want a work moved from Commons, please just ask at WS:S, this sort of dance is just ridiculous. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

1916 publication is public domain in US; with death date of author as 1965, so not out of UK copyright until 1936. File moved to enWS, and deleted at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science/Volume 270/The Engineering of Consent

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Copyright for the issue was renewed in 1978 with (Renewal: RE0000001363) --Einstein95 (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Delete Seems pretty clear, sadly. See y'all in 2045 or whenever. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Errors Made in Jutland Battle

The following discussion is closed:

Both works deleted as copyvio.

1932 work for author that died in 1935. Copyright in the US. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably much of the rest of Category:PD-old-70 too? E.g. The Times/1927/Letters to the Editor/The Late Dr. Jackson, author died 1933, so copyright in 1996 → copyright in US until 2023.

This URAA thing is rubbish. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been cleaning up the others, which is how I tripped over the nominated work. The nominated work was unpublished until 1955 so is an egregious case which cannot fall under PD-old-70 and it doesn't fit under PD-posthumous. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

For The Times/1927/Letters to the Editor/The Late Dr. Jackson, was it not copyright in 1996 in the UK? Huxley died in 1933, so 70 pma is 2003. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jakob Jakobsen portrait

The following discussion is closed:

The photo was first published in or before 1918, so it is in the public domain due to expiry of a pub. + 95 term. The book was published in the UK and Denmark in 1928 without a copyright notice. Since both are pma. 70 countries and the author died in 1918, the work was in the public domain in its country of origin on the URAA date (1 January 1996 for both). Hence the work failed to gain copyright protection in the US due to failing to comply with the required formalities, and its US copyright was not restored by the URAA.

The frontispiece to Jakobsen's Norn dictionary has a portrait of the man himself, but the quality of the NLS's scan is pretty poor when it comes to the images. I have found a much better copy of the exact same portrait here. Would I be allowed to replace this image on Commons with this hi-res version, or would the copyright on this be separate to what's in the book scans? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 19:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Because one of the authors died in 1961, this photograph cannot be uploaded to Commons, regardless of whether you take the copy from the frontispiece to the book or from the digital collection. However, if the photograph were first published more than 95 years ago (anywhere, not necessarily in the dictionary), you can upload it here, to the English Wikisource, as we follow only US copyright laws, according to which material published more than 95 years ago is in the public domain.

However, there might also be a problem with the dictionary as such. You have uploaded it to Commons, stating that it was released under cc-by-4.0 license. This license is usually used only when the author of the work released it under such conditions, which does not seem to be the case. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have just had a closer look at the book. The author Jakob Jakobsen died in 1918, but the English edition was published for the first time in 1928, and so I am afraid that it is not going to enter the public domain in the United States until 2024 :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Jan.Kamenicek I had this same discussion previously on my talk page - the reason I placed the work under CC-BY-4.0 is because the National Library of Scotland released their scans under this license (see here). I am not aware of the circumstances under which this has been allowed to take place, but presumably a national institution such as themselves would have done the due diligence to have released it with the correct permissions.

Assuming that it is indeed released under CC-BY-4.0, does that change anything relating to this image?— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say the photograph is a simple photo and only covered by the shorter term in Danish copyright. commons:Template:PD-Denmark50 would apply, and that one of the mentioned photographers died in 1961 is not necessarily a problem with regards to uploading to commons. This version is attributed to two different photographers, the previous owners of the same photography company. But I am also concerned about the copyright status of the book in the USA. I suspect the National Library of Scotland only checked the copyright status in the UK, ignoring the status in USA, and that the only thing they have released is their own rights to the scanning process (which would usually be ignored on commons anyway). (A quick side note on the text at the bottom of the frontispiece: In "Pacht & Crone's Eftf.", Eftf. is short for Efterfølgere = successors so that last letter is unlikely to be an A.) Peter Alberti (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled on a publication of the photo in a 1918 newspaper. So the portrait is not a problem. You can use commons:Template:PD-Denmark50 and commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired on commons, regardless of which photographer is the right one. Peter Alberti (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Alberti: Thanks for finding another version – that appears to be more closely edited to the version in the book. And thanks for the advice, I'll put both up on Commons seeing as it was published in 1918 (or possibly earlier).

As for the dictionary itself, I have contacted the National Library of Scotland to confirm the licence on it, and I'll share the response I get. I hope this is not a mistake as I have probably poured several hundred hours into the transcription so far. Here's hoping.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a reply from NLS:

"The CC BY 4.0 licence that you're seeing was applied by the Library in relation to the digital images created by the Library, rather than in respect of the 'underlying' work (which, in this case, is the writing by Jakobsen...). There is some debate in the UK as to whether 'faithful' digitisations like these are protected by copyright. The Library's position on this matter has evolved over recent years and during this time we have applied increasingly open licences to our digitised images. However, we are aware that this approach still does not provide the clearest and most accurate information, namely because it does not communicate the copyright status of the 'underlying' work. Therefore, we are currently working to update our rights statements, to provide a more accurate portrayal of the copyright status of the work itself, rather than our digital images. This process will take us some time to complete, as the current CC BY 4.0 licence has been applied to virtually all of our digital images. Therefore, we are working through our digitised collections to identify the correct rights statement to apply to different works. Over time, we will update the rights information displayed in our Digital Gallery, for example from changing 'CC BY 4.0' to 'Public Domain', in cases where we know the underlying work is out of copyright.

In terms of your immediate use of this material, I have not personally investigated the copyright status of this work. However, based on the information you have provided regarding authorship and translation, it sounds like the writing will be in the public domain (out of copyright) in the UK, where copyright in a published written normally survives for 70 years after the death of the last living author of a work. The CC BY 4.0 licence relates only to the digital image, so if you are not re-using the image, you do not need to take it into account (I see you note that you're making a transcription). Even if you do wish to re-use/re-publish the images, you are very free to do so - under the CC BY 4.0 licence you can effectively do anything you wish with the images, as long as you cite the licence and attribute the source (the Library, in this case). Precise details of the licence are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

You are welcome to share this response with other users of Wikisource.

With kind regards,

Fredric Saunderson

Rights and Information Manager

National Library of Scotland"

I can't help but feel this CC license applied only to the images, but not the work itself, seems pretty disingenuous to me. How is it possible to share the images without sharing the work itself? The notice next to the download links on their website says "Unless otherwise stated, these images and transcriptions may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence". How is any reasonable person with good intent such as myself meant to know that that only refers to the images of the pages, and not the work itself? This notice is unreasonably unclear.

Anyway, I suppose my hundreds of hours of work here so far are now in jeopardy because of this. I hope you can understand I'd like to exhaust any option that may allow my work to stay up. Would the work be eligible under Template:PD-1996? It was first published (in English) in London, as far as I am aware the work has never been published in the US (only in London and Lerwick in the UK), it was first published in 1928/1932, and if you go by Jakob Jakobsen's death in 1918, that would have put it in the public domain in the home country (the UK) in 1988, before the URAA date. Would this be deemed acceptable? Apologies if I have any of this wrong, I'm trying to learn these copyright rules as I go.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not apologize for anything, copyright laws are really confusing for most people, myself included. As far as I understand it, Jakobsen was the author of the English text, and so (based on the date of his death) PD-1996 seems OK to me. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: I'm glad to hear it's not just me struggling with this sort of thing! I have replaced the copyright template with Template:PD-1996 for now. If there's any change in opinion it can be swapped out again, hopefully without the removal of my work so far. Thanks to you both for your advice.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court

The following discussion is closed:

All 20 pages covered only by this OTRS ticket, along with their associated talk pages, have been deleted. Since the author page (Author:Rick Alan Ross) was then empty of compatibly licensed content, it was also deleted. If compatibly licensed content from that author surfaces it can be undeleted.

My attention was drawn to this page due to an IP removing text and changing a couple of words. On digging into the linked website I find the statement: “Unless otherwise noted, all material on this site is Copyright © Rick Ross.” This makes the page a copyvio. However, as the page has been here for seven years (tomorrow), I thought it best to have a discussion rather than a speedy deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we verify OTRS ticket#2014012710014942? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Inductiveload, I’m Martin, an OTRS volunteer, and I was asked by @Jan.Kamenicek, an English Wikisource administrator, to validate the OTRS ticket in question.

Ticket#2014012710014942 is a forwarded permission, ie. it is an email sent by a Wikimedian, forwarding a release that came into their own mailbox. The forwarded conversation contains only the release, and there is no prior conversation with the copyright holder.

Forwarded permissions are generally hard to validate, because they do not have any technical information attached that could be used to confirm the authenticity of the release. I personally would not accept that permission were I the handling agent, and I do not recommend to rely on them when in doubt, especially since the Wikimedian who forwarded the release is no longer in good standing.

I hope this helps. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Honestly, I quite wonder why the contributor bothered with obtaining permission for this particular article which is written very one-sidedly as a part of some dispute between two obscure educational institutions, and adding this text to Wikisource seems to me like somebody wanted to make us a part of one of the sides of the dispute. If it were something more important or interesting and an OTRS volunteer were not able to confirm the authenticity of the permission, I would try to contact the copyright holder and ask him for the confirmation again. But this text does not seem worth the exertion, it is on the very verge of being elligible according to WWI, and so when I sum everything up, I agree with the deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: The page creator, User:Cirt, has been indefbanned on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. They have been dormant on this project since 2016. I have taken the liberty of removing all of their long-out of date administrator userboxes from their user page, as they are no longer an admin on any project. BD2412 T 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete In light of Martin's information, and based on my own experience investigating misrepresentations by contributors about such things, we should definitely not accept this. --Xover (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment How many other works by this Author do we suspect may fall under the same issues? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

┌──────┘
The following pages…

Deleted pages

• A Landmark subculture through the Internet?
• Landmark Education stumbles stupidly to hollow settlement
• Landmark Education wants to make French news report a 'forbidden video' on the Net
• Landmark Education defendant in wrongful death lawsuit
• Kids trained by Landmark Education, is it 'brainwashing' or their 'salvation'?
• Landmark Education and its lawyer bullying Internet news providers?
• Landmark Education lawsuit likely to become another landmark for freedom of information on the Internet
• Is AOL censoring free speech?
• IRS refuses to release information about alleged government spending on celebrity guru's courses
• The Hunger Project attempts to purge criticism and history from the Internet
• Is the IRS paying the bill for employees to take a celebrity guru's seminars?
• Old EST bigger than ever
• Former Landmark leader wanted for murder surrenders to FBI
• Leader of controversial organization with ties to 'cult-like' group tapped by UN Task Force to help cure world hunger
• Electronic library about Landmark Education litigation now on-line
• Homicide conviction of James Ray another warning about the dangers of LGATs
• Why did Landmark Education leave France?
• Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court
• 'Free speech' on the Internet could be expensive
• Alleged murderer and sniper linked to Landmark Education

…were all affected by the same OTRS ticked and have been deleted. --Xover (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mind, Character and Personality (1977)

The following discussion is closed:

No plausible argument for compatible licensing found.

The following discussion is being made in response to a DMCA takedown of this work by the Wikimedia Foundation. In this post, I intend to dive into what I know about the work, and I want to discuss the issue of whether or not this is copyrighted. I want to discuss the original edition from 1977 only and not any subsequent editions that might have followed thereafter.

...because I have found quite a few versions available online that have 2010s copyright dates. Any content that is original to those versions will definitely still be under copyright.

Now would be a good time to note that this book came in two volumes, so we'd have to conclusively prove that both of them failed to comply with required formalities in 1977 (not containing a notice), or else the whole game is over.

Copyright Office record

I am not finding any evidence of a record of this book at the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office should have accepted a record of this book had it had a valid copyright notice, and would have (presumably) rejected it if it didn't. However, the fact that there is no apparent record doesn't necessarily mean the original didn't have a copyright notice; I say it just increases the likelihood of that being the case.

Copyright notice?

As the book was first published in 1977, if the original version contained no copyright notice, then it can probably be assumed to be in the public domain.

I can't find any scans online of anything that is even a candidate of being the 1977 original (all the PDFs I found are of 2010s editions of the book). However, I have found some places where a few hardcover copies are being sold online, on Amazon and eBay (look yourselves, I can't link it), and some of those may be originals, but I can't be certain. So someone will have to 1.) Buy both 2 volumes of the book and 2.) Verify that it really doesn't contain a copyright notice. Any candidates for this job? If it doesn't (and we have confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that this version really is the 1977 original) ​then we can move onto the next section.

Possibility of being a derivative work

The maybe toughest aspect of all of this is that, especially since we got a DMCA, we will probably want to check just to make absolutely sure that the original content of Mind, Character and Personality didn't derive from some other work, that it doesn't contain images from other works that are still copyrighted, or storyline elements/long passages for example.

So, if the original is in the public domain

...then that doesn't necessarily mean that their DMCA was unwarranted; like User:Languageseeker pointed out in the Scriptorium, the non-scanned-back Wikisource transcription for this work was probably copied from one of the 2010s PDFs I found which are later editions, which could have contained 2010s content that would inherently be copyrighted regardless of notice. So if we do determine this is in the public domain, we should scan the original version, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and produce a scan-backed transcription of the work. As I'm interested in doing transcriptions of more modern works, 1977 included, if it can be proven that this is in the public domain I'd be happy to transcribe it. But if it isn't, I say it should certainly be deleted, until the year 2073 comes around.

Pinging users in previous discussion: @JSutherland (WMF), @Jan.Kamenicek, @Prosfilaes, @Languageseeker: As mentioned by the WMF member, as IANAL, someone legally qualified may want to get involved with this because of the severity of a DMCA notice being involved here. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It's possible that the 1977 work is in the public domain. If you do verify that, I'd be willing to help check if it is distinct from the uploaded text. I'm personally completely apathetic towards the work, though, and see no need to put much work myself into it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope that WMF legal department had already checked the copyright status of the work including the possibility of missing/present copyright notice before they deleted it here. What I am disappointed by is that they did not tell us which steps to verify the status of the work they made exactly and with what result: they simply appeared here like deus ex machina and deleted it as if we were not able to solve copyvios when we get proper information.

As for the effort to check the copyright notice: it is imo not necessary to buy the book, it should be enough to write to a library where they have a copy and ask them about it. However, the deleted work was not scan-backed and without the scans I am not sure if it is worth that effort. I was not protesting against the deletion as such, I was protesting against the way their employee treated us. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: The WMF is here acting exactly in compliance with the DMCA: in exchange for giving the site owner some indemnity (the "Safe Harbour" provisions) for what users upload, the law requires them to honour takedown requests made in the requisite fashion within a given timeframe. WMF Legal assesses such requests to make sure they are plausible, but the law effectively requires them to act on any properly formed takedown request. (The WMF also strongly recommends copyright owners use the community processes rather then send DMCA takedown requests, but that's up to the copyright owners) That the WMF steps in an deletes files or pages on the projects is surprising only in the sense that it has happened extremely rarely on enWS. On enWP and Commons, WMF Office actions are a well-known quantity and in the main uncontroversial. That we have seen so few here on enWS (I can't recall any previous instances) can probably be attributed to a combination of our relative obscurity and what is evidently a reasonably efficient community self-policing of copyright.

In other words, I understand that it is upsetting when apparently the WMF swoops in out of nowhere and completely sets aside the community's governance. But their ability to do so is absolutely necessary and well-known (just rare on enWS), and the actions they took in this case is mandated by the law in the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated. I can't fault them for anything in this particular instance. --Xover (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this is basically the LDS church having no chill (as the kids these days say) and reaching for the DMCA nuclear option as a first resort. Once the DMCA comes out, there's nothing one can do without a formal counter-claim (which is made, essentially, on pain of perjury, so it something you do right).

Ironically, had the LDS asked here on the 17th Feb, rather than going via the legal route, this would have probably been deleted weeks ago due to a de facto presumption of copyright for a work from 1977. Could have saved them a lawyer's time and gotten a quicker reaction! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment @PseudoSkull: Is there any reason to assume this work is not in copyright? There are only very specific (narrow) circumstances where a 1977 work is not protected by copyright, which only come into play for a small fraction of published works (publishers big and small have religiously added copyright statements, whether required or not, for well over a century). Absent specific reason to believe differently, the reasonable presumption is that such works are protected by copyright.
  Incidentally, even if your above proposed process was successful we wouldn't be able to host the work once the DMCA is in play (the Office would just delete it again). To get anywhere we'd need to go through the process of filing a DMCA counter-claim first (which is what Joe offered to help us with). --Xover (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: You're right; there is no reason to assume it's not in copyright, which is why we shouldn't just undelete it on such a baseless assumption. Unfortunately as you say it most likely is under copyright due to the circumstances you describe. But it's not completely impossible that it didn't fall out of copyright, especially because of the fact that I'm not seeing any record in the Copyright Office of this work at all. Rcrowley7 might have been right in this case, although maybe for the wrong reasons—regardless of if by happenstance they were right or wrong about this one they still probably shouldn't have gone and copypasted from that site every White work in existence, without at least checking the copyright status of each thoroughly. From the looks of it, they may not have even been aware that this work was posthumously published.

I made this discussion mostly because I'm interested to find out whether or not the DMCAer was really right in this case. If they were wrong, it would be interesting to have a work that was previously DMCA'd, but checked out in the end with the party basically proven wrong, hosted on Wikisource. So that's my stake in the whole thing. My suspicion that this actually didn't receive a copyright is very low, but I'd like to be absolutely sure, so that maybe some level of contribution to Wikisource could come from this unfortunate incident. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I found a college textbook just the other day from 1972 that just said "All rights reserved" but had no formal copyright notice, which would count as an improper notice at the time. So if Mind, Character and Personality just had the copyright symbol with a missing year, or the word "Copyrighted" or the statement "All rights reserved" that would also place that work in the public domain. Forgot to mention that before. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

hard copy at university of alabama [3] not in library of congress. Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment we can link to the existing work online—it has been a a well-established practice to link to online works that are legally held. You can go to a hell of lot of work on a matter of principle/umbrage or you can do some productive maintenance and some transcription of works clearly in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment The copyright was helpfully shown by an eBay auction for the 1977 edition. It reads: "Copyright © 1977 by the Ellen G. White Publications". Since this counts as a copyright notice, this discussion could probably be safely closed. -Einstein95 (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Works by Ellen G. White

The following discussion is closed:

All listed works deleted as being of unknown provenance and dubious copyright status; but if someone comes up with a scan with a plausible claim of compatible licensing there are at least several of these works that could conceivably be hosted.

In light of the DMCA takedown of Mind, Character and Personality discussed above, I took a quick peek at the other works listed on her author page.

• Patriarchs and Prophets—no source, no license; but no obviously suspect elements either
• Prophets and Kings—contains a foreword by "The Board of Trustees of the Ellen G. White Publications"
• The Desire of Ages—no source, no license; but no obviously suspect elements either
• The Acts of the Apostles—gives "The Official Ellen G. White Website" as a source, no license; but no obvious suspect elements in the work
• The Great Controversy (White)—no source (and different uploader), but no obvious suspect elements
• A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White—no source, but no obvious suspect elements
• Christ's Object Lessons—contains a preface by "The Trustees of the Ellen G. White Publications"
• Education (White)—contains a foreword by "The trustees of the Ellen G. White Publications"
• Evangelism—contains a preface by "The Trustees of the Ellen G. White Publications"
• The Ministry of Healing—contains a preface by "The Trustees of the Ellen G. White Publications"
• The Sanctified Life—contains "A Word to the Reader" by "The Trustees of the Ellen G. White Publications" dated 2006
• Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers—no source, no license; but no obvious suspect elements
• Sketches from the Life of Paul—gives ellenwhitedefend.com as the source
• Steps to Christ—contains a foreword by "The trustees of the Ellen G. White publications"
• Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing—contains a foreword by "The Trustees of the Ellen G. White Publications" dated 1955
• Christ's Deepest Truths—just a toc, no content (should be speedied as no content irrespective of the rest)
• A Solemn Appeal—no source, and just one chapter (should be speedied as an excerpt)

In other words, barring two incomplete texts and one uploaded by a different user, all of these are cut&paste jobs from the Ellen G. White trustees' website or ebooks by the same user. Most of the text is probably public domain due to being first published in White's lifetime, but since they are clearly cut&paste from modern editions we have no guarantees about what copyrightable changes may have been made by the trustees'. The modern forewords are clearly copyvios, but the rest of the text is just "dubious provenance".

So what we have to do (and which I'll start on as speedies pretty soon) is delete the modern forewords. I am also inclined to just nuke all of them to get a clean slate, with no prejudice to recreating them iff proofread from a scan of a clearly public domain edition (pre-1925). --Xover (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit. We don’t need to deal with DMCAs. Languageseeker (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete all content, including the forewords. All of this is not scan-backed anyway, and our works that lack scans are a problem at this site anyway, an unholy mess from past technological limitations that we've been spending years cleaning up. I may invest time myself into this particular author, since we lack genuine content from her. (I'll think about it.) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

yeah, if we had Early Works , with a scan from library of congress, i might keep that. might want to revisit, whenever someone gets scans of first editions with copyright page. (it is not an unholy mess, merely a large backlog) Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 10:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Modern forewords definitely have to go. At the same time the presence of modern forewords suggests that also the text of the works was copied from modern editions and we do not know, how much they were edited, and so I have nothing against deletion of all the works. Cut-and-pasting does not add any value, such contributions are just next to useless. Besides, I like non-scan backed works less and less, because without scans it is very difficult and often impossible to check various changes that some contributors (especially novice contributors and IP addresses) make to them, claiming them to be justified corrections of mistakes and typos. So the fewer non-scan backed works we keep, the better. Absence of the work here may as a result induce somebody to add a scan backed transcription. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Our current Gutenberg-sourced version of Winesburg, Ohio

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as modern(-ish) edition. Original scan-backed edition would be most welcome.

User:Quadell pointed out on Talk:Winesburg, Ohio in 2008:

I'm a bit concerned about this Gutenberg edition, to tell the truth. The original edition was published in 1919, and is public domain; but the introduction by Irving Howe says that he first read it when he was 15 or 16. Howe was born in 1920, so he must have written this introduction after 1935--probably 1950 or so. I can't find any solid information about which edition first had Howe's introduction, but the introduction is quite possibly still under copyright.

I did a bit more research on where this particular version came from, and unfortunately, according to Irving Howe's Wikipedia article, the source of this version appears to be "Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Voice of America, 1964. American Novel Series #14". As this was presumably published in 1964 (at earliest), the original copy of this version would have to have lacked a copyright notice for the introduction to be considered public-domain (I consider this possibility very unlikely).

Furthermore, this isn't the original version anyway. It should be moved to Winesburg, Ohio (1964) very soon. If any evidence can be given here that this introduction is in the public domain then I say a full scan of this version should then be provided and that a proper transcription project of this version should be started. Otherwise, I think this full thing should be deleted. Either way, we need to make way for other versions of Winesburg, Ohio including the 1919 original, which I myself will be doing very soon (I'm on Windy McPherson's Son now). PseudoSkull (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(I would personally prefer that non-scan-backed versions just be deleted outright for that reason alone, but the community doesn't appear to be on my side on that point.) PseudoSkull (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Can we delete this now as a probable copyright violation? At the very least, it ought to be moved to Winesburg, Ohio (1964) if the evidence isn't compelling enough for you. I estimate ~22 days from tomorrow I will get to work to transcribe the original of this work. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

1933 unregistered dual US/UK published work.

The following discussion is closed:

Work is for copyright purposes a US work and was published without a copyright notice, and with no evidence of renewal.

I'm looking at one of the Loeb Classical Library volumes from 1933: L272: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.185436

This has a publisher in the UK and one in the US, and does not appear to have been registered in the US in 1933 (though this particular scan is of a UK printing). William Henry Samuel Jones died in 1963, so pma 70 is a long way off yet, and obviously 1996 was still well in copyright in the UK.

Can someone remind this dope of the rule here? URAA restoration assumed → no go, or dual publishing + no reg → PD (and if so, Commons-friendly?)? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: In terms of copyright, it is clearly in copyright in the UK (as you say). In the US, copyright status depends on whether it contained a copyright notice etc.. And, sadly, we cannot trust the Digital Library of India for that: I've found multiple instances where their scans have been actively modified to either leave out a copyright notice, insert a colophon from a different book to make it look like it's PD, and even outright faking the year of publication in an existing colophon.

In terms of the URAA, if a foreign work was in copyright in the source country on that country's URAA date (usually, but not always, 1996) then its US copyright was restored to whatever the usual term would have been if it had been a US work (i.e. usually pub.+95 for the stuff we deal with).

However, in terms of Commons policy, the requirement is PD in the US and in the country of origin. Works that were simultaneously (within 30 days) published in a foreign country and the US, however, are explicitly not eligible for URAA restoration. So for works that are truly simultaneously published in the US Commons policy treats them as US works, and you can determine US copyright status in the usual way.

So, for this particular work, you need to find out first publication date; where that first publication occurred; and, if simultaneously published, whether the version published in the US contained a notice. Don't trust the DLI scan for anything related to copyright; and publication details are best researched in newspapers (ads by publishers, "books received" by newspapers, or actual reviews). Xover (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Darn, that's what I was afraid of. So a quick prod turns up:

• US review: e.g. 2nd July 1933: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/77066217/
• UK review: no idea where to find this (no hits in Newspapers.com or Newspaperarchive.com), but The Classical Review September 1933 lists it in "books received" (with the NY/London dual publisher): https://www.jstor.org/stable/700741 [https://i.ibb.co/cJLyBr0/2021-05-05-073824-441x127-screenshot.png

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Works of ICJ

The following discussion is closed:

No action necessary.

Hello! May I ask if judgments, orders, etc, of the International Court of Justice are copyrighted (and can be hosted here)? Does Template:PD-UN applies to those works? Thanks a lot! --Miwako Sato (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The 'default' for works of the United Nations is that they are copyrighted, the only exceptions are documents covered by Administrative_Instruction_ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 ..... generally, that means that only works that were released under a "UN document symbol" (such as ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2), are specifically PR material, or are actual 'treaties' can be automatically assumed to be PD. Any document that is 'offered for sale' by the UN is not PD, which covers works like the Handbook of the court.

I would expect that the actual judgements, advisory opinions, and orders of the court itself, are not copyrighted... I can find nothing to specifically indicate they are, and while they don't have a 'formal' document symbol, they don't have a copyright notice, and are "written material issued simultaneously or sequentially in the form of documents and publications".... they all have a "General List No." in the header.

I think the most definitive answers come from Part II.A.7., the "general rule", and in Part III of the Admin Instruction, on procedures, that clearly implies that any copyrighted UN document will have a copyright notice, and possibly a sales number. The procedure seems to be that the Publication Board has to specifically approve the copyright registration of individual works. Jarnsax (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Digging around a bit more, it appears they handle the matter the same as other UN bodies, that the working documents themselves (judgements etc) are released to the PD as they are issued, then printed annually in a copyrighted yearbook (which presumably contains other material as well). Jarnsax (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of 'treaties', please note that more recently published volumes of the United Nations Treaty Series, i.e. Vol 1242 in 1994 and all in 1995, are copyrighted with all rights reserved, so transcribing the whole volumes is limited to earlier ones not claimed to be copyrighted. Later volumes cannot be fully transcribed here, so we may only transcribe underlying texts of the treaties not being copyrighted. See also c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Nations#General rules--Jusjih (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How Today’s College Students Use Wikipedia for Course–related Research

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as incompatibly licensed.

This is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 license, as can be seen in the transcribed text under the "Creative Commons License" section and at https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476. This isn't considered a free license because it prohibits commercial use and isn't a permissible license in Help:Licensing compatibility as it does not meet the definition of free content in Wikisource:Copyright policy. The transcribed text has a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license template at the bottom, but this is evidently incorrect. Dylsss (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Delete. I also want to note that "Course-related" in the title uses an en dash instead of a hyphen. This is counterintuitive (because en dashes are hard to input) and also grammatically incorrect. So even if this is kept which I doubt, the page should be renamed with a hyphen. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we've standardized on the ASCII hyphen-dash in title names, though the Unicode hyphen would be more correct here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This appears to be a copy from marxists.org which took their copy from Volume 31 of the Collected Works of Lenin published in 1966 in the Soviet Union by Progress Publishers [[4]] so the translation is still copyrighted as it was published abroad and then restored under URAA... MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Estate of Marriage

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

I saw this was pending for 9 months, Walter Brandt died in 1958, the work seems to have been published in 1962 in the US with renewal [[5]]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vkem: Do you have any comment about this nomination as copyright violation? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Khōn

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

I propose the deletion of this work, as it is apparently a copyright violation.

The author, Dhanit Yupho (Thai Wikipedia article), died in 2004. It is still not over 50 years after the author's death according to the Thai copyright law.

And the tagged license, Template:PD-TH-exempt, does not apply at all, because this work is not a constitution, legislation, judicial decision, etc.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ponniyin Selvan

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom. Work is a modern translation by a still-living author, and contributor has not responded to requests for a rationale.

Putting this here whilst I try to get some extra information from the contributor. At first look, this would appear to be a modern translation of the state dwork, and I have no confidence that the translation is in the public domain and able to be reproduced. This article would indicate that the translator is living. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Old Mrs Chundle (Hardy)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Moved from WS:PD

Header says "A short story written by Thomas Hardy about 1888-1890 was never printed at his lifetime and was first published in Ladies Home Journal February 1929." As it was published prior to 2003 in a magazine from 1929 that was renewed it is still under copyright: see c:Template:PD-US-unpublished. The magazine issue would be "February 1929 (v. 46 no. 2), © January 31, 1929", source: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/lhj Evidence of renewal: https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig3102libr/page/337/mode/1up?view=theater PseudoSkull (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete (until end of 2024). Publication after death does annoying things to copyright terms. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Vincent Van Gogh

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

French original by Octave Mirbeau (1848–1917) is PD, but I have been unable to track down any source for the English-language translation. Xover (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Scan localization requests

The following discussion is closed:

All requested scans copied locally.

@Languageseeker: You uploaded all but one of the below works. Please pay attention to copyright status before uploading: all four of these works are wholly or partially by UK authors with no evidence of first or concurrent publication in the US. This means they are still in copyright in the UK, even if their US copyright has expired. Since Commons requires uploads to be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin, these will be deleted there eventually. Works that comply with the enWS copyright policy but not the Commons policy should be uploaded locally.

@ShakespeareFan00: There's no special magic for moving files from Commons to here: just download the file from Commons, upload it here, add the description page from Commons, tidy up any template differences, and add {{do not move to Commons}}. --Xover (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am UK based, so me uploading them locally would potentially be a copyright issue for me. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If outside the USA, better ask here first.--Jusjih (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Index:One Increasing Purpose.pdf

Work is by Arthur Stuart-Menteth Hutchinson (1879–1971). It is not PD-UK, and so the scans should be locally hosted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:Rebels and reformers (1919).djvu

Contains contributions from Dorothea Ponsonby (1876–1963) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The war history of the 1st-4th Battalion, the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, now the Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire), 1914-1918 (IA warhistoryof1st400grea).pdf

Localisation requested as specfic UK authors could not be identified on a quick scan of the works initial pages. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The way of Martha and the way of Mary (1915).djvu

Work by British Author - Stephen Graham (1884–1975) , so not PD-UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:When we were very young.pdf

London publication, Author Alan Alexander Milne (1882–1956) - Not PD-UK ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The ABC of Relativity.djvu

• London edition, of a work by Author:Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) , not PD-UK ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

   In progress… Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  Done Xover (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:Pyrotechnics the history and art of firework making (1922).djvu

• Work by British Author who died in 1956 - Not PD-UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:Machine-gun tactics (IA machineguntactic00appl).pdf

• Work by british authour who died in 1956 - Not PD-UK and this appears to be a London published edition ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The principle of relativity (1920).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Filer has been migrated locally and the file on Commons tagged for speedy deletion. An existing copy of this file and its associated index have been merged with this one.

The Historical introduction is by w:Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis (1893 – 1972) meaning this is NOT PD in India.

One of the translators is listed as Author:Satyendra Nath Bose (1894–1974) also not PD-India

At the very least the scans should be localised.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Gates of Empire

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

"Gates of Empire", aka. "The Road of the Mountain Lion", is a short story by Robert Ervin Howard (1906–1936) first published in Golden Fleece in January 1939. The issue or story may or may not have had a copyright notice, but searching Stanford I've been unable to find a renewal for the story, under either title, or for the magazine. In other words, it seems likely that this is {{PD-US-no-notice}}{{PD-US-no-renewal}}, but I would like to have the community's take. Xover (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [edited to correct template link: --Xover (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)]

• I also can't find any renewals for Golden Fleece from 1966 or 1967. Agree that Stanford seems to show no relevant works renewals (for "Mountain Lion" or "Robert Howard"). So I think it's safe. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there was a reprint of works from the Golden Fleece available on Archive.org that claims it's in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Georgia versus Russia (Hague court application, 2008)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A 2008 submission to the w:International Court of Justice from Georgia. Georgian copyright law is more restrictive than {{PD-USGov}} and only exempts "official documents (laws, court decisions, other administrative and normative texts), as well as their official translations;". A submission to the court does not obviously fall within any of those example categories. In the US, the works of foreign governments are copyrightable unless they fall under {{PD-EdictGov}}, but a submission to a supranational court does not seem to fit that definition either. My initial assessment is therefore that this is a copyvio. Xover (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• While an interesting text, it does appear to fall outside of both Georgian and U.S. government-copyright laws. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

ISN 043 -- statement of 2006/10/23

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Samir Naji's written statement to the Guantanamo Administrative Review Board dated 23 October 2006. This was previously possible to host due to a lack of copyright relations between the US and Afghanistan, but since Afghanistan's WTO membership in 2016 and accession to the Berne convention in 2018 this is no longer true. Naji's statement is subject to a pma. 50 copyright term in Afghanistan, and through the URAA a pma. 70 term in the US, meaning this will be in copyright in the US until at least 2077 or thereabouts. @Geo Swan: pinging by request. Xover (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Mesnevī (Volume 2).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Work is in US copyright until the end of this year due to URAA-restoration of a now-expired UK copyright term. Since there are only a few months left and the work is not yet transcluded it is being left undeleted (rather than deleting multiple subpages and then undeleting them a few months later), but no further transcription should take place until after 1 January 2022 (doing so would put the contributor in legal jeopardy). Note that this course of action is an expedient one that is in conflict with our policy, and as such can be challenged or overruled at any time. It does not set any kind of precedent for handling of future cases.

A Monthly Challenge work flagged up on the MC discussion page. This volume was published in 1926 (though v1 was published in 1925), in the UK, by an author who died in 1945.

I think that makes it URAA-restored and it's (very annoyingly) copyrighted in the US until next year (despite having being PD in the UK for 6 years, jsut to rub it in >_<)? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• The work is not transcluded, so it's not really exposed to the public; and it'll enter the public domain in ~5 months. Deleting the multiple Page:-pages now and undeleting them in 5 months is a bit more hassle than I want for a formality. Anyone object to just leaving the fragments sitting there until new years? We shouldn't transcribe more of it yet, and it shouldn't be linked anywhere prominent, but I don't see much use in the delete/undelete dance for this one. --Xover (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The Ghost of Camp Colorado

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

"The Ghost of Camp Colorado" is a short story by Robert Ervin Howard (1906–1936) apparently first published in The Texaco Star, an employee magazine published by Texaco's marketing department, in April 1931. Earlier issues of this magazine were published with a copyright notice (I haven't found a scan of this one), but I haven't found any renewals for this magazine (Texaco did renew other publications in which they had a commercial interest). As such it is probably {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

An additional complication is that our text was apparently taken from The End of the Trail: Western Stories (2005), a modern collection with unknown changes. In other words, it is possible our text is a derivative work whose copyright we'd then be violating. It doesn't appear particularly likely, but it is possible, so it'll depend on your standard of evidence for copyright issues… Xover (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have found no renewal of either this work or of relevant issues of Texaco Star. Ideally, this work should be backed to a scan of that magazine, but failing that, I do not think the collection’s changes warrant copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The Letters (Wharton)

The following discussion is closed:

Unsourced and conflated text deleted, replaced with proofread and scan-backed texts of the individual pieces.

Apparently a short story by Edith Wharton (1862–1937), and almost certainly first published in the US, so there are numerous ways this could be public domain now. But I'm not having much luck finding out where and when that first publication took place, and so we can't really tell what side of the line this falls on. I would be happy if someone could dig up the details so we could know for sure though. Xover (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Harper's monthly magazine v.108 Dec. 1903-May 1904, page 781 (HathiTrust link) has an edition of the first half of this, called "The Letter", and we're missing the first line of that edition. I suspect a similar search for text from the second half in HathiTrust would turn the other half. It's still problematic, as it looks like another edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, looking at this…

The text seems to be a weird amalgam. "The Letter" seems to be a single work divided into two parts, both published together in Harper's Monthly Magazine Vol. 108, No. 647 for April 1904. The other part seems to be "The Dilettante", published in Harper's Monthly Magazine Vol. 108, No. 643 for December 1903. Our text for both works appears complete, except for missing the first line of "The Letter".

Based on this I think it is reasonable to say that both works were first published more than 95 years ago, and given both magazine and Wharton are American we can simply assume first publication happened in the US.

So, in terms of copyright, what remains is the issue of whether the editions of the texts we have are a later and possibly copyrighted edition. I'm not sure how we would determine that without a word-for-word comparison; and I am not convinced the probability of that being the case is worth the effort of trying to determine it. Xover (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And since we happened to have an index for Vol. 108, I have proofread The Letter (Wharton) and The Dilettante from that. If nobody objects I propose we delete The Letters (Wharton) as of unknown provenance and leave the newly proofread ones in its place. Xover (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The French Declaration of War against Austria (1792)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Source identified, reproofread and replaced, license tags updated.

No source provided, and I have been unable to find one. The original is obviously long out of copyright, but this was also definitely not originally in English. The English translation bears the hallmarks of a modern translation (and it is definitively not a contemporary translation). Xover (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I find it, at least, from Readings in European History (1906), pp. 454–455; the translation may well be of an earlier date. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Ok, I've uploaded Readings in European History Vols. 1 and 2, proofread the relevant pages, and transcluded them over the old text. I've tagged the original as {{PD-old}} and the translation as {{PD/US|1936}}. On p. xxv Robinson gives the source as "Duvergier, Collection complète des lois, decrets, etc. (ed. of 1824), IV, 140 sq.", so I think we can reasonably pin this as Robinson's own translation (well, or possibly his wife's, cf. the preface). Robinson's name appears on several volumes of translations published by Columbia University in the decades leading up to this so it was clearly his area.

  In any case, if you have no objections I'll call this discussion resolved. --Xover (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  • No objections here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Edmeston Local/Question Over Famous Run Is Finally Solved and The Edmeston Local/Scout's Run to Warn Of Peril To Be Marked

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No plausible claim of compatible licensing.

1937 and 1939 articles from The Edmeston Local. They were apparently copied here from a ~2000 book as part of a bigger History of Edmeston project that was subsequently deleted. Someone needs to come up with valid licensing for these since they're way past the 95 year cutoff. Xover (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I can only find the first article here (App. H), but I believe that there needs to be a greater look at the Edmeston Local, as there are several more articles marked as “Doubtful Fidelity.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagore's Letters to M. K. Gandhi

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Letters written by Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941) to Gandhi in 1919 and 1932. The letters were not, afaict, published at the time. The first publication I have found is the one given by the cited source, Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. IV in 1968, which includes (as best I can tell) the English translation by Jitendra T. Desai. For unpublished works the term in India is pub. + 60 years (so until 2028), and the translation would be pma. 60 from Desai's date of death (which I've not found but it is definitely even later). Xover (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Regardless of the original publication, the translator death data sounds like a slam dunk. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Education for Life presentation by His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as no plausible claim od compatible licensing, and for an author whose works are frequently (re)posted by socks and IPs.

An article written by a Thai person, even though he is a minister of state of Thailand, is not covered by Template:PD-TH-exempt (which only applies to a constitution, law, judicial decision, etc).

The author, Sukavich Rangsitpol, is still alive and does not appear to have released this work into public domain.

No source of this work can be found. Wikisource is the only result returned by Google.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Swift's Epitaph

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

"Swift's Epitaph" is a poem by W. B. Yeats (1865–1939), first published in the collection The Winding Stair and Other Poems (1933).

The UK edition (London: MacMillan) was published on 19 September according to The Observer (and corroborated by multiple reviews in early October).

The US publication, though, is a bit harder to pin down. The first mention of it in a newspaper comes from The Baltimore Sun on 17 September when Collected Poems by Yeats is listed as forthcoming (published in November) and noted as including the content from The Winding Stair and Other Poems. And on 10 December, the Oakland Tribune reviews the Collected Poems noting that The Winding Stair and Other Poems has previously only been available as a limited edition.

The catalog of copyright entries shows a registration for Collected Poems on 14 November, and for The Winding Stair and Other Poems on 25 October. The entry for The Winding Stair is supported by the the one scan I could find of the US edition (New York: MacMillan), which contains a copyright statement and claims to have been "Published October, 1933".

Checking renewals for 1960–1962 (1933 + 28±1) I can find no renewal for the work (and the Stanford DB gives no hits).

Based on this I would say The Winding Stair and Other Poems was first published in the UK on 19 September 1933, and not published in the US within 30 days (registered 25 October 1933). Its country of origin is therefore the UK, where its copyright term ran until the end of 1939 + 70 = 2009. It was thus in copyright in its country of origin on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and subject to a US copyright term running until 1933 + 95 = 2028. Xover (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xover Gotta love the CCE. Collected poems is R280791, and it's CCE listing is here. You probably missed it because the renewal claimant was his widow, w:Georgie Hyde-Lees, so they abbreviated his name in a kinda mangled way. Jarnsax (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Summer Morn

The following discussion is closed:

Deleting "Am-ra the Ta-an" as copyvio, keeping "Summer Morn" as {{PD-US-unpublished}},

The page contains two poems—"Summer Morn" and "Am-ra the Ta-an"—by Robert Ervin Howard (1906–1936).

"Summer Morn" was first published in Kull: Exile of Atlantis (2006). As it was never published before 1 January 2003, the applicable copyright term is pma. 70. Since Howard died in 1936 this duration would have expired after 2006. In other words, it should now be public domain under {{PD-US-unpublished}}.

"Am-ra the Ta-an" was first published in A Rhyme of Salem Town and Other Poems (2002). Having been created before 1978 and being published before 1 January 2003, it is in copyright until the greater duration of pma. 70 and 31 December 2047. In other words, it is in copyright until 2048.

So, bottom line, I propose we remove the latter and revdel the old revisions, and keep the former as {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Xover (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Statutory Resolution CM/Res(2007)6

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. The Council of Europe is an NGO and not covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}.

A 2007 "Statutory Resolution" of the Council of Europe (the other CoE). I'm inclined to just tag this {{PD-EdictGov}} without digging much farther, but I'd like to hear from the community on this. Xover (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xover It looks like the charter for w:Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. The lede for w:Council of Europe, though (3rd para), says they can't make binding law, which fits with the statements at https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/disclaimer. I don't think it's an edict, basically since the author is 'actually' an NGO. Jarnsax (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad's letters

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as possible copyvio (no source) and excerpts of dubious provenance. If readded they should specify proper provenance and demonstrate compatible licensing of the translation.

The following texts, all purporting to be letters written by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh to various Middle-Eastern dignitaries, were added in 2018 by Muhammad Umair Mirza.

• Muhammad's letter to Munzir Ibn Sawa
• Muhammad's letter to Muqawqis
• Muhammad's letter to Negus
• Muhammad's letters to Heraclius

None of the texts specify a source, and they were obviously not originally written in English. I'm not sure how I would track down a definitive source for such short texts, and I am disinclined to expend a lot of time on it since in my experience these tend to end up being from one modern website or another with incompatible licensing (inter-islam.org being the usual suspect). Without a source and surrounding context they are also somewhat suspect, so I would suggest we delete these and if readded make sure it is through a suitable scholarly edition or edited collection. Xover (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sources of these translations could be found, but it seems tiresome to do so, when so little of there source is known. (The Muqawqis letter has existed since 1907 (with Arabic source here), and so it definitely could be kept; at least, so Muhammad can have one work to his name.) As for the other letters, absent a further search, they should probably be deleted. (It may be noted also, Xover, that the Web-site which held the other works of Mohammed took those (at least the sermon) from a book published in the 1990s; they were not original.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

National Anthem of the Soviet Union

The following discussion is closed:

All kept and tagged {{PD-EdictGov}} as works for hire of Stalin and the Supreme Soviet.

For all three translations listed there: irrespective of the licensing status of the translation, the Russian original lyrics were written by Sergey Vladimirovich Mikhalkov (1913–2009) and Gabriel El-Registan (1899–1945). Since the USSR successor states ~all have pma. 70 copyright terms, all versions of the original are still in copyright until at least 2080. Xover (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lyrics were the official anthem, and thus were published in an order declaring them official. This order is an edict of government, and is thus in the public domain in the United States. [An abuse filter has prevented me from providing a hyper-link.] TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thanks for looking into this. Could you email me the link, or otherwise point me in the right direction?

  The issue there is that while EdictGov exempts laws from copyright, the mere inclusion of a previously copyrighted work in a public domain work generally does not automatically invalidate the preexisting copyright. This is similar to the inclusion of copyrighted material in a public record or a work by the US federal government: essentially it is "used by permission" in those cases and does not allow reuse. The usual way national anthems or other national symbols are exempted from copyright, or provided extra protection, is through exemptions or special regulation in the relevant copyright act or an adjacent law (e.g. in NZ the Ka Mate is specially regulated in the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act 2014). It is highly unusual for a copyrighted work to be included verbatim in a law, so this creates a novel situation and the details will be essential to determining where to fall down on it. Xover (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Re: Email—I’ll try sending it to you soon; and if I can’t get it sent then, you’ll have to wait a few days. Re: mere inclusion—this seems to disagree, and I don’t really find anything pushing the other way. In the Ka Mate case, I believe that to be more New Zealand’s way of protecting its Maori heritage, than an attempt to vitiate the copyright of a work in one specific case (especially so, looking at sec. 10 of that act). Publishing a law including a work is different from reprinting something in the Record. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

    The model building code case is slightly different, in that the original work there essentially was the law that was adopted and not an independent artistic work. The providers of the model building code also sold the states a license to the work specifically for them to adopt it into a law. The challenge was that the state itself then tried to use copyright to prevent a third party from hosting the text of the law. But, yeah, we're down to splitting pretty fine hairs there.

    The Ka Mate thing isn't a direct equivalent; it's just the example closest to mind of special regulation of national symbols of various kinds. There are lots of jurisdictions that have similar special regulation for flags or traditional folklore or… The point was just that these usually do not themselves include the artistic work regulated, which is making this a lot more complicated. Xover (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

    • For the model code, the license was sold with the (false) assumption that they would retain the copyright to the law after it was sold. I think the case with a national anthem is more obvious, really, as the writer/composer (as the case may be) is giving the anthem to the country, so to speak, and the country makes that gift real with the law declaring the national anthem (which thus includes the music). As for splitting fine hairs, isn’t that what copyright discussions are all about? If only things could be easier. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      Hmm. Could we argue that this was some kind of work for hire? Truly artistic works usually aren't, but in this case, Mikhalkov and El-Registan were "called to Moscow" by Stalin, instructed in what the lyrics should contain, and completed a first draft overnight. There's no similar story about the 1977 revised version, but if we presume the former version to be a work for hire then revising it would be the same.

      That would eliminate the hairsplitting: it's the government that owns it and they wrote it into a law adopted by the Supreme Soviet, making it clear {{PD-EdictGov}}. Xover (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

      • If this was a work they wrote, and which was then selected, it might not qualify, but this case seems to more clearly fall under work-for-hire (of the government). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

this page gives us a translation of the relevant portion of Russian law... "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, etc.)" are not subject to copyright. Jarnsax (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Russian Federation. Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-EdictGov}}.

A 1993 version of the Russian copyright law. All the sources for the English text found in notes/talk/revision history are non-official sources (i.e. the translation would not meet PD-EdictGov). However, the WTO hosts an English-language version of this here without mentioning a specific third-party translator.

The original Russian law would be clear {{PD-EdictGov}}.

I am inclined to slap a {{PD-EdictGov}} on this and deal with it later if anybody complains. Xover (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolution of the Information Bureau Concerning the Communist Party of Yugoslavia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A resolution from a 1948 meeting of a whole bunch of "Workers Parties" and "Communist Parties" censuring one of their national members.

The "Information Bureau" (aka. Cominform) is a private (political) member organisation. As such, this resolution would be a collective work of the members and copyright held in their various jurisdictions. Since anything copyright in any of these places on 1 January 1996 would be subject to the URAA, a local copyright term would have had to be less than 1996 - 1948 = 48 years for this to have conceivably expired (and even if there was a stray ~25 year term in there somewhere, the rest were almost certainly pma. 50 or more). Xover (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslavia's legal successor is Serbia, so we're looking at PMA+70 just there... you'd assume at least one of them was a local, and that brings the at home copyright all the way to at least 2019 or so. Jarnsax (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Report of Psychiatric Assessment of José Padilla

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A report by a psychiatrist hired by the defence attorneys for José Padilla. Copyright belongs to either the psychiatrist or, most likely, the law firm defending Padilla. i.e. it is a public record, but not public domain. Xover (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a "work for hire" belonging to the defendant, so copyrighted. Jarnsax (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A Program for Monetary Reform

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

See w:Chicago plan for context.

This is the 1939 draft that was never published until 2009, and unpublished works with known authors have pma. 70 terms in the US. Since at least one of the authors lived until 1989, this will be in copyright until at least 2060. Xover (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Verifying: Earl J. Hamilton, the last of the six listed authors to die, died in 1989. While I have some doubt as to the “publication” of the draft plan, it seems clear that it is now copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Proclamation of Cuban transfer of duties 2006

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-EdictGov}}.

A proclamation, drafted by Fidel Castro and subsequently adopted by the National Assembly of People's Power, transferring power from El Comandante to various people (among them Raúl Castro).

Cuban government works are normally in perpetual copyright (ironic, yes), but the way I read this it's a proclamation by the supreme leader and rubberstamped by the competent legislative body, so despite being framed as a statement (it was apparently read out on TV) it looks like {{PD-EdictGov}} applies. Unless someone objects I intend to slap that license tag on it. Xover (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Price of Greatness is Responsibility

The following discussion is closed:

Only limited publication happened at the time the speech was performed, meaning first (general) publication for copyright purposes happened at some undetermined point (much) later. That most likely makes it copyright in the US until the general publication date + 95 years.

1943 speech given by Winston Churchill (1874–1965) at Harvard University. At the time, Churchill was Prime Minister of the UK.

The nature of the speech makes it plausible, likely even, that he was here acting in his role as PM. If so, the relevant term to consider is Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright in this instance would run from creation to 50 years, and would have expired in 2015 in the UK; but would have still accrued URAA copyright in the US until 2060.

It is possible that this should be considered to be Churchill acting in a personal capacity. If that is the case the relevant term would be pma. 70, and the term would run until 2035 in the UK and 2060 in the US.

In either case the issue arises of whether the speech constitutes general publication for copyright purposes. Other speeches by Churchill in the US were furnished to the press and reported verbatim nationally (and handed out to the attendees), but this is a somewhat different setting. If this speech was only a "limited publication" to 30 people in the room (or whatever) then the publication for copyright purposes was only much later in a "Letters and Speeches of Winston Churchill"-type book (and the copyright situation would in practice be a no-go for us).

And finally we have the issue of whether the speech of the sitting PM of the UK in a US university should be considered a US work or a UK work. The Berne treaty (which the US is a signatory to) uses terms like "domiciliary of" etc. in relation to the "country of origin". If the country of origin is the UK then this would be restored by the URAA and be in copyright until 1965 + 95 = 2060. If the country of origin is the US then it is very likely either {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

In other words: my head hurts and I need help sorting out all the twisty details here. Xover (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Normally, a work published (in this case, a speech publicly delivered) in the United States would be a United States work in Berne’s terms. However, the fact that it is a speech given by the sitting (or former) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom might make the work a UK work by the strong association with a foreign country; the terms aren’t clear (and I don’t remember them at the moment). I would not consider this a speech in his capacity as PM, but I do think his status as PM was a consideration. I’ll look over this more later, but it does seem to fall right on the line. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Cf. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/churchill-18 (a modern article on the subject) and https://www.harvardmagazine.com/sites/default/files/churchill_hb_address_1943_resized.pdf (a historical publication on and of the speech). It was a public speech to 1300 people, and published contemporaneously in the New York Times (renewed), New York Herald Tribune (renewed), and within 30 days in the Harvard Alumni Magazine linked above (not renewed). For purposes of the URAA and US law, it is clearly a US work. For purposes of the Berne Convention, it's probably a UK work, since the US wasn't a Berne member at the time, but I don't think that's relevant to us. Since it's a speech given at the award of an honorary degree, I don't think it's Crown Copyright, even if it was (according to the article above) tit-for-tat from the President of the US (having been awarded a UK honorary degree) to the Prime Minister of the UK.

Thus to me it comes down to whether the renewals on the periodicals it was reprinted in renew it, given the lack of an individual renewal. To which I'm not clear, and I'm not even sure US law is clear. I think not, since that would renew it in the name of the publisher, and which publisher?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not willing to buy that a newspaper reporting the speech, even if they were furnished a written transcript, makes it that newspaper's copyright in terms of the required formalities (it's a "used by permission" kind of situation). The relevant publication is then the public performance of the speech, and I am going to assume that 1300 people constitutes general publication.

So is a copyright notice required, under US law, for even works and forms of publication that make that very awkward? I think I've seen reference to case law that made that requirement active for something like a statue or painting installed in a public place. But that seems completely non-intuitive and, frankly, dumb. Xover (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• It would not be particularly awkward, because the work could be formally registered with the copyright office, which would cause a notice of the work to be published in CCE. I haven’t checked, but I would assume that there is no such registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

See w:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. It doesn't look like the speech was publication, and possibly even the printings weren't publication. However, I'd still say if he gave a copy of the speech to a publisher and they published it in full, even as news, that's publication. I'd lean towards saying they were published in 1943 and renewed with the New York Times, and get 95 years of copyright from there, being free in 2039.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Having now trawled through King v. CBS I am actually going to disagree with your conclusion: that case is pretty clear that giving the text to the press is limited publication, and that the number of people present at the performance of the speech is immaterial to the issue of limited or general publication. In order for general publication of this speech to have occurred Churchill (or an authorised agent) would have had to make the text of the speech available for sale in such a way that anyone could have ordered or bought a copy. That did not happen at the time, which means general publication for copyright purposes did not happen until (probably much) later.

But, in any case, let's call your conclusion the "best case scenario": we can't keep it either way. Xover (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not so sure that a renewal for the Times would have covered the speech printed (rather than strictly “published”) in it; the confusion from the other printing may be alleviated by considering the speech an independent work delivered publicly and then printed, with the copyright subsisting in the printed version, but the copyright being vested in Churchill, rather than the Times, and thus not covered by a general renewal of Times content. However, I am not sure of this particular. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't read all this text, but I want to add to the twisty details by mentioning from Portal:Speeches/Copyright:

There have been a number of discussions on the acceptability of hosting public speeches made since 1923 in view of copyright issues. The result of these decisions was that we are able to host such speeches only when they are political speeches by a political figure, as we take the view these are not protected by copyright. Our discussions can be read at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-03#Fair use & Speeches & Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-05#Fair use and speeches.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed increasingly twisty; but those 2006 discussions are mostly nonsense. They rely on some kind of circular reasoning around "PD-Manifesto" and "politicians (and serial killers) want their speeches/manifestos known to the world". That's not how copyright works in general, and there is no copyright exemption for "political speeches by a political figure". Xover (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that I'm willing to reopen this discussion in 2038, but I don't think it's clear for us until then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Precision

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The lyrics to a Canadian military march, written by Thomas Fraser Gelley (d. 1968) and first published in 1941 (Chabot composed the music).

The copyright term in Canada at the time was pma. 50, meaning its Canadian copyright expired after 1968 + 50 = 2018. It was however still in copyright in Canada on the URAA date (1 January 1996), meaning its US copyright term is 1941 + 95 = 2036. Xover (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• In what were the lyrics first published? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  The internal gazette for the Royal Canadian whatsits; Gelley was a professor at the publishing uni. at the time. Xover (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Then the copyright has been maintained, so the work should be deleted. Is there a source for the music available, or is that also under copyright? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Peggy Guggenheim, New York, N.Y. letter to Betty Parsons, New York, N.Y., 1947 May 5

The following discussion is closed:

Work by a known author that was unpublished until after 2002, so it is in copyright until pma. 70 (1979 + 70 = 2049).

Letter from Marguerite "Peggy" Guggenheim (1898–1979) to Betty Parsons dated 5 May 1947.

The letter, as private correspondence, was never published. It is not obvious that the Smithsonian making it available on their web page constitutes "publication" for copyright purposes (merely being accessible for study in an archive's collections usually does not count as general publication), but it in any case happened after 2003. And as a work with a known author that was unpublished until after 2003, it is in copyright until the later of pma. 70 and 2047. In other words, this is in copyright until at least 2049. Xover (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The later of pma. 70 and 2067 actually, right? I thought it was 120 years after publication for unpublished works. In any case,  Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Works not of corporate authorship get 70 pma after 2002. The 2047 limit only applies to works created before 1978 and published in 1978-2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ormurin Langi

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Traditional Faroen song, originally written in 1830, but our text is a partial translation into English by Anker Eli Petersen (1959 – fl. 2009). I can find no indication that the translation is compatibly licensed. Xover (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete No way this is in the PD. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete The website on which Petersen published this translation states that the text is in the "free domain" but is available for noncommercial use only. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Nigeria We Hail Thee

The following discussion is closed:

Work may possibly be {{PD-EdictGov}} by virtue of having been first published verbatim in a law making it the national anthem, however as we have been unable to track down the text of that enactment it will have to go for now.

A former national anthem for Nigeria, written in 1960 by Lillian Jean Williams (fl. 1960), apparently in English.

Nigeria is a pma. 70 country, and since Williams was clearly alive in 1960 I see no way this could be public domain. Xover (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete, clearly not PD. Will fall into the PD in the US in 2056. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Although apparently the sound recordings of it are apparently only 50 years... Also she was a government employee at the time but not sure it qualifies as a government work than but if so it would by 2031 (creation + 70) for Nigerian copyright. Also, I imagine the law enacting it as a national anthem with the text would be covered by Edict-GOV for the US copyright? MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• This was proclaimed by ordinance the national anthem, and the ordinance counts as an edict of government. I believe that would disqualify this work from Williams’ individual copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Bleh. These cases are annoying. Did you find something EdictGov-ish that actually includes the lyrics? Xover (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  I looked at the official gazette and couldn't find the ordinance... MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  No; I don’t have a good source for Nigerian gazettes. The Wikipedia article has sources for the ordinance, but I can’t find that text now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  I found these two sources for the Official Gazette, no luck (also when looking for laws containing it). MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. The lack of any reference to Nigeria’s anthems in the gazettes actually makes me less convinced. If they were at least mentioned, but not reprinted, that would close the discussion, but their total lack of reference prevents me from making that conclusion. Either the ordinance was published in an issue not on either Website, was not published but did occur (is official, and therefore an edict), or the anthem wasn’t official. However, none of these options seem reasonable, so I’m at a loss. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• The gazettes linked above do provide a scan backing for the constitution to replace Constitution of Nigeria (1960), as well as probably Nigerian Copyright Law and Constitution of Nigeria (1999) if someone wants to track them down and back those texts. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  The 1960 constitution is the second schedule to the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1960 (here). I cannot find consistent gazettes from 1990 (copyright law) or 1999 on either Website, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  The copyright law is actually from December 19, 1988 which unfortunately is missing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  @MarkLSteadman WIPO Lex has the current law here. Jarnsax (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• I found an example of the Namibian anthem from the Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia on pg. 7 here. Would that be acceptable to upload and transclude as well?) MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • MarkLSteadman: Yes, it would. That anthem is explicitly dedicated to the public domain as well, which is nice. (When you do, I’ll take a stab at the score.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Nazi's Aim Is Slavery

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

1940 radio speech by Édouard Daladier (1884–1970), the then PM of France.

France is pma. 70 and has no PD-USGov type exceptions, so the speech as such is in copyright in France until at least 2040. In addition, it seems highly unlikely the PM of France would address the people of France in any language but French, so our text is also a translation of unknown provenance. In either case it is in copyright in the US until 2066. Xover (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete as this is clearly not in the public domain. However @Xover: a minor note, but I'm not sure where you got the year 2066. According to the Music Modernization Act, which would include radio recordings, "recordings that were first published between 1923 and 1946 are copyrighted for a period of 100 years after first publication." So therefore (at least the French version of this) would go into the PD in the US in 2040, the same year as in France coincidentally. That's barring the copyright status of any English-translated version that this might have been copied from. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The speech has a separate copyright from the recording. I doubt the French work is copyright until 2066; it was probably published contemporaneously, making it 2036 in the US, and almost certainly wasn't unpublished until 1978, giving it publication+95.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

2066 was probably from 1970 + 95 + 1. But it was a braino in any case. Xover (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I Am a Cat

The following discussion is closed:

Translation was first published in 1906, so it is out of copyright in the US.

There does not seem to be any actual indication that the translation was published in 1918. It seems to me that the uploader was confused, since Botchan (by the same author and translator) was translated in 1918. The translation of I Am a Cat is from here without a date or translator, and other sources suggest that the first English translation was published in 1961. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Searching for the text of the Introduction, points to this translation by Aiko Ito, which was first published in 1972 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)+info

There is this version with the first two chapters and a claimed date of 1906 MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, this copy if well known: [6]. The “1918” is a mistake, not the “1906.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  ... is that a full scan? can someone in the USA grab it for us? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a full scan of the first volume, the first two chapters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And I am downloading it now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's at File:I am a Cat (1906).djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
In the interests of this dunce understanding this discussion when it comes time to close it… Why are we talking about the "first two chapters"? Is that all that's translated in the 1906 translation? Or is that all that's been transcribed here? Is this a multi-volume work (since Prosfilaes mentions "the first volume")? If so, how many volumes does the 1906 translation encompass? --Xover (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Xover: The work in question (as translated and added to Wikisource) includes some preliminary material and the first two chapters of the work. This content makes up the first volume of the translation, which has been placed elsewhere on the Internet, as well. The only translation of this work I have ever been able to find on the Internet is the first volume of the 1906 translation, which only includes the first two chapters. I do not know if there are more volumes of the 1906 translation, or whether there were intended to be but the project was closed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

HathiTrust claims there's a second volume, but doesn't have a copy of it, even hidden. All I can say is that the volume that HathiTrust does have available has only the first two chapters. Allegedly, each chapter largely stands alone, so it does have value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yay Mansell. It was not scanned for some reason, but the University of Chicago apparently does have the second volume. [7]. There is also a 1923 translation by Elford Eddy from the Japanese-American News in San Francisco, held by the New York Public Library. [8] Jarnsax (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

4Q174 and 4Q521

The following discussion is closed:

Modern translation of ancient work, where the translation is in copyright.

Both of these have been around, unsourced and unlicensed since 2005 and 2008 respectively. The untranslated fragments themselves are obviously in the public domain due to being literally thousands of years old (the source of that can be found here and here). However, I can't find the source for these translations, and I've done a mild amount of digging. Maybe someone knowledgable about translations of original Biblical material can set me straight on this one... PseudoSkull (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• The codes given above identify some fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls, the originals of which are clearly in the public domain. However, they were not found until the mid-20^th century, so translations of them are less likely to be in the public domain. I may be mistaken, but these translation appear to originate from The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Watson, 1994), which is still under copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. If re-added once copyright expires it should be scan-backed and fully proofread.

1905 PhD thesis by Albert Einstein, originally written in Germany (which would mean the original was probably in German). I believe the source of this was from this online document which is apparently a digitized translation, although I can't tell if it was copied from an original translated source, or if they translated it themselves.

On top of the copyright status of the translation being dubious, according to the source itself, our transcription is not even close to being complete. Literally only the first paragraph is present. So it could just be deleted on that basis, as well as being unsourced. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• The PDF you have referenced is an excerpt from Einstein’s Miraculous Year (1998), which stated, “The English translations that appear here are new.” The work is still under copyright (unless it has been released). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• The original was indeed in German, published in the Annalen der Physik. There is a 1926 UK translation by w:Reinhold Furth (http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01001050038) that was later republished by Dover, but that copyright has decades to run. Jarnsax (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• For our purposes, we're just concerned about the US copyright, which will expire at the end of this year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes Thanks. I tend to forget that Wikisource doesn't have the 'and in the source country' rule that Commons uses. Jarnsax (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Aiaaira

The following discussion is closed:

For practical purposes this is a Georgian work and not subject to any exceptions from copyright there. It is in copyright in the US.

Whoo, boy, we've got a complicated one here. This is an English translation of the national anthem of Abkhazia, a partially recognized state that is considered part of Georgia.

Some things to note for Abkhazian copyright itself (absent of the translation):

• Presumably it was made by the Abkhazian government. If this can be considered an edict of a government, it might be PD-US.
• If not (we'd probably have to be looking at URAA), it was adopted in 1992. According to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Abkhazia, Abkhazia is not recognized by the URAA. However, Georgia itself is. I don't know if this matters or not; should we consider the URAA status of Georgia itself, or not consider it because it's Abkhazian?
• See also c:Template:PD-GE-exempt (government works part established 1999), c:Template:PD-Georgia, c:Template:PD-AB-exempt (government works part established 2006).

About the translation:

• Wikipedia also has our translation on their Wikipedia article on the subject. So one of us may need to bring this up there too if it gets deleted here.
• Our transcription was created in 2018. The header says it's from 2007. No indication has been given as to whether it was taken from Wikipedia itself or if it's from a more "official" source. If it was taken from WP, maybe we should move to the Translation namespace. If not, we need to determine if the translation is freely licensed. It probably wouldn't be though.

PseudoSkull (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would consider the confluence of international confusion regarding Abkhazia to justify this work as not being within the scope of the URAA. However, this translation is copyright 2009–2011, and will thus need to be deleted. (The version on Wikipedia is acceptable as free use, but the version here is not.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The US does not recognise Abkhazia as a sovereign nation, so for copyright purposes it would be a Georgian work. Since Georgia does not recognise Abkhazia as a sovereign nation the anthem is not a a national anthem in Georgia and thus not covered by the Georgian exemption for national symbols. In effect it is thus a work by a private organisation and in copyright for whatever the relevant term might be (far too long to be relevant for us in any case). Xover (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The URAA is irrelevant here; it's only about restoring works to copyright. If it was produced in a Berne signator since 1989, it would be in copyright in the US. Since it was produced in Georgia, it would be copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to me like Abkhazia’s laws concerning copyright should be used to determine whether copyright is claimed or released for works of that government (or works made for the same for hire), as (inasmuch as they are a country) the works as such are considered edicts of government, state symbols, or otherwise. (For works not of the its production, this claim would be less sound.) Their anthem certainly seems to fall under an exception to Abkhazia’s copyright, and I believe that Abkhazia acting as a country de facto does not claim copyright for that work, and thus the work does not (in the country de jure of origin, Georgia) have copyright; but this is just one interpretation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the legal situation from the perspective of the law of armed conflict (as far as the source text)... specifically, Article 42 of the fourth Hague Convention has been taken to say that the military power exercising 'de facto' authority over an area is responsible for civil law, and from the dates I gather that they were effectively independent when this was written. The "ACT OF STATE INDEPENDENCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ABKHAZIA" from 1999 [9] also claim they exercised both 'de facto' and 'de jure' authority since at least 1994. Georgia's claim that the area is occupied by Russia is a concession that they lack de facto authority, and Russia recognizes Abkhazia. I think it's clear that they legally are the government, de facto, in that they hold the obligation under the law of war to maintain peace and order...nobody else is asserting it (Georgia's claim is only de jure). Though it's discussing actual invasion, I think the discussion on page 18 of https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf supports this... that it's the actual exercise of authority that is important. Looking at the dates, it's unclear that Georgia ever really had de facto control after the Soviet Union fell apart.

This would also imply that, without international recognition or membership in any copyright treaties, their works are unprotected in the US (and most of the world) due to a lack of national eligibility...in the opinion of the US, the land is essentially unowned, Georgia just has a claim.. Jarnsax (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

here is the US Secretary of State, back in 2008, discussing the "representatives of the de facto leaders of the Georgian regions of..." So, no legal personhood for the Abkhazian government under US law (not recognized) but their de facto authority is acknowledged. Jarnsax (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: I am disinclined to apply a novel(ish) reading of the Hague Convention to copyright. The area is recognized by most of the world (minus Russia) as belonging to Georgia, meaning they are not a sovereign nation, meaning they don't get to make laws that are recognized by other countries (except Russia). Which means I'm going to treat it as a Georgian work as per above. I hold it entirely possible that SCOTUS might agree with you, but until that happens I am going to apply the much simpler variant. Otherwise my head might literally explode. (But thanks for providing the insight even so: it was both interesting and edifying, and we may have to apply some reasoning based on it eventually, so it was most appreciated!) Xover (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A Ballad of Abbreviations

The following discussion is closed:

By all available information, the work was first published in the UK in 1927, by an author who died in 1937. It was in copyright in the UK on the URAA date, so its US copyright was restored to a pub. + 95 year term. In other words, it is in copyright in the US until after 2022.

A poem credited to G. K. Chesterton, who died in 1936. Our transcription does not provide a year of publication. I can find literally no scans that give any information whatsoever about this poem, much less that give the poem itself. The only places I find the poem are apparent transcriptions that were released online, which is probably where this originally came from. While I'll say it's more likely than not (if this is for real) that the poem was published somewhere before 1926, we can't make any bets on it if we don't know. There's also no telling as to whether this was unpublished and later published posthumously before 2003. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find a version published before 1932 text copyright page, where is appears under "new poems". The user was pointy with copyright text, circumstantial evidence there also suggests delete. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• [Note: Though copyrighted 1932, it was apparently published in 1941.] TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• As a “new poem,” would not the copyright rest in this new work? The Collected Poems of G. K. Chesterton was copyrighted in the U.S., but was not renewed, making all of the poems in that work (and first published in that work) in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  It is a "new poem" in this particular collection of poems, which had been published in at least two previous editions (by two other publishers). I am not comfortable, on this basis, to conclude that this was the first publication for this particular poem: Chesterton was British and absent contradictory evidence the most likely assumption is that it was first published in the UK somewhere.

  In particular, in Sunday Morning (1930, London: William Heineman), in an entry dated "July 3, 1927", J.C. Squirs expresses a desire, thwarted by insufficient space, to quote "A Ballad of Abbreviations". That is, it was at that time an extant work, and unless Squirs had read it in Chesterton's personal notes, it was apparently then also a published work.

  However, perhaps we can antedate it to more than 95 years ago? If it the standing terminus ante quem is July 1927, it doesn't take all that much to push it back beyond the 95-year-limit. Xover (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  This copy is a reprint of an edition, "Originally published by Mr. Cecil Palmer, June 1927 First published by Methuen & Co. Ltd. (Third Edition) September 1933. It has been reprinted ten times …" A subsequent half-title states "New Poems 1932". It might have appeared in the 1927 'collected poems', which is "the volume" Squirs was reviewing? That's all I could find CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Behold, a rose of Judah

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A translation of a poem from another language, apparently by "Liturgy of the Hour". Year of translation was not given. No results on Google Books or the Internet Archive from before 1926 for the poem title given. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I believe this is the translation from the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours (here, without that poem), rather than a group of that or a similar name. As that was introduced in the 1970s, I believe this translation is most likely still under copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bogdan Gasiński's letter to the District Prosecutor's Office in Olsztyn

The following discussion is closed:

Modern letter from private individual that is still in copyright.

A Polish letter from 2001.

1. Could this be considered PD in Poland? See c:Template:PD-Polishsymbol and c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland.
2. Could this be considered PD in the US by extension?
3. Where did the English translation come from, and can it be considered PD? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the English translation is from the editor who created the page, so this page should be moved to the Translation: namespace. This may be in the public domain in Poland, but I wouldn’t want to make the final call. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would this be PD in Poland? Xover (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bush and Blair conversation

The following discussion is closed:

Text is composed entirely of a recording of impromptu speech which is not eligible for copyright protection by virtue of not being fixed in a tangible medium. The transcript itself is a mere mechanical reproduction of the recorded speech which is not eligible for independent copyright protection.

Background:

1. Header text: "While at the 2006 G8 Summit, US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair held an impromptu discussion about the on-going 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict before the latter realised that a microphone in the room was still recording."
2. w:32nd_G8_summit#Recorded_conversations

My opinion: Just because this involved the US president at the time does not mean it was necessarily a work of the US federal government. Looks to me like this conversation was originally published, transcribed, and recorded by BBC, which is the national broadcaster of the UK. According to this link, it does not look like their content is necessarily freely licensed. Another actor and potential copyright holder in this was The Independent. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Off-the-cuff remarks and impromptu speech are generally ineligible for copyright. A video recording of such a conversation, fixing it in a permanent format, would gain independent copyright though. Which means we could host a transcript of the conversation, but not be able to "scan" back it (we could link to a legal online source for the clip though). Xover (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: "Off-the-cuff remarks and impromptu speech" in their own right, maybe, but wouldn't the entire series of remarks together be considerable as a copyrightable sum of its parts? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Not so far as I know, no. Copyright requires fixation in a tangible form. If they had written it down beforehand the notes would have been protected by copyright, and their reading the notes aloud would be a "performance" of those copyrighted words. But here they're just speaking, no matter how long.

Now the unidentified "U.S. TV crew" that recorded the conversation might have a copyright if it was caught on video, but only on the recording (angles, composition, lighting, etc.) not on the words themselves. If it was an audio recording they would probably not get copyright due to it being a mere mechanical reproduction (but this is a bit iffy and unsettled I believe). Xover (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: What Wikisource license template would properly represent this, if it exists? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull For the given case (then realized a microphone was on...) the alleged 'work' fails the fixation requirement. "A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable..." to quote 17 USC (bold mine). Neither the 'alleged author' nor the 'unauthorized recordist' can either hold a copyright in an 'unauthorized fixation' of an otherwise unfixed conversation, there is no copyrightable subject matter, and it's just PD-ineligible.

What Xover said about if the camera was just running (and the speakers didn't know) is correct... the way I'd phrase it is the cameraman can only claim the part of the recording that he actually has 'authorship' of...the composition, etc, but not what was said.

Of course, then you could get into all kinds of technical arguments, like if they were wearing a wireless mike and knew it was on, but didn't think it was being recorded, since the act of knowingly 'broadcasting' (even ephemeral) fixes a work....

In reality, what generally happens with political speeches is that the speakers actually wants them to be considered 'news of the day' (if broadcast live, especially by multiple stations) so that news outlets can copy it from each other legally. Jarnsax (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: @Xover: I think we need a Wikisource template to properly represent this. Right now it's unlicensed. Something like {{PD-US-intangible}}. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

May Declaration

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Tomobe03: This translation (of PD-old 1917 original) from Jelavich, History of the Balkans (vol. 2) (1983), which in turn is taken from Petrovich, A History of Modern Serbia, 1804–1918 (vol. 2) (1976). Both are still copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Delete — The main works containing the originals of the translations have copyright notices. Find a different source or translate it yourself. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Waldorf public school trial transcript

The following discussion is closed:

Consists entirely of transcribed improvisational speech that is not eligible for copyright. It has been tagged as {{PD-ineligible}}. It is however also a copydump, so it's going to get its turn at WS:PD as well shortly.

I… don't really know what to make of this. It is a transcript from a court somewhere, and it seems most likely to be public domain, but I find myself unable to articulate precisely why or how to tag it. Help? Xover (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete I'm fairly sure the verbatim speech of lawyers within a court is not automatically PD, even if the judgements of that court are? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Looked like impromptu speech / off-the-cuff remarks to me, but I didn't read all of it so the later parts may have more preparation. Xover (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, having read through the whole thing now… What it looks like to me is simple transcript of off the cuff remarks: the parties and the judge are discussing back and forth, and while certainly some arguments were prepared in advance, I see no sign that anybody was reading out loud from notes (except for looking up bare facts) or otherwise the presence of any copyrightable material. So I'm going to go ahead and call this {{PD-ineligible}}. It is also an unformatted copydump so if anybody wants to suggest we delete it on those grounds I'd be all for it, but I am primarily interested in determining what license should apply to it just now. Xover (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Objections to calling this {{PD-ineligible}}? Xover (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If the rule is indeed that improv speech is ineligible. However, based on a (re-)reading of this guidance:

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

—https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Are we sure that that is true? Presumably it was "fixed in a tangible form" since we have a transcript of it. And in 2005, no registration was necessary. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• For a work to be “fixed,” it must be captured either by or under the authority of the author. The authors of the material here have no authority to direct the fixation of their speeches, as that is mandated by law, so they are not “fixed” for copyright-law purposes. (At least, that’s how I see it; and the Compendium (p. 53/300:6) declares that “some works … may not satisfy the fixation requirement, such as an improvisational speech.”) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  That is my understanding as well. Xover (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• That does makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.
• I suggest that rather than {{PD-ineligible}}, which doesn't mention this route to the public domain, we create a specific template for this case that cites the above wording. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Something like {{PD-not-fixed}}, though the name and content can be tweaked if anyone thinks it need improvement! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    @Inductiveload: Do we really need a separate template for this? There are multiple routes to being ineligible for copyright; lack of fixity, insufficient originality, consisting only of facts (i.e. data), being a functional object, etc. I think we would be better off just tweaking the text of {{PD-ineligible}} a bit. Xover (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

    @Xover: well certainly we don't need one but whichever template we do use must explicitly explain the route to the public domain and refer to the relevant text. I thought it would be clearer than piling more cases into the template that's more about the creative content (or, rather, lack of) than a "procedural" failure to achieve fixation. If you think merging then is better, then fine by me too. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Psychology of Religion

The following discussion is closed:

From all available evidence, this work was first published in the US, with a copyright notice, but the copyright was not renewed and so expired after the then-current 28-year term of protection.

1927 work by Joseph McCabe (1867–1955). In copyright in the UK until 2026 (pma. 70), and in copyright in the US until 2023 (pub. 95). Xover (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Look at the scan: published in Girard, Kansas, United States. Copyrighted, but not renewed; thus, PD-US-no-renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In that case  Keep but only for the purposes of CV. The copydump we currently had still has a case for being deleted at PD. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• • 1. That’s why I got a scan.
    2. This isn’t remotely a copydump. This is a perfectly formatted work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: There's a scan? Xover (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Xover: Yes: I requested a modification at Scan Lab under that item. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Bleh. I failed to imagine that a work added in 2013 might have a current request in at Scan Lab. Are we reasonably sure that the scan is the first published edition? McCabe was a UK author and resident there all his life from a quick scan of his enwp bio. Xover (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    • Xover: Yes: With no other imagined results in WorldCat, and with all works in that series published in the U.S., it seems pretty clear to me. (I found it as I was going through works without licenses; by the way, no PD sources for English editions/translations/commentary for Paripatal.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

      @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thanks! I'll leave this open for the requisite two weeks, but it now looks like a pretty clear {{PD-US-no-renewal}} to me. Xover (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    Aha! w:E. Haldeman-Julius explains it. Indeed, that makes it most likely that this was a US first publication, and similarly suggests possible reasons for lack of renewal. Xover (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Un Canadien errant (Gibbon)

The following discussion is closed:

The text sits right on the edge and may or may not fall on either side of the cutoff date and other crucial copyright facts. The work entire (book) should fall out of copyright in the US in 2023 so a scan-backed addition of it at that time should be fine. In the meanwhile we have other editions of the text.

English translation by John Murray Gibbon (1875–1952) first published in England in 1927. pma. 70 means its UK copyright runs until 2022, which means it was in copyright in the UK on the URAA date and its US copyright term expires at the end of 1927 + 95 = 2022. Even if one presumed a Canadian copyright term (Gibbon was "Scottish-Canadian") of pma. 50 it would have been in copyright on the URAA date and have its US copyright restored. Xover (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• An OCLC/WorldCat record indicated a simultaneous publication in the U.S., which would make it in the public domain, assuming a lack of renewal and/or notice. I don’t think that there would be any differences between the editions to make a London song version versus a New York song version. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: WorldCat suggests it was possibly published the same year, but "simultaneous publication" for Copyright purposes must happen within 30 days. Can you find any evidence that was actually the case?

  PS. I never take WorldCat alone as evidence of anything at all: it is a raw dump of every library catalog (which, on average, are utter crap) with zero quality control. Xover (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  The U.S. (New York) publication certainly exists, but CCE seems unavailing as to a more specific date of publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────┘

Ok, digging into this I find…

On 2 February (a Wednesday) The Gazette in Montreal mentions the Canadian edition as being "due to appear next week". On 4 February (a Friday) the Calgary Herald describes it as "has just been published", and on 5 February (a Saturday) the Gazette reviews it. I'd say we can split the difference and say Canadian publication was on Monday, 7 February 1927 and the papers just slightly jumped the gun based on a review copy.

States-side I find the Forth-Worth Star-Telegram mentions the work on 6 March, but doesn't make clear which edition they are referring to nor clearly indicate publication date. On 10 March the Brewton Standard (Alabama) calls it "the book just published by Mr. Gibbon through Dutton & Co., New York". Based on this the US edition must have been already published before 10 March, and that makes the 6 March mention in Texas almost certain to be referring to the US edition.

That means the evidence puts the delta at 30 days give or take a few, and the actual outcome depends on how one weights the variables. If you think the Canadian reviews means it was already published the gap widens; but if you think Texas and Alabama reviews lag behind a New York publication the gap narrows.

Our best directly supported dates are 7 February in Canada and 6 March in the US, which just squeaks through the "within 30 days" limit.

Iff it falls within 30 days it is a US work for copyright purposes, and subject to formal requirements of visible copyright notice and renewal in the 28th year. I can't see the scans so I can't tell whether they have a notice, but I can find no sign of any registration or renewal so they would, in that case, be {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

This all hinges on (subjective) assessment of the variables, so I would very much like to hear the community's take on this in either direction. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• The book is https://lccn.loc.gov/27026447 - described as a New York publication by Dutton. The scans at Google are copies of https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/101695655 and https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007855954 and the MARC record for the latter states "Printed in Great Britain." in a 500a (general note) field.

So we have a UK work that snuck into US copyright protection through the 'bilateral relations' hole... https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf footnote 8. It's not Berne, so the rules are actually different... under the 1909 Act, after a quick review, they had to deposit a single copy of the foreign edition within 30 days for 'ad interim' protection, and then had another 30 days to produce an "authorized edition" in the US... presumably cut and bound in New York to meet the manufacturing requirement. That would give them a 28 year term, and given the presence of a single copy at the LoC it seems likely they did so. Doesn't sound good. Jarnsax (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I paged through a few hundred of the VCC scans, around his name. Found a number of cards for him, for both 'first US publications' and 'ad interim', all for different titles in the same time period, but none for this work. I did also notice he was Canadian (lived in Windsor Station, Quebec) but the US also had bilateral relations with them (starting in 1924). This is looking to me like a lot like a URAA case... it might have actually not net the manufacturing requirement. Jarnsax (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, not finding this was bugging me. The work is in Mansell here... looks like a UK publication the NYPL acquired on June 23 1927, then one by Dutton in New York listed as "Printed in Great Britain" at some point in 1927, and then the 1929 UK reprint. Jarnsax (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Checking now I find I've failed to tag the work itself with {{copyvio}} so interested contributors have not been able to discover that it is being discussed here (in particular, Beleg Tâl may wish to comment). For that reason I am inclined to keep this discussion open for at least an additional week from today. --Xover (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a lot to parse through. I'm inclined to say, if in doubt,  Delete. We have other translations. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's Speech to the Workers of Berlin (10 December 1940)

The following discussion is closed:

The copyright status of the German-language original is unknown and with a balance of probabilities that indicates the work is in copyright both in Germany and in the US. However, this translation was made by the US federal government at a time when it held the US copyright through seizure of foreign assets. The translation is thus covered by {{PD-USGov}} even if the original may now be in copyright. This state of affairs is exceptional and should not be presumed to obtain for any other situation, no matter the seemingly similar circumstances, without a prior discussion at WS:CV. Reusers are urged to exercise caution and do their own investigation regarding copyright status in the jurisdictions relevant to them, preferably in consultation with a competent copyright lawyer.

Unsourced and unlicensed, from 2015. I can find several sources both online and on Google Books which seem to be matches, but am unsure what the original source for the translation was.

In order for this to be considered PD, 1.) it would have to have been in the PD in Germany by 1996, and 2.) the English translation would have to be in the PD in the US as well, and/or whatever country it originated from. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• The work, being a product of Hitler in his political office, is in the public domain; and the translation (prepared by the U.S. government) is also in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Remind me… Why are Hitler's speeches in the public domain? Xover (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I can’t find it off-hand, but the URAA didn’t restore copyright to works of the German and Japanese governments following World War II. While I don’t remember how far this stretched, I’m fairly sure it would include Hitler’s speeches as a political figure (while, for example, excluding his Mein Kampf). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover Any 'American' copyrights owned by Hitler would have been transferred to the w:Office of Alien Property Custodian. Per 17 U.S. Code § 104A(a)(2), "Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work." We know for a fact this applied to Mein Kampf.... the Allies gave the copyright to the Barvarian government at the end of the war. Presumably, the same applied to his other intellectual property. Jarnsax (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax, @TE(æ)A,ea.: Do we even have a license template for this case? It's not PD-EdictGov, nor PD-USGov. PD-Ineligible would seem to be the right idea, but {{PD-Ineligible}}.

Is this even PD? It may not have been "restored", but if it's owned by the Alien Property Custodian… the US Government can still hold copyrights through deed or seizure (they just can't create new ones themselves). Xover (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Xover Poked around at the exact history and learned a bit more....

The US publishing rights (to Mein Kampf) belonged to Houghton Mifflin, and when it was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act copyright ownership went to the US government (H-M kept the publishing rights, which was a preexisting license) and royalties were paid into the War Relief Fund until 1979, when Houghton Mifflin bought out the government royalty. I think that the "rights and claims of every character and description" (I looked up the text) seized would include the right to create and/or license a US translation of a work created in Germany (it was filmed, obviously by authority, so fixed).

It turns out that the non-US copyright had a different history. When the Nazi organizations were dissolved and their property seized by Allied Control Council Law #2 their publisher was #12 on the list. These are the rights that went to the Bavarian government in 1951. (Never dug up exactly how this happened before, I thought these rights had gone through the APC, which is part of why the story had always seemed a bit odd.)

Looking at the US Government publication in 1943, the US government owned the US copyright by seizure, so this would have been an authorized US publication. The Office of War Information was an Executive agency, and there is no copyright notice, so I think the book itself (assuming our translation matches the book) would be PD-USGov. Even if "Hitler's" US copyrights were later sold or returned (which AFAIK did not happen), that shouldn't affect the status of the translation.

Having been administered by the Alien Property Custodian is really just a bar to URAA restoration, and doesn't seem to be the ruling norm here. I think the translation (as a licensed derivative work) became PD in 1943.

As far as a specific 'not restored' license tag, I don't think that's the way to go. The URAA didn't "make" non-restored works PD, it didn't change their status at all. The actual 'license tag' needs to tell us why the work became PD, and having been owned/administered by the APC (returned or not) didn't affect the term of the copyright. It'd be more along the lines of mentioning that we checked for a URAA restoration. Jarnsax (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: Granted I'm not really digging into this right now, but I'm having trouble figuring out the actual copyright status of this particular work, even with the above information.

Regarding the US book publication you mention, {{PD-USGov}} only applies to original works created by the government. They can hold a third party copyright and license it any way they choose. So mere publication by the government is not ipso facto proof that it is PD. It only affects secondary issues like whether it is eligible for URAA restoration.

So is it the case that the copyright has expired? Did it fail to comply with the formalities required at the time? Xover (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover Right. My impression is that 1943 translation by the US Government itself (not the original German text) was a "work for hire" of the OWI, a derivative work created 'by license' while the APC was in control of the copyright in the original. I doesn't look to me like the translation was ever under copyright due to this. Jarnsax (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: a dim lightbulb begins flickering… Hmm. Ok, so the US copyright in the German-language original was seized by the Alien Property Custodian. The APC authorised an English-language translation to be made and published by the Office of War Information. OWI was a part of the federal government so its works are {{PD-USGov}} and in isolation we can use that tag for the translation.

But considering {{translation license}} requires a license tag in its |original= parameter, what is the current US status of the German-language original? Does the US still hold it (they only returned 10% of seized assets after the war I think)? Was it returned to Bavaria? Has it expired? Xover (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Xover That's one question I don't have an answer to, and not even a real idea where to search. :/ Jarnsax (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(ce) Well, technically that isn't true, but I doubt 'go dig through some unscanned NARA records file' is realistic. Jarnsax (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's try to reason through this…

When was the German-language original first subject of general publication (the performance of the speech doesn't count: it's just a performance, not a general publication, for copyright purposes)? Where was it first published, and was it simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the US?

If it had a copyright in the US that could be seized, the seizure did not affect that copyright: it was just a transfer of ownership like an inheritance or sale. Only if the copyright has expired through other means does that seizure come into play in that it prevents restoration by the URAA.

The most promising path to PD is that it was first published in Germany before 1977 without a copyright notice, or before 1963 with a notice but without a subsequent renewal. Stanford lists only renewals for Mein Kampf so a renewal is unlikely.

But if first publication for copyright purposes happened after the war the URAA comes back into play. And if it was unpublished until 2003 there's a pma. 70 term to deal with.

In other words, there seems to be plenty of paths to copyright for the German-language original, and the paths to PD for it hinge on when and where actual publication happened. Iff publication happened during the war, and it was seized by the APC, then it is barred from URAA restoration, but any original copyright could still subsist. Xover (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, for reference, in order to resolve this I have made this edit attempting to resolve this issue. Please don't use this discussion / resolution as precedent in future discussions: there are way too many unknowns here. Xover (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Appeal of the Council of People's Commissars to the Muslims of Russia and the East

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. License updated and moved to correct name.

A translation from Russian. Since the original Russian version was from 1917 it itself is in the public domain here in the US. However I can't say the same for the translation. The only source I can find in PDF form that matches what we have is from a 1996 volume of a Marxist magazine. That's not looking good for its copyright status... PseudoSkull (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree as to the status of the original. The translation appears to have been taken from Marxists Internet Archive, and that translation appears similar to the translation in Workers Vanguard (the Marxist magazine). The two translations are not identical, however, so I would like to hold off deletion to look into the exact source of the Internet translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I suspect that this translation was from Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy published in 1951 and edited by Jane Degras (1905-1973). MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: Any luck? Is Mark's suspicion above of any help? --Xover (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, I forgot about this. I’m looking around for it, and should be able to look at it soon. Supposing it is from the Degras Documents, and supposing (as I believe to be true) that the translations are original to that work, it is {{PD-US-no renewal}}, if there even was a copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Xover: I can confirm Mark’s suspicion: this translation is found in Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy (Jane Degras ed.), Volume 1: 1917–1924 (pp. 15–17). It is copyright 1951, but there was no renewal of that copyright, so the work is PD-US-no renewal as aforesaid. It is, however, given under the title “Appeal of the Council of People’s Commissars to the Moslems of Russia and the East,” but the text is identical. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ariane 501 Inquiry Board report

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Very unlikely to be PD; made c. 1996, seems to be a university work and not a government work, and the English translation is of course even less likely to be PD. The PDF source given is now a dead link by the way. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a translation; it is the original. The “Inquiry Board” consisted of some university members, but was originally an official (but independent) product of cnes, the French national space agency. I’m not precisely sure at the moment of the officiality of the report, but it sits on the line of edict (with reasoning) and government work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see the argument for considering this to be an edict of government?

  In any case, ESA (unlike NASA) is an IGO and not an arm of some national government. It is a membership organisation in which nations can be members, and was established by treaty. For copyright purposes it is a private organisation, and all its works are subject to copyright protection. CNES is a government agency of France, so if the report had been a product of CNES it would be a French government work; but French copyright has no PD-USGov-equivalent exception so all CNES works are protected by copyright.

  The Arian 501 Inquiry Board, as an independent board, would also not be covered by any "official work" exemptions even if ESA was a government department like NASA or the board was set up by CNES alone. In fact, under most European copyright acts I believe this would have been considered a collective work of the members of the board, rather than of the board as an organisation (meaning the term is pma. 70 from the death of the longest living author). Any exemption would have to be in the form of a contract licensing the copyrighted work to ESA or CNES (or both), and the license would have to be one compatible with our policy. Xover (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  For this to be an edict of government in my view, the following (or some greater occurrence) would need to be true:

  1. This work was made by cnes, an agency of the French government.
  2. This work was intended to be, and is, a regulation (or a set of rules) concerning the operation of craft like the Ariane 501 so that the accident (I think) doesn’t happen again.
  3. In alignment with the previous circumstance, the non-regulation portion of the report would be considered as an extended series of opening remarks, justifying the regulation.

  I believe it meets the first of these requirements, but I can’t say the same of the other parts. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: I agree that the initiative came from CNES and ESA. But by the very nature of being an independent board of inquiry it is not a product of CNES (even ignoring ESA's role). Reports from independent ad hoc boards (not being legal persons in themselves) are usually collective works by the physical persons that make up the board, and as such are covered by their individual copyrights with expiration happening pma. 70 for the longest living author. If it were a product of CNES it would ipso facto not be independent. CNES and ESA make it downloadable because it is a public record, but cannot authorize any reuse or redistribution of it.

  In addition, as the report itself makes clear, the initiative did not come from CNES alone: "… the Director General of ESA and the Chairman of CNES set up an independent Inquiry Board and nominated the following members: [list of individual members]". That is, even if the work of the board were to be considered to be the product of the tasking organization, that tasking organization would include ESA which, as described above, is not covered by any "government work" exception.

  It would also be hard to achieve that effect because European copyright laws mostly do not use the concept of "work for hire" as we know it from US copyright: mostly it is the physical person in whom copyright vests, and what's covered by "work for hire" in the US is handled through employment contracts (and other such contractual arrangements). Since the board is an ad hoc entity set up for a particular purpose its members are not covered by normal employment contracts but rather by "terms of reference". And the terms of reference are provided in the report: "to determine the causes of the launch failure,; to investigate whether the qualification tests and acceptance tests were appropriate in relation to the problem encountered,; to recommend corrective action to remove the causes of the anomaly and other possible weaknesses of the systems found to be at fault."

  In addition, even if it were found to be a work of CNES, the terms of reference and the report itself makes clear that the report itself has no force of law: it only makes recommendations about actions, and one of those actions is to establish modified regulation. It is also not itself a legislative body, which is the other pathway to EdictGov.

  Bottom line is that I am unable to find any in which this can be covered by either EdictGov or a PD-USGov type copyright exception. --Xover (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that pretty much calls it. Not an edict (no legal force) so not PD-US by that route, and subject to a existing copyright claim by (either/or, doesn't matter) the collective authors, ESA (which is able to claim copyright in it's own works), and CNES (ditto) until a very long time from now (I'm sure some of the authors are still alive). Jarnsax (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

His Excellency Mr. Somchai Wongsawat Education Policy 2008-2022

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

I propose deletion of this work for the following reasons:

1. The tagged license, Template:PD-TH-exempt, does not apply at all, because "a policy" is not a constitution, legislation, judicial decision, etc.
2. The author, Author:Somchai Wongsawat, is still alive. Works by him are still copyrighted.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Miwako Sato: Please fix the (currently) 187 broken template invocations you have created by mandating a parameter before you bring this discussion here. This seems to me (unacquainted as I am with Thai copyright law) to be an “explanation[]” or “official correspondence of the Ministr[y]”—specifically, the Ministry of Education, which was headed by Somchai Wongsawat. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I brought this discussion here before creating that function of the template. On this page (the page "His Excellency..."), I left the template so because I don't find the work falls under any of the categories mentioned in the temple. The work (titled a "policy") seems to be a speech addressed to someone (like a policy addressed to parliament), which is not covered by Template:PD-TH-exempt. Also, it is not likely an explanation or correspondence (referring to letters, which should be something like those in Category:Correspondence). I'm fixing the template on the other pages. --Miwako Sato (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato: What is the source of this translation? And why are we giving authorship as the minister personally, rather than to the ministry as an organisation? Xover (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

1. After googling, I found no source of this work. Wikisource was the only result returned by Google.
2. Whether its author is a person or organisation, it's still considered a copyrighted work. If the authorship is given to a person, the author is still alive and does not appear to have released this work into public domain. Even the authorship is instead given to a government organisation (Ministry of Education in this case), the work still can't be categorised into any of the items listed in Template:PD-TH-exempt.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Miwako Sato: If I may ask, what would constitute an “explanation” under Thai copyright law, in your view? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Works that clarify something, like:

  • Statement for the record: Office of General Counsel involvement in interrogation issues;
  • Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine, 1919;
  • Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Some Questions Concerning Implementation of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;

  etc. --Miwako Sato (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• It is not obvious to me that this text fits into any of the categories of {{PD-TH-exempt}}. In translations, especially, one cannot presume the colloquial meaning of a word applies. While it does mention things like "explanations", "correspondence", "reports", it does so in the context of a list containing "the constitution and legislation; regulations, bylaws, notifications [read: proclamations], orders, explanations [read: explanatory supporting material]; official correspondence of the Ministries [read: administrative decisions founded in the law or regulations]; judicial decisions, orders, and decisions": all things that either are laws or are necessary to fully understand the law and its interpretation. That is, the words must be understood in this context, and thus describe exceptions of the kind found in {{PD-EdictGov}} and not those found in {{PD-USGov}}. This is also in line with what I have found when researching copyright legislation in various jurisdictions around the world: mostly PD-USGov is unique, and "government work" exceptions, if present at all, mirror EdictGov and not PD-USGov.
  The work in question appears to be a "report" mostly in the sense that the minister responsible for this area is telling his superiors (unclear who, but looks to be some form of legislative assembly) how he plans to run his ministry and what his policy will be. It is not a "report" in the sense that his ministry has investigated some issue or another and is recommending something based on that investigation or summarising its findings. In essence, it is a speech (even if submitted in writing) in which the minister brags about his vision and policy over the next x years.
  It is also not in itself determinative, but the main Ministry of Education website contains the statement "สงวนลิขสิทธิ์ © 2562" (that is, "Copyright © 2019" translated to English and the Gregorian calendar). So it appears the ministry itself in general claims copyright without acknowledging any exceptions. Granted their website is like a tour of the web ca. 1996—complete with hit counters, horizontally scrolling marquees, and seizure-inducing animated gifs—so one would not necessarily expect to find more than such a blanket copyright claim; but it certainly provides no help for any claim of compatible licensing.
  Based on current information and arguments I am unconvinced that that square peg can be made to fit the round hole provided by {{PD-TH-exempt}}. The issue hinges on one's interpretation of the wording in the exemptions in combination with one's view of the nature of the text in question, so it is not entirely clear cut. But on balance and on available information I don't see this being covered by the exemptions. --Xover (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Ballad of Long Ben

The following discussion is closed:

This is either a copyvio, a modern hoax, or so incredibly obscure it might as well be. If suitable evidence for its existence and provenance is turned up an undeletion discussion can be opened; but any sufficient evidence is likely to involve a suitably licensed scan from which it would be better to proofread it from scratch.

A poem with no source, no license, no stated author, and no year listed. I can't find anything, anywhere online besides us, even mentioning a poem of this name, much less giving the full poem.

Since the poem mentions 1894 (presumably that's the "'94" it's talking about) that increases the likelihood it was released before 1926. However if we don't know, we can't say for sure. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I came the long way round to find it: Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Ballad_of_Long_Ben gives the attribution to Henry Every (Long Ben), making that the sixteen-94. I'm guessing it's from a mid nineteenth century text. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't written by Avery. And it's not a poem, but a Sea shanty (well, unless you're a purist). But CI's "mid nineteenth century" attribution seems plausible. Given the language used it certainly isn't much older than that, and more likely later. I'm not having much luck finding an immediate source for it, but if anyone has easy access to The Oxford Book of Sea Songs (1986) by Roy Palmer it is a likely candidate. Xover (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I finally tracked down a copy of The Oxford Book of Sea Songs and it doesn't include it; which is kind of odd in that it is rather comprehensive and includes another ballad about Avery set just prior to "’94" (the most significant year in Avery's life, the year he mutinied and took over the Charles II, renamed it Fancy, and then captured the Ganj-i-Sawai; aka. the thing he is actually famous for). I also cannot find a single reference to this ballad that predates the addition of the text here, and all those that do reference it are online sources (i.e. journalistic standards, not academic standards). There are some very few references to it (way way too few compared to even the most obscure sea shanty), but the one scholarly one reference I can find cites… Wikisource.

Consequently I'm beginning to think this text may be a modern hoax. And combined with the lack of a source or license, and the fact that we cannot identify any indication that it has been previously published, I am inclined to delete it as copyvio. Had there been any substantial evidence that this sea shanty actually existed I might have accepted a mere unfounded assumption that our text was PD-old based on the age of 99% of known shantys; but as it stands I can't see such an assumption as warranted. Xover (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To further discredit the entry, the ballad was added by an IP address in 2012—that was their sole edit to this site. Worth noting that if this poem really originated from that user (i.e. if it was a hoax) they effectively waived their copyright of the work to the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, which Wikisource uses, by posting it on Wikisource. However, despite having that copyright status by default, it goes without saying it still wouldn't meet WS:WWI. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears to date from at least 2009: https://thomo.coldie.net/2009/02/08/henry-ebery-or-henry-every/

I'm hoping the author of that blog can remember where he found it (or if he made it up!), and I left a message there. But as Xover says, there's not much sign of it on the Internet (except a few citing us, including the British Library, who really should know to at least find the source text).

That said, there's one persistent thing I found: searching for exact text, (e.g. "Here’s to gentlemen at sea tonight", but most lines of the song will do) at Google Books repeatedly produces https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tr4WAeJtLb0C, but there are no results within the book. Very odd. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Inductiveload: I have that book on hand, and will look through it to see if there is any real quotation of this ballad. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Inductiveload: This has no quotation of it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Manual for Revolutionary Leaders

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-US-no notice}}.

I assume that this is in the public domain because of failure to include a copyright notice, but if so it should be tagged as such with an appropriate license. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It was printed without a copyright notice in 1972; I checked the original scan referred to on the front matter page. This would make the work public domain for that reason alone. I believe this was purposeful, actually—I notice that at least a number of socialist/anarchist works from around this time were printed without a copyright notice on purpose, either because they had a moral sentiment against copyright in general, or because they wanted their political message to be spread with more leisure.

Absent of the copyright status, though, it should be scan-backed. What we currently have seems to be nothing more than an OCR dump. Furthermore, it's not even complete in terms of that. So I think this is definitely in WS:PD territory. Scan backing it is fine IMO, but for what we currently have, I say  Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the should be scan-backed, but first wanted to confirm that I wasn't missing something on the PD status before uploading to commons and going through the migration. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• If it was first published in the US before 1977 without a copyright notice it should be clearly fine as {{PD-US-no-notice}}. There are tons of weird exceptions that can apply depending on date, country of origin, registration vs. notice, renewals, etc. etc.; but at a cursory glance I see no obvious reason to assume these apply here. --Xover (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  @MarkLSteadman and @PseudoSkull: I am about to close this as keep on the copyright issue, but that does not preclude deleting it on other grounds. If there are remaining non-copyright issues please open a new discussion on WS:PD, but it looks like it is now in the process of being scan-backed. Xover (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2017)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The work was suggested for speedy deletion by Kanwenjian with the rationale "Article 5 of the Chinese copyright law does not exempt copyright of Communist Party documents", but it should imo be discussed here first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete Agree this was not suitable for speedy. However, it appears to be the political program of the political party, and not a product of the government of the nation state, although the distinction between these is often academic. As such it is the work of a private organisation and not subject to any government work exception at home, not any edicts of government exceptions in the US. Xover (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Poor People

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

1908 work by Tolstoy, originally written in Russian. The text does not specify a translator, and it only gives RevoltLib as a source (which would make it post-2016 and in copyright). Xover (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Paripatal

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

English translation of a traditional Hindi text. Original is almost certainly PD-old, but there is no information about source or translator. The contributor (who has all of 36 global edits on Wikimedia projects, all of them in 2013) was approached about this issue right after upload but never responded. Xover (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Translation:Order of the Supreme Commander on May 9, 1945, No. 369

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

An order from Joseph Stalin (1878–1953) to "the troops of the Red Army and the Navy". The translation seems pretty clearly to be a Wikisource translation (CC BY-SA 3.0). But what do we call the Russian original? It also contains some obvious errors in transcription/translation, so it would not be amiss if someone were inclined to scan-back it. Xover (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource original translations explicittely demands that "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation." It may be the right time to start enforcing this rule. It is very difficult to patrol frequent attempts of anon users to improve our existing translations without direct access to some computer-search-friendly original (and I have to admit that I often simply give up patrolling changes to translation pages for this reason). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You're not alone. Nobody really patrols the Translation: namespace for this very reason, and as a result it is a complete mess. On bad days I think to myself that we should just nuke the whole namespace and start again from a blank slate and strict enforcement of a scan-requirement. Xover (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Mistakes of Jesus

The following discussion is closed:

License set to {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

1932 work by William Floyd (1871–1943), first published, as far as I can tell, in New York by the Freethought Press Association. I have been unable to find an accessible scan of it, but several of the transcriptions include the original copyright notice and the catalog of copyright entries has a 1934 registration of it. However, searching the Stanford database I can't find a renewal for it. So, absent contrary evidence I am going to call this {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. It would still be very good to find a scan for it. Xover (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Loyalty (Colby)

The following discussion is closed:

License set to {{PD-USGov}}.

According to the LoC, this is a 1920 speech by Bainbridge Colby (1869–1950). The LoC describes him as Secretary of State at the time of the speech, a position he was appointed to on March 23, 1920. The recording from which our transcription appears to have been made is cited as "Bridgeport, Conn. : Made by the Columbia Graphophone Manufacturing Company, [1920].".

Absent objections / evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to tag this as {{PD-USGov}} (with a fallback to {{PD/US|1950}}). Xover (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Letter to Chrestus of Syracuse

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-US-no notice}}.

Undated translation of letter (decree) by Constantine (274–337) originally written in… not English… with no source and no license. The one other translation I checked had a markedly different text. It also appears to be an excerpt, so personally I would be inclined to excise it regardless, but given the type of material it seems not unlikely that the translation is PD-old if someone wants to put in the effort to save it. Xover (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• The original of this translation is, I believe, from Loeb 153 (Eusebius: Historia Ecclesiastica), at 457–461. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, based on TE(æ)A,ea.'s identification, I've tracked down some scans; none of which exhibit any copyright notice. The volumes themselves list publisher as William Heinemann in London and G. P. Putnam's Sons in New York. So I'd say this is simultaneously published and with no notice, and at worst it will expire at the end of 2021. I am therefore inclined to call it {{PD-US-no notice}} and be done. Xover (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2020)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The text is the translation of the 2020 version of the Chinese Copyright Law, which is translated by en.pkulaw.cn, a subsidiary of Peking University, and states that "© 2021 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved Peking University Center for Legal Information". The text is clearly not an official translation, fails the requirement of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, and is copyrighted and unfree.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

One may also refer to Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2020#IMPORTANT! Foreigners in China during the epidemic must abide by the following, where Chinese legislation translations from the same site are deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wandering around, I found at NCAC "National Copyright Administration of the People's Republic of China" the 2010 version translated by (presumably) that government organ. At their Top News and Achievements I can see they know the 2020 amendment "will come into force on June 1, 2021". However I can't find the English translation for the 2020 like I can for the 2010 amendment. They haven't caught up?

At english.gov.cn they are similarly stuck at the 2010 version. They haven't caught up either?

Everything I can find so far seems to derive from ChinaLawInfo, e.g. "it's online!", so no help. Shenme (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, perhaps I think the next step may be trying to do some translation based on the 2010 version Copyright Law and the 2020 Amendment Decision.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If own translation is required (and not doable by me!) then these notes might be really useful. Shenme (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Strike Against War (1916)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept/withdrawn.

While the speech itself is in the public domain due to it being given before 1926, this copydump could have been taken from a number of facsimile online sources, all of which appear to have been copied from Helen Keller: Her Socialist Years (1967), a collection of speeches which contained a copyright notice. It says in the title page of that book that the book was edited, so there's no way to determine with absolute confidence whether or not what's presented was changed in some meaningful (and therefore copyrightable) way. The book itself cannot be sourced because the introduction to it at least is original to the author, a Philip S. Foner, professor of history at Lincoln University. Can anybody link me to an original, preferably pre-1926, source for this speech? If not, then the copyright (at least of this version) may very well belong to Foner, and there's no way to truly determine otherwise. I also have my suspicion that the paper transcript to the speech is so rare that Foner, being an academic and a historian, may have been the only person with access to it.

I want to note, however, that this was not an instance of the speech being published posthumously, as Keller died after it was published, while only a single year later. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The source appears to be the 6 January 1916 edition of The New York Call socialist newspaper.MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: I can't find a scan of it online. Do you have a link to it? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't, just saw other books referencing that as the source. I found 08-12 here but not 1916: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/the-new-york-call/index.htm, maybe someone can request it or swing by the NYPL or someone with access to a newspaper db ...

• Keep. Scan-backed to Call publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Retracting my deletion vote as nom. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Impressive, where did you find it? Did you scan it yourself? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: ILL—I’ve used it for a few things now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Inevitable Revolution

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as translation copyvio

The link to the page on archive says copyright Robert Sampson 1981. Given it is an anarchist publication it may have been released under a license... MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Index:Down And Out In Paris And London (IA DownAndOutInParisAndLondonGeorgeOrwell1933).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Work is explicitly listed as renewed on relevant author page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete Clear copyright infringement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The renewal is for the US. As Orwell died in 1950, works that were not renewed are however potentially, PD-old-70 in some other jurisdictions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

His works are PD in (most?) places outside the US. It's possible some of his works that aren't 95 years old are PD in the US, but it seems likely they're either renewed or not first published in the US.

Note, before anyone gets in, this has nothing at all to do with the URAA. It's being treated as US work under US law and never needed restoration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

what is the date of first US publication? Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 01:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

1933 (HathiTrust) with (Renewal: R265227) MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You can see a scan of a 1933 New York edition here and a 1933 London edition here.  Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Undelete Luceafărul

The following discussion is closed:

No clear evidence that pinpoints the copyright status with certainty has been found, but what is available indicates a far greater probability of the work being {{PD-1996}} than not. In this discussion I see some outright support, some undecideds / not taking a stance, and none actually opposed. Combined with the fact that the previous discussion was inconclusive and the votes there half-hearted and precautionary, I'm going to call that enough to undelete. No bar to renominating it if new evidence should point more strongly in the direction of the work being in copyright.

Previous discussion: WS:CV#Luceafărul.

This is a 19th-century Romanian poem by Mihai Eminescu (1850–1889), translated into English by Petre Grimm (1888–1944), and by all indications (but no hard evidence) first published in BulgariaRomania at some point before Grimm's death. I have also been unable to find hard evidence of, but choose to accept Carl Lindberg's assertion in the previous discussion, that BulgariaRomania was pma. 50 until their 1996 revised copyright act. That means the Bulgarian copyright on the translation expired at the end of 1994, and it was thus in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (1 January 1996). Since there is no evidence (or reason to suspect) the translation was published with the requisite US copyright notice, nor any record of registration or renewal, it is {{PD-US-no notice}} or, at worst, {{PD-US-no renewal}}.

There are uncertainties here, so your personal risk tolerance will be the decisive factor for whether we undelete it (the previous delete was precautionary rather than based on evidence of copyright, and was coloured by the existence of Wikilivres as an "easy out"). Under c:COM:PRP it probably wouldn't fly, but for etter or worse enWS doesn't apply PRP. If someone could pinpoint first publication of this translation, and preferably find a scan, we could eliminate all the uncertain factors.

Pinging contributors to the previous discussion: Prosfilaes, Beleg Tâl, Clindberg.

PS. I have not undeleted the page for this discussion, since I don't think that's needed, but I can do so if an issue comes up. Xover (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Xover: Don’t you mean PD-1996? The other templates don’t apply to non-U.S. works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that's probably exactly what I mean. :) Xover (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Technically they do -- if a foreign work was published with notice and (if published before 1964) filed U.S. renewals, then their U.S. copyright was never lost, so there was nothing for the URAA to restore. Outside of books, this hardly ever happened, so for most works we assume they were published without notice. Books were often different, though. On the other hand, book renewals are very easy to search for given Stanford's book renewals database. I don't find anything by Grimm or Eminescu there, so I don't think that can be an issue here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The original discussion was about Romania, not Bulgaria -- for Romania's situation, please see the note at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_romania. (Bulgaria was also 50pma, but not sure how that is relevant here.) I'm not sure we ever found any publication information for this. Luceafărul (poem) does not mention Grimm's translation; it mentions another from 1978 being the first English translation, which is obviously wrong given the one we had from Grimm. There was a 1938 Romanian book published in English by Cartea Românească called Poems. No idea if this poem was in there, but seems likely. If that is indeed the source of the translation, then U.S. copyright was lost by no renewal (if there even was a notice in the first place), and (being PD-Romania in January 1996) was also PD-1996. The only way U.S. copyright still exists is if it was first published with notice between 1964 and 2003, or without notice between 1989 and 2003. Or, I guess, if it was first published earlier in a country other than Romania which had longer terms in 1996.  Support, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Google Books Claims a 1992 first publication date for the Grimm translation in Poems pf Mihai Eminescu - A Bilingual Edition by Kurt w. Treptow, and Google Books specifically says that it wasn't in the 1938 collection. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • A 1992 date is almost certainly wrong, since it was published or at least quoted in a 1964 volume of Rumanian Review.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The 1964 Rumanian Review sounds pretty good if we can get scans of it since it then would then be clearly PD-1996... 11:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing the Rumanian Review in Google Books today, but a random couple of lines ("The water in that very spot Moves rolling many rings") is bringing up Lirica românească: Antologie bilingvă de poezie (1972), Luceafărul Hypérion: Lucifer Hyperion (1964) and Volume 1 of Poezii: echivalente eminesciene in limbile engleza, franceza, germana, rusa si spaniola (1971) I'd like scans and a positive source here, but the text we have was clearly published before 1992 in several sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Here is a link to the Rumanian Review Google Books . MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
          • That contains clauses from all throughout the poem, with the exception of several stanzas in the area where Prosfilaes' search came from -- I'm guessing there was a problem with the scan and/or OCR on one or two pages. So that sure seems like the entire poem. Unsure if there was a copyright notice on it -- but no match for the term "copyright". I have not been able to see if that publication cited a further source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Václav Havel's 1990 speech in Congress

The following discussion is closed:

The question raised has been addressed to the degree it seems likely to be. If a specific concern is raised with any text added as a result it can be addressed using the specific facts of that text.

I am considering adding the speech of Czechoslovak president Václav Havel from the joint session of the U.S. Congress on 21 February 1990. This speech was performed in Czech and simultaneously translated into English. The English version was published in the Congressional Record of that day, pp. 2601–2109. Do I judge it right that it is in the public domain in the U. S.? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Mere publication in the Congressional Record doesn't affect copyright (public record vs. public domain). But let's see… Your reasoning is that {{PD-CzechGov}} functions like {{PD-USGov}} and covers Havel's speech, and the simultaneous translation is most likely either an "official translation" covered by {{PD-CzechGov}} or an authorised one made by Congress staff and covered by {{PD-USGov}}?

Most copyright laws have {{PD-EdictGov}}-type exceptions (roughly: "things which are laws") rather than {{PD-USGov}}-like exceptions (roughly: "things which were made by the government"). A quick peek at c:COM:Czechia and c:Template:PD-CzechGov suggests it may indeed have {{PD-USGov}}-like exceptions (but I wouldn't want to be too emphatic on that without further research). If that's the case then I would say the reasoning above holds. Xover (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Originally I thought that it could be PD in the U. S. based on the fact it was first published by the U. S. Congress in the Congressional Records. So I was probably wrong in this.

As for {{PD-CzechGov}}, it is something between {{PD-EdictGov}} and {{PD-USGov}}. It is not as general, as PD-USGov, but it is broader than just laws. It specifies several explicit exceptions in the first five points (none of which covers presidential speeches) and then it adds one more point for "other such works where there is public interest in their exclusion from copyright protection". There is no official ruling stating whether presidential speeches fall under this, but e. g. Czech Wikisource decided to include speeches of Czech presidents. Could we do it, based on this, too? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: I couldn't tell you definitively based on my research so far (which is, admittedly, cursory). The best I can offer is that if such a text was properly sourced, scan-backed, and tagged roughly with the license tags above I would definitely not speedy it and it is unlikely I would bring it to WS:CV absent some external reason. I'd be more concerned with hosting the scan on Commons where the Precautionary Principle (uncertainty = delete) is a pretty bright line in policy. Xover (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Khodynka

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The uploaded file provides contradictory data (the file says "2010" while the publication date of 1910 is likely the original Russian.) With no author or license in the file. So although they may have meant to release in the public domain AFAICT they haven't actually so I am not sure it is usable. It is not a very long work so it might just be easier if someone here speaks Russian to translate it under a clear license. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Delete The source of the text is here. Looks like EarthlyFireflies uploaded a lot of Tolstoy translations to IA which are all over the Internet (I bet we have more of their versions here). Their website is a mess but it looks like these are semi-original translations based on other existing translations. They uploaded their translations to IA with a PD release, so they are within our copyright policy provided that they are truly original translations - but at the same time if they are truly original then they are self-published and fail WS:WWI —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sir Charles Grandison

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

First published in 1980. No evidence provided that it was not copyrighted. Languageseeker (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, why does the USA have stupid rules for posthumous works. Jane Austen wrote this over 200 years ago, surely it's PD somehow —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Beleg Tâl: This work is likely copyrighted, but it would be helpful to know where it was first published. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright David Astor 1981. Jubilee Books, Burford Oxfordshire. Which implies UK copyright until 2032 and in the US until 2048... MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the ways to work around this for all of Austen's Juvenelia would be to proofread the original manuscripts that are in the PD. Languageseeker (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Languageseeker: This is not true. The publication did not give copyright to merely editorial changes, but also to the entire content of the manuscript. We could as legally host manuscripts of novels which are recently published; the copyright of a published work supersedes that of the unpublished manuscript from which it derives. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• MarkLSteadman, Beleg Tâl: Assuming the above 1981 publication is the original, and assuming also U.K. (no U.S.) publication, it is copyrighted. Under the same rules as the below case, it is copyrighted in the U.K. until January 1, 2032. This means it was copyrighted in the U.K. on the relevant date for URAA restoration, meaning copyright was restored in the U.S. According to the usual chart, the U.S. copyright expires on the later of December 31, 1887 and December 31, 2047, which is the latter; thus, U.S. copyright expires January 1, 2048. In short: this work is copyright in the U.K. until 2032, and in the U.S. until 2048. This is all predicate on the released edition being published with the consent of Austen’s estate, of course; without such consent, this work was published illegally, and copyright protection would not start until legal publication occurred. If it was not legally published before 2003, it is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • It's at times like these where I really miss Wikilivres. :/ —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Undelete Dettmer v. Landon (799 F.2d 929)

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted.

This is not, as claimed, redundant; the deleted case was the appellate court decision, and the original case was from the district court. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why the proposal was made among the copyright discussions, as copyright was not the reason of deletion. However, it really seems that it was some mistake. The page was deleted with the rationale "Redundant to Dettmer v. Landon". Having a quick look at both texts I would say that they are really different and so it does not seem to me that the deleted one is redundant. Besides that, there are several pages linked to the deleted page, including Dettmer v. Landon. So I guess it must have been a mistake and I have undeleted the page for this reason. Just for sure I am pinging User:Hesperian who deleted the page to check it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: Dettmer v. Landon (799 F.2d 929)/Opinion of the Court would also be appreciated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Restored. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I did thousands and thousands of X v Y disambiguations at that time, so probably it was just a lapse of attention on my part. Hesperian 23:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Index:Calends of Cairo.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A UK work published 1933 by an author who died in 1935, and hence not PD in the US until 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Delete. Although I am not sure about the 1933 (The page itself says the work was published 1931 which is probably derived from a prefaced note dated by that year), it is definitely still copyrighted and so should be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment This was previously discussed at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/10#File:Calends of Cairo.pdf. I don't have an opinion on whether the index should be deleted, but I figured it was worth dropping a link. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete An ad from the publisher in The Observer for 28 June 1931 places first publication in the UK in 1931, and there is no evidence of simultaneous US publication. --Xover (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Majulah Singapura.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nom with no new talks after a month.

The file is a stave of Majulah Singapura, the national anthem of Singapore composed and written by Zubir Said, who died on 1987. Per Singaporean copyright law, the song is copyrighted for at least 50 years after his death (As Singaporean copyright protection was extended to 70 years pma in 2004). This means the song remains locally copyrighted on the URAA date of 1996-01-01. The file is therefore copyrightable in the United States, and fails the copyright requirement for English Wikisource works.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

One should also note that Section 197(3)(b) of the Copyright Act, which is mentioned in {{Legislation-SGGov}}, only cover government works. As Zubir Said is not a government official or employee, the section (along with {{PD-EdictGov}}) do not apply.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. This is PD-EdictGov. It was enacted into law as the Third Schedule to the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules, and was likely enacted earlier (although I could not find good on-line sources to 1960s Singapore law). Whether or not it was included then, it is included now, and is thus in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdraw Many thanks for your explanation, so you mean an edict that contains works created by non-officials still fulfill {{PD-EdictGov}}?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • 廣九直通車: The wording of the template needs to be updated (in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Georgia v. PRO, but, yes, when once a work becomes a law (or schedule to a rule, in this case), it is an “edict of government,” and thus in the public domain. (As an example, in the U.S., many laws are not written by the officials who pass them, but by interest groups who want the laws passed; and these groups cannot claim a copyright interest in the laws if they are past, because they are “edicts of government.”) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  I originally uploaded the document under PD-EdictGov for the reason stated above by TE(æ)A,ea. I must agree though that the upload of the sheet music alone would raise some concerns.

  Perhaps to ensure we don't have this confusion, we could instead upload the full document of the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules and proofread it as such? I can keep the transcription for my own reference in transcribing the sheet music within the document. Dafatskin (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done uploaded.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dafatskin: Transcription finished. I'll be grateful if you can help with proofreading the text, thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

USA publication, no copyright notice

The following discussion is closed:

Works appears to have been published in the US within 30 days of its UK first publication, and fails to comply with US formalities, so it is {{PS-US-no notice}}.

I have a book. Published in Philadelphia, by Lippincott and no London or Edinburgh or etc on the title page. The author, a Brit. (1830-1894). The artist, also a Brit. (1867-1939). No date anywhere in the book, just a print notice on the back of the title page.

So, then I have another book that contains the artists bibliography which claims this book was published in 1933.

I looked around at the copyright stuff here (which was nice and easy to read and mostly about published works, so thanks for that) and I am pretty sure I can put it here, at least and probably on the commons also.

I am just making sure before I go through the work and start to upload. Thanks--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: If the book was originally published in the US, it wouldn't matter to us if it were written by British people; US laws apply completely there. However, things might be more complicated if your version was not the original edition, in which case I'm pretty sure that for US law to apply, it would need to have been published in the US only 30 days after the UK publication, which, for works that are this old, is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to prove. Note that pretty much everything published in the UK after 1925 would be protected in the US because of the URAA agreement—1926+70=1996. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It always helps to mention names and titles to let us help look up fine details.

It's largely theoretical, but it's possible your volume is missing a copyright notice that virtually all copies has. I'd check the copyright renewals for books, and possibly (but much more tediously) the illustration renewals, which if they existed, might indicate your copy is a legally irrelevant exception.

Short of such renewal, the author is irrelevant; the text is PD in the US and UK. The illustrations, if they were first published in 1926-1933 outside the US, are likely copyright in the US. If they were first published before 1926 (or 1927 in two months) or were first published in the US, they won't be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: It is Goblin Market by Christina Rossetti, illustrated by Arthur Rackham. All of the pages that are not blank are there. If you would like to look it up, it will be good to know. Without the library book with the bibliography, I would not have known the date at all and I thought to keep it hypothetical because, the rules should apply regardless. But, you are right about being able to look it up and such. So, I thank you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no renewals. On the other hand, some part of me guesses that's because it wasn't a licensed publication. w:Goblin Market shows UK publications about the same time, so arguably we should wait until 2029. But it sounds like the type of thing certain people around here have been able to research as to a more precise publication date.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep Goblin Market illustrated by Rackham shows up in the "Books Received" section of The Guardian (London) for 3 November 1933 (listed under G. G. Harrap and Co.). In the US it shows up in The Minneapolis Star (Minneapolis, MN) for 2 December 1933 as currently in sale ($1.50) from Lippincott. I see no reason to presume this is a separate or pirated edition, so the text and illustrations in it are a US publication (published within 30 days) for our purposes and Commons policy purposes. If it contains no copyright notice it is {{PD-US-no notice}}; the text can be hosted here, and the scan can be hosted on Commons. Ping RaboKarbakian (CC Prosfilaes). --Xover (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Keep Do votes even matter if the legal stuff has been accomplished (and accomplished to such a fine degree, thank you kindly for that Xover!) Of course keep! I can start to upload the images for this at any time!!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Of course votes matter. Any single person—myself especially—can be wrong or have overlooked relevant issues. The point of a public discussion is to minimise the risk that we make bad calls based on insufficient or incorrect information. Xover (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted since no arguments against were presented, but a plausible argument for its being a copyvio was made by the nominator for speedy deletion (that was converted into a discussion here). Since no actual discussion took place the consensus here is weak and anyone should feel free to reopen a discussion of this work if they have contrary arguments to make.

Nominated for speedy deletion by TE(æ)A,ea. with the rationale "copyrighted summary of case, not actual syllabus", but I think it might be better to discuss it here. I have found the text e.g. at https://ncd.gov/publications/2002/sept172002 . --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Translation of a work by Martin Luther, done by Carl Julius Schindler (1901–1996). Published in the US in 1968 with copyright notice, putting the US copyright term at 1968 + 95 = end of 2063(!) :-(

Unsure if this translation is new for this work, or if it's a reprint of an earlier translation. Schindler appears to have more than one unrenewed book in his oeuvre, so if the latter, we may be in with a chance.

Courtesy ping @Dafatskin: sorry! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, unfortunately there is no sign of an earlier uncopyrighted edition of the translation, so unless we discover some, it will have to be deleted :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yogyakarta Principles

The following discussion is closed:

The work in question has incompatible licensing and cannot be hosted on English Wikisource.

Yogyakarta Principles is an important document on LGBT rights. In the above link, it is said that, "The Yogyakarta Principles can be used, cited and printed without any restriction. If you are thinking about printing the entire Principles the only restriction is that they will not be modified in any way and won’t be put any logo on them.". Is the term 'printed without any restriction' applicable to wikisource too? I'm asking this as there is no indication on online reproduction. Thanks -CXPathi (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• CXPathi: I think more community contribution would be nice, because the two statements are contradictory. If the Principles can be “used, cited and printed without any restriction,” then they can be hosted here; but if there are restrictions on the work (such as the unacceptable no-derivatives restriction the second sentence seems to imply). The restriction on affixing logos is a standard non-endorsement restriction, which is acceptable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disallowing use of their logo by others is an acceptable condition, as would be requiring attribution. However, they can't prevent others from attaching new logos to it (and making any other modifications they wish). I'm not sure which reading is meant. Either way, the no-derivative condition means Wikisource cannot host this, regardless of whether "printing" covers Wikisource or not.
  • Sloppy licenses like this rarely turn out to be acceptable: CC licenses and other "real" licenses are specifically designed to not have such lacunae in the parsing of the conditions. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio (per nom).

A 1972 speech by Enver Hoxha who in that time was the First Secretary of the Party of Labour of Albania, but not a member of the official government, although unofficially it was this party which ruled Albania and so his position was de facto more important than the position of the Albania’s Prime Minister. However, the de iure point of view is what counts when we consider copyright and so this work imo does not fall under {{PD-EdictGov}}. Pinging also User:CCCPC, who added the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry,I haven't read the Copyright bill yet,next time I will read the instruction first!Thanks!~~ CCCPC (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

L. N. Tolstoy and the Modern Labour Movement

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio per nom.

This is listed as "GFDL from Marxists.org" but what that site says is its source is "Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [1974], Moscow, Volume 16, pages 330-332" which would have copyright (unless that is a reprint). The original Russian is of course out of copyright, the question is about the translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Agree, it does not seem that Marxists.org have any right to release the work under a free license as they claim. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We may be able to find translations from the 20s and 30s that weren't renewed in various communist periodicals MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, the translation may be PD because of non-compliance or non-renewal. For example, in the stanford DB I see volumes 19 and 23 but not 16.

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio per nom.

This translation by Shoghi Effendi appears to have been first published in 1941. (Also our copy is incomplete.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• That work was published in the U.S. and renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Translation:Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 6083/2546/Syllabus

The following discussion is closed:

As best can currently be determined, this work is PD in the US under {{PD-EdictGov}}. It is not necessarily PD in Thailand because it may not meet the requirements of {{PD-TH-exempt}}.

A syllabus (summary of a judgment) is not covered by the license {{PD-TH-exempt}} as tagged.

As it is a work created under the government's control, its copyright will expire after 50 years from its creation or first publication (according to section 23), which is around 2053.

The work does not appear to have otherwise been released into public domain.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato: Syllabi are usually authored by the court. Is there any reason to presume that this one wasn't also? The license tag is in any case wrong: this should be tagged {{PD-EdictGov}}. Xover (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This one is, indeed, authored by the court (as its heading says that its author is "Supreme Court of Justice's Bureau of Judge Trainees"). But a syllabus (summary) of a judgment is not the judgment itself, and {{PD-TH-exempt}} only applies to judgments. I think {{PD-EdictGov}} applies in the same way too, because it says it applies to "decisions", not their "summaries". --Miwako Sato (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

EdictGov is much wider. It'll apply to explanatory material etc. as well so long as it bears in some way on the law or its interpretation. Xover (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover Remember that Thailand isn't a 'common law' country (re w:List_of_national_legal_systems#Common_law), so we can only look at the statutory provisions in their positive law, and the treaties they are a part of (Berne and TRIPS). A work can be 'edictgov' and denied protection in the US while still copyrighted at home, UK law being an example. It's similar to how the US states that PD-USGov only applies in the US... that they reserve the right to enforce copyright claims on such works in other jurisdictions. (ce: see https://cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 ) Jarnsax (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato The scope is wider than just judgements, per 1(1)(7)(4) of the Thai copyright act. The exemption is for "judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports". Since the syllabus appears to have been published by the court together with the rest of the decision, they are one work as published, and it appears to be clearly official. Being published as 'the judgement' (i.e. decision) should place the whole work (since the syllabus was written 'under direction', presumably, and so is a work for hire) in the PD.

Basically, it's not up to us to second-guess the publisher. If the Thai government owns the copyright in the syllabus, and publishes it as an integral part of a work that is ineligible for copyright (and I am making assumptions here, but presumably there is not some other "more official" version of the full judgement that does not include it) then they are placing the syllabus in the PD "as" part of the judgement. Jarnsax (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: The full judgment is available on Wikisource (both Thai & English). The syllabus was not published together with or as part of the judgment. The judgment (file at Commons) does not contain the syllabus. The syllabus is part of a separate book, whose title translates Supreme Court Judgments of the Year 2546 BE (Thammasat University library). Moreover, like I said above, a work created "under direction" of a Thai government agency is copyrighted for 50 years from its creation or first publication, according to the Thai Copyright Act, section 23. --Miwako Sato (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato Ok, that's a different situation than I assumed was going on, and changes things drastically (I was assuming this was published similar to US cases, where an 'official syllabus' is often published as the introduction to the case in the judgement itself.)

With it having been initially published separately, it's status is going to be that of the book it was published in (I see a BY-NC-ND license, but can't see the copyright page or colophon). I would assume, just from that, that you are correct we can't host it.

I'm not disagreeing about section 23, or the term. It would just have been 'overridden' if the government had published that copyrighted work as an 'integral part' of a work that was ineligible (the judgement). That not being the case, you can disregard my objection as a misunderstanding of the situation. Jarnsax (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf (US Govt) is an example of what I was assumed was going on... where the syllabus is a 'work for hire' by the Reporter of Decisions, but placed in the PD by it's publication by the court as part of the official decision. (ignoring PD-USGov as irrelevant for the example.) Jarnsax (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato: The linked website appears to be unavailable currently. Who is the author and the publisher of Supreme Court Judgments of the Year 2546 BE? If it is an entirely unrelated entity (person, university, company, etc.) then it will presumably be in copyright. If it is like similar records published in the US, the notional author is the "reporter" of the judgement and includes things like the syllabus. Xover (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover

Collection Court Judgment

Title Judgment of the Supreme Court, B.E. 2546, Volume 11

Contributors Suwan Trakanphan, Editor

Keyword Supreme Court verdict

Description Judgment of the Supreme Court, B.E. 2546, Volume 11

Publisher Office of the Court of Justice

Date 2003

"Judgment of the Supreme Court, 2003, Volume 11 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Thailand License ."

(from https://digital.library.tu.ac.th/tu_dc/frontend/Info/item/dc:140163 translated by Google) Jarnsax (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason I can't access that website. Considering it is published by the Publisher Office of the Court of Justice my conclusion in the absence of contrary evidence is that this falls within similar exceptions as the equivalent SCOTUS material would. I've not been able to track down relevant info on สุวรรณ ตระการพันธุ์ (Suwan Trakanphan) so I am open to the possibility that their affiliation may point in the direction of this being an independent work, despite the publisher, but absent that I'm leaning in the direction of {{PD-EdictGov}}. Xover (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My Homeland

The following discussion is closed:

The original is currently PD in Israel, which appear to be the relevant legal jurisdiction under US law. It may get URAA-restored at some point in the future, but the chances appear slim. However, the translation has no identified author, date, or place of publication and so must be presumed to still be in copyright.

The lyrics of the Iraqi national anthem, originally written c. 1934 as a poem by Ibrahim Touqan (1905–1941). Touqan was Palestinian, and the work was published during the British Mandate. During this period the term was pma. 50, and it does not seem subsequent laws were made retroactive (until the Israeli law took effect in 2007), so that copyright expired in 1991. Palestine is not, so far as I can tell, a signatory to Berne or a WTO member, mainly because neither the UK nor the US recognises them as a sovereign state. Neither, for the same reason, does there appear to be any bilateral treaty on copyright between the US and Palestine. In other words, so far as I can tell this work has no copyright protection in the US. However, if by some miracle the US should recognise Palestine and they join the WTO, the URAA would kick in and might restore a pub. +95 copyright (until 2030) for it (probably not, but if all the right esoteric variables shook out just wrong it just might).

So the original is public domain enough for Wikisource purposes, at least currently. But how in the heck do we tag this?

And then there is the issue of the translation, for which no source is provided, and given its popularity in the relevant region pinning down first publication for a given translation is going to be… challenging. Xover (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia provides two references for the translation. The first eventually links back to Wikipedia, and the second is a completely different translation. See this edit, which added the first translation; aside from the line breaks, it is nearly exactly what we have here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It would have a restoration date on the date of accession no, not the 1996 date? So it would have to have Palestine decide to keep it copyrighted (e.g. via pma + 100 or something) so it would not be PD in Palestine when it joins but that doesn't seem likely (even if was in a different non-Berne signatory).

(2) The “date of restoration” of a restored copyright is—

(A) January 1, 1996, if the source country of the restored work is a nation adhering to the Berne Convention or a WTO member country on such date, or

(B) the date of adherence or proclamation, in the case of any other source country of the restored work.

MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is exceedingly unlikely to happen, yes. For all practical purposes we can ignore the possibility until there is a US-recognized Palestine (or the opposite) with copyright relations for which we can make an assessment. --Xover (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I would just tag it as in the public domain on the URAA restoration date. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Who translated the text? Also when and where?--Jusjih (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

The following discussion is closed:

The CCP, realpolitik concerns aside, is not a competent legislative body of any recognized nation state and hence its works cannot be Edicts of Government under US law, nor "official works" under Chinese law (even were Chinese official work exemptions similar to PD-USGov, which they aren't).

The text is the English translation of the Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. However, it is believed that the text fails the requirement of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, which doesn't exempt Chinese Communist Party documents from copyright. Though Chinese case laws once did ruled that CCP Constitutions and CCP National Congresses Reports can be treated as works with administrative, legislative and judicial properties, the text itself clearly don't fall under the two kinds of work (see also s:zh:Template:PD-PRC-CPC, which sums up the current consensus on Chinese Wikisource. The issue on whether CCP Constitutions and CCP National Congresses Reports fall under Chinese public domain is still controversial there).

The text is created in 1966, which enters Chinese public domain in 2016 (1966+50=2016), and fails the URAA date of 1996-01-01. The text is therefore not in US public domain, and fails the ordinary copyright requirement for English Wikisource works.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also please refer to the corresponding deletion request on Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And the corresponding text on Chinese Wikisource, in which its copyright tag confirmed that the original text itself doesn't fall under Chinese official-work public domain.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just so y'all know, I truly hate everything to do with copyright. All the issues and especially the 'laws' are quite beyond me. Your pointing out URAA and then my cursory reading of it and the discussions only confirms my hate for copyright. Blech! Oh well, the work was an interesting read. I suppose the chairman could never have been satisfied as a copyright lawyer - not evil enough (but almost). Shenme (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If it stresses you out, anything published more than 95 years ago is public domain in the US. You can also worry about life+50 for China if you need but that's not a concern for us. That keeps it nice and simple, without misidentifying works as PD when they're not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The translation by the Foreign Languages Press in 1966 would be be governmental. To apply hard enforcement here, would anyone move the translation to an alternate site?--Jusjih (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No. The Foreign Languages Press is not governmental.--Jusjih (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The Beautifull Cassandra

The following discussion is closed:

First published in the US without copyright notice.

Source states that this was published in 2018 by Princeton University Press. Should be a clear copyvio. Languageseeker (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly some of the content in this is still in copyright, but even if it wasn't, the version we have is inherently incomplete (it's at least missing the intro) and if we were to complete it it would end up being a copyright violation. Plus, you don't know whether anything in this edition was changed in a manner which could make it copyrightable. So I think we should  Delete this one and scan back the original, or at least a pre-1926 version, or one otherwise in the public domain. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, a little research I've done into this piece of juvenilia indicates there may very well not even be an "original" to scan from, and therefore may have been unpublished until 2018. However, since the version we have was published after 2004, I think the base content could still be considered in the PD (although, I don't recommend trusting the version we have is even accurate, since we don't have it scan-backed to anything usable by our standards). PseudoSkull (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Keep We can use {{text removed}} for copyrighted introductions, annotations, etc. I unfortunately can't find a scan of any published editions, though there seem to be a 1933 and a 1954 edition of the Works of Jane Austen that include it. Also, there is a scan of the original manuscript of Volume the First (the unpublished collection that this work is from) available here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This 1933 is the first published edition of Volume the First, and if we can get a scan of it that would be perfect. (Assuming that a 1933 posthumous work is PD in the US, which it should be?) There's a copy for sale at AbeBooks for US$42 if someone with a scanner is interested. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a fight about that... see the discussion about the Adams letters [10]. However it is very likely no-notice / non-renewal. Note that an unpublished, posthumous work is copyrighted until 2040 in the UK [11]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Beleg Tâl: The Google Books scan shows Oxford as the location of publication. Assuming no other publications (which would allow for U.S. law to take hold), we must first determine whether the work is copyrighted in the U.K. According to Mark’s flowchart, the work’s copyright in the U.K. expired in 1984, and was thus not restored by the URAA (and is PD-1996). If the work is considered a U.S. work, it either had a notice and was not renewed (and is thus PD-US-no renewal) or was published without a notice (and is thus PD-US-no notice). This assumes the 1933 publication was the first authorized publication of Volume the First, and (for ease) the first authorized publication of all the works which constitute Volume the First. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search through the Project Gutenberg renewal listings show no renewal for Austen from around 1933.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep Volume the First was first published in the UK at the end of June 1933, and was the first publication of all the works it contains (short plays, poetry, etc.; satirical mostly).
  It was published by Oxford University Press and notionally in Oxford at the Clarendon Press. However, OUP was one of the first truly global publishers, so most of their published works contained multiple places of publication (Oxford, London, New York, Mumbai, etc.) and most of their works were deliberately published more or less simultaneously in the US.
  In this particular case, it was published in the UK at "the end of June" according to an advance notice in The Guardian for 1 June 1933, and on 20 June 1933 there is a notice of it in The Guardian under "Books Received".
  In the US there is a notice in the Lexington Herald-Leader (Lexington, Kentucky) for 23 July 1933 that OUP "will bring [it] out soon." In the Pensacola News Journal (Pensacola, Florida) for 7 August 1933 is a notice that OUP had "brought [it] out July 20." This date also jibes with the timing of other less-specific notices in both US and UK newspapers, and given the wording and content of these notices are all extremely similar it's a safe assumption that they are actually reporting copy provided them by OUP (i.e. it's marketing).
  All in all, for copyright purposes, it was published in the US within 30 days of its UK publication, and we can therefore treat it as a US work for our purposes, Commons' policy purposes (and Berne purposes, for that matter).
  I have not been able to track down a scan of the 1933 publication, so I can't tell whether it had a copyright notice (OUP has varied on this, but they usually did include one), but as Prosfilaes notes there does not appear to be a renewal (searched Stanford based on title, author, and editor). That means any copyright acquired at the time of publication lapsed after 1961. This makes it {{PD-US-no renewal}}, until a scan is produced to show it is {{PD-US-no notice}} (the LoC, NYPL, and other libraries have copies if anybody wants to check).
  Given the text is now public domain, we can, if anyone has paleographic inclinations, use the images of the original manuscript (notebook) from janeausten.ac.uk that Beleg Tâl tracked down to add a scan and proofread from (ask me or at WS:LAB if you want to work on it). The modern edition from which The Beautifull Cassandra was copied isn't of much interest to us (we'd need to redact copyrighted new material etc.) so I'd entertain a proposal to delete that on those grounds. --Xover (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Languageseeker, PseudoSkull, Beleg Tâl, Prosfilaes, MarkLSteadman, Xover: I have scanned Volume the First here. Note p. iv (scan image 8): no copyright notice, but notice of publication in New York &c. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Awsome. Thanks! I've transwiki'ed it to Commons and set up Index:Volume the First.pdf. I'll close this discussion shortly. Xover (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Maurice, or The Fisher's Cot

The following discussion is closed:

Created before 1978 and first published between 1 March 1989 and the end of 2002 means this work is protected until 2048. There is absolutely no evidence that it was made public without the consent of the legal heirs of Shelleys literary estate, so it cannot be presumed to have been not legally published until after 2003 (when a pma. 70 term would have applied).

Another one of these annoying, possibly unpublished works until recently so having copyright... "The manuscript was lost until Cristina Dazzi discovered it in the summer of 1997 in the home of the Dazzi family" so it may have a first publication date of 1998 and hence copyright until 2048.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• The 1998 publication only counts if it was with the permission of the author or her literary heir. I haven’t looked over the records too closely, but assuming the literary rights of Mary Shelley passed with her husband’s title (as a rough guide), the presumed literary heir in 1997/1998 (and presently) is the viscount de l’Isle. It does not appear to me (although I have not taken a look at the published edition) that this book was published with his consent, or with the consent of the appropriate heir. Thus, this work was not legitimately published before 2003, meaning it is PD-US-unpublished. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hence the annoying piece... It was published with the curator of the Keats-Shelley house, biographer etc. so they may have been able to track down the requisite permission ... MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Thecambridgeancienthistoryvol1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Work is PD in the US by virtue of being published before 1927 (1923 1st ed., 1924 2nd ed., the latter of which this is a reprint of), but is still in copyright in the UK. The file has been migrated to enWS and the original nominated for deletion on Commons.

One of the authors is - Author:Frank Ezra Adcock (1886–1968) So this is not PD-UK, The license at Commons claims this is PD-US, but I am disputing the rationale on the basis of [[12]] which claims "All rights Reserved", CUP is a UK publisher, and also on the basis of [[13]] which claims this was the 1928 reprint in Great Britain.

The work MIGHT be PD-US one the basis of publication date however, as this seems to be a 1928 reprint of a 1924 work. It's not clear if there was any substantial revision done for the reprint. The ideal situation would thus potentially be file localisation here, but these scans seems to be missing pages (a non copyright issue). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If there was substantial revision, it would be an edition, not a reprint. Reprint generally just means they either fed the stereotype plates (if they invested in a set) back into the presses, or, if they failed to predict the demand and didn't have the stereotypes, either reset the type (£££) or photostatically reproduced it (which only was invented in ~1906). So I'd be happy to call it 1924 for the purposes of copyright.

Furthermore, ResidentScholar also concluded at File:Thecambridgeancienthistoryvol1.djvu that this was PD in the UK in 1996 due to it being "work for hire", since CUP doesn't defend the copyright. I'm not sure I'm completely convinced that presence on the IA is enough to make that call, and also I think the work for hire term is still PMA+70, it's just not the author who holds the rights So if you're employing a writer and want to get the max copyright for your buck, go for young, healthy ones!. So I'm not really sure that's a "safe" conclusion.

Nevertheless, if there are worries, maybe Index:The Cambridge Ancient History - Volume 1.djvu would be be a better bet, since it's 1923, and under a US publisher. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. So much nonsense. There's no separate term of protection for works for hire in the UK: it's pma. 70 of the physical person, and their moral rights remain. The presence on IA proves nothing except the presence on IA. The CUP may simply not be aware of, or they may simply be prioritising enforcement for newer works that have a longer profit potential remaining. None of which affect their copyrights at all. Iff the work was a work for hire, which we would need some direct evidence in order to safely assume. Which we don't have. Which means all the faffery ResidentScholar perpetrated in the file description on Commons is just so much smoke and distraction.
  The work was first published in the UK (first notice is in "Books Received" in The Guardian for April 21, 1923) by Cambridge University Press, notionally in Cambridge (as all CUP works are). Its US publication didn't happen until some time after May 1923 (first notice is in a letter to the editor published in The Baltimore Sun on May 28, 1923, where it is "recently announced") and published by Macmillan (with which I believe CUP had some kind of partnership at the time). And being first published in the UK, and not published within 30 days in the US, it is a UK work for copyright purposes. Its UK copyright is pma. 70 from the death of the last living author, which ShakespeareFan00 pins as Frank Ezra Adcock (1886–1968), making the term run until 1968 + 70 + 1 = 2039. It was thus in copyright in the UK on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and had its US copyright restored to a pub. + 95 year term.
  From the internal evidence, the work was first published in 1923, had a second edition published in 1924, and was reprinted in 1928. The 1928 reprint amassed no new copyright (or none that is relevant here at any rate) so we can treat it as identical to the 1924 edition. The pub. + 95 years US terms for the two editions expired by 2019 and 2020, respectively. Meaning we can host all of the copies mentioned above here on enWS because they are PD in the US, but all copies of this work need to be deleted from Commons because they are in copyright in the UK until at least 2039. --Xover (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Page:Afleetinbeing.djvu/1

The following discussion is closed:

File copied locally and nominated for deletion on Commons since the cover image is in UK copyright until 2042.

Identifed a cover image in good faith here :- https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Afleetinbeing.djvu/1&oldid=11782841

but subsequently found more information on the artist, https://artuk.org/discover/artists/wilkinson-norman-18781971#, The cover image is not necessarily PD-UK, so a removal of the relevant edit made in good faith appreciated. I'll leave redaction of the scans to an admin's discretion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an 1898 work (the cover image is even dated '98), so it's clearly PD in the US. Does it need localising (as a joint London/NY publication)? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Localising for a single cover image seems to be the best option. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Irrespective of the issue of what to do about the file as such, I have hidden your edits on that page. In future it is probably best to make such requests (revdel) at WS:AN (or an admin's talk page; feel free to drop such requests on my talk) in parallel with opening a discussion of the work as a whole here. Xover (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Multilevel algorithms for nonlinear optimization.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probable copyvio as "Some materials available from [NASA] may be protected by copyrights owned by private individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use. For example, contractors and grantees are not considered Government employees; generally, they hold copyright to works they produce for the Government. Other materials may be the result of joint authorship due to collaboration between a Government employee and a private individual wherein the private individual will hold a copyright to the work jointly with U.S. Government." according to NASA.

1994 Contractor report for NASA, license at Commons is incorrect. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Genuine question: do these contractor reports always vest copyright in the contractor? Or sometimes, or do they always sign it over to NASA? Signing over of IP is something than can and does happen in contracts, though I have no clue if it happened in this case. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Copyright vests in the actual author, except if a work-for-hire arrangement obtains. The problem is that absent access to the actual contract terms it is usually impossible to determine if that is the case, and can certainly not be assumed. Xover (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh sure, I get that as it stands it must go. Just curious if there's any information floating around about it in general, since there are quite a few such reports in the US federal world. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Subsequent to the above c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Multilevel algorithms for nonlinear optimization.djvu .. The license at Commons was updated from the clearly wrong PD-old-70 one to something that's less wrong, but still not definitively proven. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is not an original, there is new material which is of recent origin and likely still in copyright. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Would have been helpful to have give some details, don't you think? It looks like this is a 1992 UK edition, with new material and edited by Peter Singer: https://archive.org/details/moralinquiriesonthesituationofmanandofbrutes-lewisgompertz. So without an original to compare, we can't say the body text has no creative input from an editor, and if we had an original, we'd just use that anyway. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

The copyright situation appears to be clear enough: the 1954 original publication dedicated the work to the public domain, with specific exceptions (third-party illustrations) that are not included here. There is an ongoing discussion at IWS:PD#ndex:The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist.djvu that may end up deleting the text, but that is independent of the issue of copyright.

Could I have the copyright status of this book confirmed-do we do the text but not the images? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Zoeannl: That appears correct, although the images (not included in that scan) may be out of copyright. However, see this existing scan, if you intend to continue proofreading. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. I was thinking it would be suitable for a Monthly Challenge, so the more undone one would be preferable. Is there any preference from a technical perspective? Zoeannl (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright

The following discussion is closed:

The WMF, Commons, and English Wikisource position is that no copyright subsists in sweat-of-the-brow reproductions. For photography or artwork there may be closer determination needed due to the possible presence of alterations (sharpened details, removed blemishes, etc.) that may, in some cases, rise to a level of original creation that could conceivably be construed to be copyrightable; but for scanned text (including any incidental illustrations) this is almost inconceivable.

I have just scanned in a book which claims a 1990 copyright on “new reproductions.” It makes the following claim regarding them: “The reproductions in this book have been made using the most modern electronic scanning methods from entirely new transparencies of [the] original watercolors.” This sounds to me like a “sweat of the brow” claim, foreclosed in the U.S. (but not in the U.K., where this work originates) by Feist. I would like more input before I upload the file, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: if there is no original artistic content in the scan (i.e. if the scan is purely mechanical) then there can be no new copyright. Have a look at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag for a full discussion on the topic. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have uploaded the file here. Given that presumption, I don’t think I have any copyright worries here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

While the WMF position on the matter is indeed clear (see BT's link and also the Coetzee affair, and the general US rules are also clear, more recent UK Intellectual Property Office "guidance" suggests that sweat of brow does not actually apply in the UK (dating from late 2015) is:

Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.

However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

As far as I am aware, this has not yet been tested in court, but at least it's a good indicator of the general current opinion. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a sweat of the brow claim. Note that in 1990, the Feist ruling did not yet exist to make that clear. The UK may no longer be subject to the EU court of justice, so it may be interesting to see if their rulings start to revert back, or if they continue to apply EU standards (their courts were overruled a couple of times by appeals at the EU level). But the EU I think made this situation quite clear recently, that it is not a copyrightable action in the EU either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Pathway to God in Hindi Literature.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This work is in the public domain in India, since it was published in 1954 and the author died in 1957, but it wasn't PD in 1996 (and the file doesn't give a reason it's PD in the US). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

An American dilemma

The following discussion is closed:

There are technicalities under which one may argue that the first edition failed to abide by all required formalities and should thus have lost its copyright protection. However, there are also plenty of arguments to the contrary; and the majority of participants in this discussion were expressly uncomfortable with the number of assumptions required in order to reach a conclusion of public domain (including several with particular experience dealing with copyright issues such as this). The conclusion is therefore that based on the currently available information this work is not hostable on Wikisource. This is, however, not a conclusion with underlines and exclamation marks, so if new information that bears on the issue becomes available it may be fruitful to open a new discussion.

American dilemma: the Negro problem and modern democracy by Gunnar Myrdal was published in 1944 and the Stanford Database only shows a renewal for the 2nd edition and new material published in 1962. Does this mean that the first and third editions are PD-Non-Renewal? Languageseeker (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it mentions the "2d ed.", but that's a renewal for the 1944 edition. I'm pretty sure that would be harmless error. w:An American Dilemma says the first edition was 1944 and the second edition was 1965, so the second edition would have automatically renewed. The copyright on the first edition would protect any derivatives from non-renewal, at least until the first edition leaves copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the IA has the Third Edition as being printed in 1944 as well. [14]. Does that change anything? Languageseeker (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not materially, because the main creative content of the work is still covered as a derivative of a copyright work. In theory, if the 3rd edition had additions, like a preface, say, and these were not renewed (this would be usually denoted in the renewal for the edition as "new material" or NM), those are public domain. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I checked the CCE to make sure, and, indeed, the “2d ed.” is renewed. Thus, the third edition is likely copyrighted (as a derivative of the copyrighted second edition), but the first edition is not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't think I follow you here. According to enwp the first edition was published in 1944, and went through 25 reprints until the second edition was published in 1965 (i.e. anything before 1965 is the first edition). The renewal, despite having a "2nd. ed" in the title, refers to the 1944 edition and its original registration. What's your reasoning for saying the first edition is not in copyright? Xover (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Xover: I tracked down the original copyright registrations to be sure. “A181380” was renewed as the “2d ed.” The “1st ed.” has “A 178427, 178428” (see Catalog of Copyright Entries, Part 1, Group 1, New Series, Volume 41, No. 2, at p. 29). These are undeniably different editions. The full original record reads: “Myrdal (Gunnar) American dilemma, by G. Myrdal, with the assistance of Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose. v. 1, 2. [1st ed.] © Jan. 26, 1944; A 178427, 178428; Harper & bros., New York.” In do. no. 6, at p. 112, is found: “Myrdal (Gunnar) American dilemma, by G. Myrdal, with the assistance of Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose. v. 1, 2. © Jan. 26, 1944; A 181380, 181381; Harper & bros., New York.” This is evidently the second edition, and the one which was renewed. Thus, the first edition is in the public domain. (The third edition is itself in the public domain, but is based on the copyrighted second edition, and thus retains copyright.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you. @Prosfilaes, @Inductiveload: do you agree with TE(æ)A,ea. interpretation about the first edition because then I might run it through the MC. Languageseeker (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm seriously not comfortable with it. I don't know that more bibliography would help me or us, but I am confused about why they ran through three editions in a year. We have an appropriately timed renewal for the work, and note that original registration on pg. 29 (on Google Books) gives the original publication date of Jan. 26th, 1944, which is the original publication date on the renewal. Their side has been sloppy about these details, but a judge might well rule that the first edition is still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be rather nervous about keeping this too. You have a timely renewal from the person who has standing to renew both editions, if the second edition is a derivative work, I could easily see a judge deciding that the renewal covered both the underlying work and the derivative second edition (or at the very least all matter contained in the second edition), since they were both published in the same year. And the date on the renewal refers to the publication date of the first edition. Well, both editions may have both been published on the same date, since the registrations give the same publication date. While the rules were somewhat strict, the Copyright Office did allow some leeway. The original compendium, when there were separate registrations for a foreign ad-interim publication plus a later one for the American edition, did say: The present practice ot the Copyright Office is to permit the filing of a single renewal application covering both the ad interim and full-term registrations, regardless of whether or not the American edition contained new matter. While not precisely the same situation, it may be close enough. If the two editions were different years, the situation would likely be different. Other parts of that compendium do say that for editions with different copyrightable matter, two renewals would be required. On the other hand, it does say that Where the only difference between the editions is in uncopyrightable elements such as typography, size, coloring, paper stock, etc., separate registrations will not be made. They say the same if just the cover is different, or just advertising is different. So if it's virtually the same content, odds are the single registration would cover both editions, especially given they seem to have had the same publication date. Do we know what the differences between the editions are? Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Carl Lindberg: These editions are different enough, apparently, to require two separate registrations. I think the rules regarding ad interim copyright rules are differentiable, because in that case it is two different types of registrations for the same work, whereas here there are multiple registrations (of the same type) for editions of one work. I too do not find it unreasonable that this renewal was intended to cover the first edition; however, the renewal was not for the first edition, even if that was the intent. Renewals and copyrights of derivative works only extend to the original derivative material, not to the original; thus, if the renewal was, as it seems, only for the second edition, that renewal cannot cover the first edition. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the copyright office (or judges) would get *that* technical, that's all. There was always some leeway allowed. I could easily see a judge saying, OK, any material solely in the first edition became public domain, but all common expression and material in the second edition got renewed. They were apparently two editions published on the same day, so also not sure what to make of that. Since they were published at the same time, you could also argue that the second edition was the first published version, despite the numbering. I think there are multiple avenues for a judge to rule that copyright still exists -- they would have to be ridiculously strict to rule it PD, and courts have typically been a bit more lenient than that. (The 9th circuit bent over backwards into a pretzel shape to rule that copyright still existed in Disney v Twin Books, for example.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly there is something squiffy here. However, since we're not going to actually be able to come to an incontrovertible conclusion based on the information to hand, coming up with theories about what it means is mostly performative, IMO.
• The real question is: does English Wikisource undertake to exploit weaknesses in copyright registrations to push the boundaries of the public domain, possibly leading to a takedown request or some other consequences (i.e. Internet Archive-style copyright advocacy) or does it take a "passive" conservative approach where the where more than a negligible about of uncertainty disallowed? Until that question is answered, I don't think cases like this can be usefully answered. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that Wikisource must obey copyright law, but the same applies to the other side as well. If they failed to renew the copyright, then the law is clear that the work is in the public domain. We're not pushing boundaries, but complying with the law. The author/publisher choose to file two separate copyrights, but only renewed one. Languageseeker (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Crisis of the Mind

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

"Crisis of the Mind" seems to be a chapter in The Outlook for Intelligence, a collection of translations of Paul Valéry (1871–1945). The Outlook for Intelligence is listed as translated by Denise Folliot and Jackson Mathews. Valéry didn't pass pma. 70 until 2015 (so after the URAA date), but it looks like the French originals were published in 1919 so their pub. +95 term have expired. However, the translations were first published in The Collected Works of Paul Valéry (1962). History and politics series, Vol. 10. as a work-for-hire by the Bollingen Foundation, who filed renewal RE476811 in 1990.

Thus the translations are still in copyright in the US. Xover (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems pretty clear to me. Are there any other of his works which may be from that copyrighted work? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not that I'm seeing; but the same situation seems to obtain for The Graveyard by the Sea, which was published in French in 1920 but only later translated into English by Cecil Day-Lewis. I'm having trouble pinpointing the first publication, but 1946 seems to be the year most often popping up. Xover (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, looks like a famous(ish) edition in 1946, but the first edition was 1945 in London by Secker & Warburg. No trace of a US edition, so we have pma. 70 from Day-Lewis' death in 1972 and URAA restoration to 1945 + 95 = 2040 or so. Xover (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Night Before Christmas, illustrated, no copyright notice

The following discussion is closed:

The one contributor participating indicated they found the copyright situation compatible.

Looking for permission to have this here. The scans are at commons:Category:The Night Before Christmas (1915, Lippincott). I have placed in that category three other images. One is an advert for A Christmas Carol (1915) with an image that is not in ACC and that I thought was in TNBC, but I cannot find it there now. The other two images: end flaps from ACC with advertisements for TNBC and The Fairy Book. The white dust covers, all three of these and the Rossetti book I mentioned here earlier--they all had the same sort of dust cover.

I think that the books were published in the USA and UK at the same time (due to efficiency of industrial environments) and also, that they were all originally published for the Christmas season, 1915.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: If it was published in 1915, there's no issue with having it here regardless of whether there was a copyright notice (per Help:Public domain, it qualifies whether or not it was published in the US). For proofreading purposes, it might be easier to first compile the scans of the book into a PDF or DJVU. The advertisements might have WS:SCOPE#Excerpts issues depending on how you present them, but from a copyright perspective there's no issue. Also, it doesn't matter in this case, but Arthur Rackham's work is also PD in the UK since he died in 1939. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

UK legislation volumes...

The following discussion is closed:

As a group, these texts are fine as expired Crown Copyright (UK) and PD-EdictGov (US). Since they are partly republications by third parties it is conceivable that one or more of them contain copyrightable elements that need redacting or prevents them from being compatibly licensesd, but that would be a case-by-case determination based on specific concerns.

• Index:The Public General Statutes of the United Kingdom 1917-18 (7 & 8 George V).pdf
• Index:The Public General Statutes of the United Kingdom 1918 (8 & 9 George V).pdf
• Index:The Public General Statutes of the United Kingdom 1919 (9 & 10 George V).pdf
• Index:The Public General Statutes of the United Kingdom 1921 (11 & 12 George V).pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1936-37 (1 Edward VIII and 1 George VI).pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1937-38 (1 & 2 George VI).pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1938-39 (2, 3 & 4 George VI) Vol 1.pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1938-39 (2, 3 & 4 George VI) Vol 2.pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1941 (4, 5 & 6 George VI).pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1942 (5, 6 & 7 George VI).pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1946 (9, 10 & 11 George VI).pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1947 (10, 11 & 12 George VI) Vol 2.pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1948 (11, 12 & 13 George VI) Vol 2.pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1949 (12, 13 & 14 George VI) Vol 1.pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1950 (14 & 15 George VI).pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1969 Vol 1.pdf
• Index:The Public General Acts of the United Kingdom and Church Assembly Measures 1969 Vol 2.pdf

The actual legislation is crown copyright (which for pre 1970 legislation would have expired.). These volumes have been brought here because although the actual legislation is an expired crown copyright, the specific editons don't necessarily name HMSO on the title page, and are attributed to various third party publishers.

In most instances the difference in style and layout is effectively minimal or identical, case in point being single volumes of 2 volume sets, where the imprint in one of the volumes scans is HMSO and the other volume is not. Thusly the difference may only be the specific imprint on the front page, and attribution in meta-data.

So the question here, is should these volumes be replaced with ones that have a clear HMSO imprint, deleted, or retained, given the near identical nature of the typesetting between imprints? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: None of what you describe here sounds copyrightable. A closer inspection may of course reveal copyrightable elements, possibly even pervasive and un-redactable elements, but based solely on your description I would imagine that these are fine. Xover (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Xover: a simple reprint would not attract new copyright since there's no creative input. So there's no case to answer, unless someone can show there is some copyrightable addition. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Keep Even though UK copyright law has low threshold of originality, the key point that these compilations have no originality, so I agree that there's no additional copyright enjoyable by the publisher exists.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Plato's Theory of Knowledge (Cornford, 1915).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

It is conceivable that new material in a work that is otherwise public domain through expiry could be covered by a current copyright, but based on the descriptions provided it seems relatively unlikely that this is the case here. Specific examples would need to be provided in order to make a concrete assessment.

The concern here is not the original work, and there is no reason at present to assume the 1915 work was extensively edited in this edition. The concern is the inclusion of New material, namely publisher advertisements (scan postions 8, 357-368 ) dating the reprint to 1955. The author of the advertisements is unknown (most likely an employee of the publisher.). The work originated in the UK, and thus it not unreasonable to consider that Advertisements from 1955 may still have a copyright attached to them. As these adverts do not form an integral part of the 1915 work they could be removed.

I'd like a second opinion before asking for the adverts removal at the Scan Lab. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Does the new material contain any copyrightable matter?

Also, it is generally ok to provide intra- and inter-project links (within the Wikimedia sphere) when discussing such matters. If they turn out to be copyvios the link targets will be removed making the links dangling, and if not then the link was not a problem in the first place. One can take worrying about linking as contributory copyright infringement too far. Xover (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Depends on what the copyrightability of advertisment material and a publisher catalog is. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Facts are not copyrightable, so titles, prices, dates, author's names, etc. are not copyrightable. Neither is the arrangement of facts into a list, even if the particular order chosen should contain something in excess of mere alphabetical or chronological sorting. The page layout and typesetting might conceivably attract copyright in the UK, but it would have to be a pretty darn artistic layout to pass that particular bar. Even a lot of flourishes and logos will lack copyright protection for one reason or another. IOW, I think there's a pretty good chance this stuff is copyright-safe. But as I've not actually seen what we're talking about I can't be emphatic. Xover (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that even if the advertisments and new material were copyrightable it is likely that they would have expired if published in an earlier volume of the same series from 1950 / 1951 would have expired 70 years after publication as a work by an unknown author. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As an example, this Internet Archive identifier: x-psyche-soul-immortality volume from 1950 should be cleanly in the PD, whatever is the 1955 edition would need to be different from this and copyrightable. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Plato, with an English translation (vol 5 of 12) (Lamb, 1925).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

The work can be presumed to have been simultaneously published in the UK and the US, making it a US work for Commons (and enWS) policy purposes. Since its publication happened more than 95 years ago, it is now public domain.

This translation is by Author:Walter Rangeley Maitland Lamb who died in 1961. PD-US possibly but not PD-UK so cannot necessarily be hosted on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Also - Index:Plato, with an English translation (vol. 1 of 12) (Fowler, 1913).djvu where he provided an introduction. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• ShakespeareFan00: These are both U.S. works, so U.K. copyright is irrelevant for Commons concerns. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: On the face of it, these appear to be UK works in a natural sense. Is your assertion based solely on the additional presence of a US publisher on the title page, or did you do additional research to ascertain its publication history (I'm assuming you're asserting simultaneous publication)? Xover (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  The Loeb Library was founded as a joint Anglo-American enterprise: Loeb himself was American and from the history on HUP: "Loeb’s vision of the Loeb Classical Library as a collection of the best of Anglo-American scholarship was realized in two ways. First, the original three editors were a distinguished trio from both sides of the Atlantic: T. E. Page, W. H. D. Rouse, and Edward Capps. Secondly, the books were manufactured in London and published simultaneously in America (first by Macmillan, which had changed its mind, and later by G.P. Putnam)." MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Xover: Yes. For Commons copyright determinations, one first determines whether the work is a U.S. work, then, if it is not, determine copyright status in non-U.S. country of origin. This work’s simultaneous publication in the U.S. makes it a U.S. work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The State and Revolution (marxists.org)

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator / complicated provenance that seems to tend towards being compatibly licensed. However, the text is the subject of a parallel discussion at WS:PD#The State and Revolution (marxists.org) where it seems likely to be deleted for unrelated reasons.

This appears to be a 1964 translation published in Moscow which means the translation would be not be in the public domain in Russia on the URAA date (either under author + 50 or publication date + 50 if anonymous) so the translation is still under copyright unless we find simultaneous publication within the US (i.e within 30 days of first publication in the USSR or London). MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Traced the translation back a little further, it matches the 1943 translation (Google Books ) which would be acceptable from a URAA date for an anonymous translation (by the Marx-Engles Institute). However this may be a reissue by a publication published by Laurance and Wishart (and therefore covered by anon + 70 in the UK as opposed ton anon + 50 in Russia) ... MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it dates back to 1932 and the Little Lenin Library (see here: https://www.amazon.com/State-Revolution-Little-Lenin-Library/dp/B00ED6U6J2) which then looks like {{PD-no-renewal}} and would predate the 1933 Lawerence and Wishart publication. however the translation was revised between 1943 and the version we have was slightly revised (e.g. replacing various words).

I suspect that this is then PD, any change in wording being non-copyrightable. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:The man who planted trees

The following discussion is closed:

No evidence of compatible licensing.

Hello, the texte Translation:The man who planted trees has been removed in april 2021 for cypyright issues. But the french texte is in the public domain, see http://www.atpf.net/pdf/lhommeQuiPlantaitDesArbres.pdf. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): Please explain by what path the text entered the public domain. It was previously deleted because the then claims of a public domain dedication turned out to be unfounded (the author had allowed certain parties to publish it without paying a license fee, but there was no public domain dedication or compatible licensing in evidence). And, in fact, the PDF you link (whose authority to establish any licensing is undetermined) repeats: "This work is published respecting the author's wishes. He wanted it to be disseminated widely, without asking for any remuneration." Which is completely orthogonal to the issue of its copyright status and whether its licensing is compatible with our policy. The publisher, Atramenta, appears to be in the business of profiting off public domain works, and so have a vested interest in conflating these issues, so their assertions have very little evidentiary weight. Xover (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Giono, copyrighhtowner, has given the texte with the licence free to copy. See also a dutch site mentioning licence free to copy [[15]] --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): This is another assertion by a third party that has a vested interest. So far as I have been able to determine, the work is some form of eco-advocacy, and as most such the author wanted it widely disseminated; to the point of permitting republication for free (that is, without charging a fee). However, public domain, and free (as in freedom) licensing, is a completely different issue. It would, for example, mean anyone would be free to modify the story to argue against the issues Giono was advocating for; for example a large commercial entity using it to advocate for and minimize the ecological harms of pollution, fracking, fossil fuels, etc. Public domain and free licences permit such use, but it seems extremely unlikely the author of such a work (i.e. Giono) would do so. Xover (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding copyrightability of editorial changes in new edition of presumably public-domain work

The following discussion is closed:

The participants in the discussion found no apparent copyrightable material in the kinds of new material described here.

I have come across a modern (2011) edition of a work which is in the public domain. (At least, I believe it is in the public domain; and my question doesn’t concern the status of the original work.) The listed editorial changes are as follows: the Chinese characters represented in the original work in Wade–Giles romanization are reset in Hanyu pinyin form; character names are rendered in uniform, modern pinyin style (with an accompanying copyrighted list of characters); and “several other small errors” are corrected, primarily based on a contemporaneous review. There is new material in this edition, so new copyright is not spurious, but the copyright notice is not limited. Do the editorial changes listed constitute original matter for which copyright can subsist under U.S. law? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

From the Compendium of U.S. Copyright practice:

• "a transliteration or other process whereby the letters or sounds from one alphabet are converted into a different alphabet cannot be registered. See Signo Trading International, Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362, 364 (N.D. Cal. 1981) (holding that a list of words translated from English into Arabic and then transliterated from Arabic into Roman letters “simply does not embody sufficient originality to be copyrightable”)." (so the change in romanization seems dubious)
• "Merely correcting errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, or making other minor changes, revisions, or other modifications to a preexisting work do not satisfy this requirement."

MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Case of Charles Dexter Ward - copyright of 1971 edition

The following discussion is closed:

Kept/hostable due to failure to observe formalities for registration and renewal of copyright.

The Lovecraft story The Case of Charles Dexter Ward is not scan backed. As I understand it, there are two main texts: the original in 1941 was published in abridged format in two parts in Weird Tales, and then a more complete edition published in 1943 in an "Arkham" compilation called Beyond the Wall of Sleep (the new matter comprising the compilation itself was renewed (Renewal: R504228), but not, as far as I know, the story itself).

The story was then re-published in 1971 by Ballantyne and is available at the IA's lending library (this is a 1983 reprint of the 1971 edition). This declares the 1941 and 1943 copyrights as you might expect from an authorised republication, regardless of if there was actually a valid copyright in 1971 (i.e. 1941 + 30).

So, my question is: is this 1983 reprint of the 1971 republication of the 1943 text in the PD due to non-renewal of the underlying text? Obviously, this does not include the cover art which would be redacted. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confident the cover art (and the rest of the modern material) is PD, as per File:Jaws illustration copyright decision.pdf, though one might need to check for delayed registration, per Template:PD-US-no-notice-post-1977. The 1943 copyright renewal is pretty clear about being only for compilation, so the whole thing should be safe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes huh, I didn't even consider that they could have fluffed the covert art copyright. Interesting, thanks! I cannot obviously see a registration by Whelan (or any applicable registration for Charles Dexter Ward in general). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Urgh, it's missing 4 pages! Index:The Case of Charles Dexter Ward - Lovecraft - 1971.pdf Worth every penny! >_< Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Das Kapital Volume Three

The following discussion is closed:

On the available evidence, this is an original translation by the Marxist-Leninist institute of the USSR first published in 1959 (it is definitely not the 1906 Moore—Aveling—Untermann translation). Its individual authors (translators) is not known, making its authorship the institute as an artificial person. Works first published within the USSR must be considered simultaneously published in all the successor states, and is subject to their copyright terms. While early Soviet copyright terms were notoriously short they joined the Universal Copyright Convention in 1973 and Berne in 1995, and the successor states have issued retroactive extensions of terms. A full analysis would be needed to determine the effective term of protection, but it is sufficient that any one successor state had an effective term of 35 years or more in order for the work to have been in copyright on the URAA date (which is 1996 for all of the SSRs). In particular, Russia, which is the most apropos successor state due to publication in Moscow, enacted a retrospective pma. 50 law in 1993, which made all works whose authors died after 1943 copyrighted. It is thus in copyright in Russia (and the other former SSRs) until, most likely, 2030; and in the US until 2055.

This lists as a source the 1959 translation by the Marxist-Leninist institute of the USSR. While this translation may be covered by non-compliance / or non-renewal for the US or have been in the PD on the URAA restoration date if covered by foreign copyright as a Moscow publication, that should be verified. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio: our text itself claims to be a translation that is copyrighted in the US. There may be other translations that are not and these can, of course, be freely added.

This work is tagged as a pre-1926 translation but the author pages says 1930 on the translation so we should at least tag the translation correctly. It is certainly possible that it was in the public domain if first published in the USSR on the URAA date, but as Emile Burns was based in the UK I suspect that it was published in the UK (e.g. record here), and not in the public domain on the URAA date. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Burns translation was made from the 1894 edition, but was not published in that year. From what I can see, this is the first edition, and it was published c. 1935. There is no copyright notice, meaning it is PD-US-no notice (for the translation). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that it was published in the Handbook of Marxism (1936) IA where it says Martin Lawerence Ltd. 1935 and it has a copyright renewal notice (Renewal: R400606) with US publication data of 1939 MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • So digging into the publishing history of this translation: There are 1. 1934 translation published by Martin Lawerence in London 2. 1934 translation published in Moscow 3. 1935 version in the US by International Publishers [[16]] with out apparent copyright just "all rights reserved" and printed in the USSR , 4. A possible 1935 version in the US by Kerr [[17]]? that does have copyright registration but apparently not renewal (I haven't been able to identify whether this is Burns or the earlier Lewis or some other translation). 5. 1939 US-printed edition with apparent [[18]] copyright notice [[19]] and renewal, the 1996 version repeats the copyright notice IA. So the first two are not relevant for the US copyright. So we have three possibilities: 1. The US copyright belongs to Kerr and was not renewed so it is {{PD-US-non-renewal}}, 2. The US copyright was triggered by the 1935 International Publishers edition, importing versions printed from Moscow and therefore not able to make a proper deposit copy, hence {{PD-US-no-notice}}. 3. The copyright claim and renewal on the 1939 edition are valid as the first US edition and it is under copyright. Doing some matching with the limited search on Hathi indicates that the Kerr is the Lewis updated, so we are left with the other two possibilities. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

      @MarkLSteadman: Our text claims to be the translation by Emile Burns (1889–1972) that was first published in the US in 1939; duly registered (A130928, which notes editing from C. P. Dutt (Clemens Palme, the brother of w:R. Palme Dutt)) and dated April 18, 1939; renewed (R400606) on December 14, 1966; and still in copyright until 1939 + 95 + 1 = 2035. What's the problem? Xover (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      I was responding to @TE(æ)A,ea. who mentioned the earlier 1935 publication with no-notice and hence the 1939 edition is in the PD. I have no problem with taking 1934+95 or 1939+95 as the copyright status. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      @MarkLSteadman: Oh good. I worried I might be missing something since you were researching publication history of other translations. Xover (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Sänger - Rocket flight engineering.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: A 1933 German publication will be in copyright in the US until 2029.

This is a translation.

The original work is a 1933 work in German (published in Germany/Austria), and the listed Austrian author died in 1964. A 1933 work is not necessarily going to be PD-US by age. 1964+70 is 2034, so the original was not out of copyright in it's origin region as of 1996. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks to me like a total legal mess... If it counts as unpublished under twin books then the original is copyrighted until 2035 as you say. If 1933 is the publication date then 1929 is publication date + 95. But was this translation "authorized" so it counts as first US-publication in 1965 and then no notice and failure to comply with US formalities so it entered the public domain and separate from the URAA? MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems like it's a 1933 German work, with a PD-USGov translation. It was likely PD in the US in 1965, so no need to get permission then. It would have been restored by the URAA until 1929 though, so we probably need to delete until then. Commons (nor the U.S. Copyright Office as far as I can tell) does not recognize the Twin Books logic (unfortunately that case predated the URAA, which would have made it moot). By normal logic it would count as published in 1933, and be protected in the U.S. for 95 years from then by the URAA. The translation is PD, but a derivative work becoming PD has no effect on the copyright of the original. There have been rulings that a publication of a derivative of an unpublished work did serve to publish all of the expression from the original contained in the derivative, in order to avoid that derivative from being controlled as a derivative work forever by the then-infinite unpublished copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per parallel discussion on Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Emma Goldman - The Social Significance of the Modern Drama - 1914.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

The work is public domain in the US through being published more than 95 years ago. It contains extensive quotations from non-US authors whose mostly pma. 70 copyright terms were not expired on the URAA date, and which the author of this work, at the time of publication, used under fair use doctrine. Had the path to expired copyright for the main work been other than pub. + 95 this would have likely made it ineligible for hosting on enWS, but as it is, even URAA-restored copyrights will have expired in the US. NB! If any of the extended quotations are still in copyright in their source country (typically if the quoted work's author died less than 70 years ago), then the work cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons and needs to be migrated here.

This is clearly PD-US, However, portions of the book include quotations from British Authors whose works aren't yet out of copyright in the UK or Republic of Ireland. Thus I am opening a thread here, to settle the issue of the scans needing to be localy hosted as opposed to being on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The book itself is by an American author and first published in the US, so if that defines the "work" for hosting it meets commons policy (US and country of origin). Quotation for criticism is specifically exempted in UK copyright as well under fair dealing. More generally, given this is a discussion about the commons's community and policies rather than wikisource's, shouldn't the discussion be there? MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I will say that from a WS point of a view clear simple policy would be very helpful rather than you must check all quotations and then verify their origin and copyright statuses. I also see it as creating a lot of movement back-and-forth if works are proofread and it is found that there is a single line quotation by a foreign author so go to WS and then back with PD-assumed. More generally I have no idea how we plan to tag such a work (add the authors in and then remove them out as they reach pma+70? or do we want to add all quotations authors so every work that quotes Shakespeare or Goethe gets them as an author?) MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: De minimis applies for a lot of cases, so a one line attributed quote from War and Peace will not materially affect the status. For other cases the policy is wonderfully clear: fair use is not permitted. That means the safe course of action is to not upload works with a lot of quotations; and the alternative is doing a lot of tedious legwork to clear each quotation. And in {{header}} terms we credit the author of the work we are transcribing, not of the various quotes they may choose to include (if relevant we may assume those are attributed inline). Xover (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: This work and all the quotations are all clearly in the public domain in the US with no "fair use" exemption required. This clearly can be hosted on WS per policy. The entirety of this discussion is around interpreting Commons's policy not WikiSource's.

My point is that a interpretation that says US-Author quoting a paragraph of Thomas Hardy in a work first printed and released in the US in 1900 makes this a UK "country of origin" work and therefore we need to wait for US-Author+70 years copyright (i.e. treat this work as if it were actually first published in the UK) seems to me both wrong and detrimental to WS as a project. The "fair use" here covers the authorization to make a derivative work (that the US-Author's work is publishable in the US without Hardy's permission for acquiring and then expiring copyright on US-Author's work).

Here is what commons says about quotations in derivative works, specifically allowing them: "Quotations are allowed if they are limited in size and mention the source."

How that derivative works policy applies, whether the excerpts here "are limited in size", what is the intersection of "country of origin" policy and the derivative works policy etc. seem to me questions for Commons....

MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Basically:

On the licensing page: "... Commons accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." I would say that it meets this criteria if we say "the source country of the work" is the US (and this aligns with talking about a single derivative work and a single country). On the derivative works page we see nothing clarifying "the source country" but three separate statements about additional restrictions: 1. "unless the underlying work is in the public domain or there is evidence that the underlying work has been freely licensed for reuse (for example, under an appropriate Creative Commons license), the original creator of the work must explicitly authorize the copy/ derivative work before it can be uploaded to Commons." 2. "the project scope requires that every single file be licensed for possible commercial reuse and be free of third-party copyrights." 3. "Quotations are allowed if they are limited in size and mention the source." It is clear that it meets these conditions in the US as well. But it doesn't state which countres 1. and 2. apply (it might be implied to be country of underlying work + country of derivative work + US or worldwide). 1. also says the work must be "authorized" which seems to imply that the issue is authorized vs. unauthorized derivative works not the copyright status of the underlying work and 3. seems to say that hosting works that are derivative works the do quotations are okay ignoring 1. and 2.. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: I think you're overthinking this. If the quoted bits are from a work that is PD then there is no problem. If the quoted bits are small and short enough to fall within de minimis (or are ineligible for copyright) there is no problem. If the quotes are from a work that is still in copyright in its country of origin, then the quotes are still in copyright in that country and Commons cannot host them. If the quotes are from a work that is still in copyright in the US (e.g. through the URAA) then we cannot host them on enWS.

The licensing terms, or lack thereof, or legal reasoning behind, the author of the derivative work's inclusion of parts of the original work is mostly irrelevant since it is highly unlikely to be a Wikimedia-compatible license or actual public domain dedication (it will be "permission for use" in a specific and limited context, or used under fair use, or simply inattention or assumption that nobody will sue).

Commons policy makes many assumptions that their content are images, and particularly photographic images, and the community there have a contentious relationship with their own policies, which all tends to make this sort of issue exceptionally unclear or hard to find. But the underlying principles usually follow on from US and international copyright law, so if the legal situation is roughly clear you can usually go ahead and assume the intent of the policy is the same. In any case, if we are really just discussion Commons policy then that's a discussion that needs to be conducted on Commons and with the Commons community. Xover (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh, Illustrated by E. H. Sheppard

The following discussion is closed:

While the close of c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Ernest Howard Shepard made a lot of mistakes and is likely to be overturned eventually, that just means we'll have to migrate them locally at that time. In terms of enWS policy (US copyright status only), their US copyright expired on 1. January 2022 (1926 + 95 + 1) and they can thus be freely hosted here.

Sheppard is a Brit who died in 1976. To be on the commons, one must prove that the publication was also in USA. I find two Pooh 1926: one from London, Methuen and one from New York, E. P. Dutton and Co. (and Tigger too!)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be uploaded to enWS on 1 Jan 2022. Pooh is going to have a home in the MC, so if you find a good copy, let me know. Languageseeker (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Languageseeker is there a reason you felt it necessary to read back to me (and the other people who investigate copyright) the information that I put here? Can you please ask personal favors on my talk page and not at this place where business happens? And if you think that I am so stupid as to need the information I provided read back to me, do that on my talk page also, where that belongs. All of that here seems rude.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: I don't think the rudeness of your response was justified by Languageseeker's comment. They provided their opinion that the work would be public domain in the US on 1 Jan 2022 and could be uploaded here then, and expressed interest in including it in the Monthly Challenge at that time. All perfectly relevant, constructive, and polite. If you have some genuine cause for annoyance with this contributor, their comment in this thread ain't it, and I think you should retract your snippy response and apologise. Xover (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry then. My respect for the business conducted here overwhelmed my chatty nature. I will try not to do this again.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. According to enWP, the first edition was published in a run of just 100 copies, all signed, in London by Methuen; and in a run of 500 copies, 100 of which were signed, in New York by E. P. Dutton. Since both Shepard and Milne were brits, I think it is safest to assume this was primarily a UK work (and treat its copyright status accordingly), unless evidence of US publication within 30 days can be found (it seems likely it was, but we can't assume it). If it was simultaneously published it can stay on Commons under pub. + 95 years once new years ticks over, otherwise it needs to be uploaded locally on enWS. I don't have time to do the digging on that just now. Xover (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Xover but, just to confirm, it should be okay to upload the images here and move them to commons if (or when) the necessary evidence is found? And if it is "okay" I am not so familiar with the licenses (here or at commons, actually); which license?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It will be OK on or after January 1, 2022, though technically not until then, for a 1926 publication. The tag here would be {{PD-US}}. The Commons tag is Commons:Template:PD-US-expired. If published in the UK more than 30 days before they were published in the U.S., then it is a UK work, and the terms of Commons:Template:PD-old-70 would need to be satisfied for it to be OK on Commons, which sounds like not until 2047. If we can find precise publication dates, then yes files can be moved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons would consider this a UK work for purposes of hosting scans, regardless of the US copyright situation. It cannot be uploaded to Commons until the UK copyright expires, but it can be uploaded here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Country of origin" is a term from the Berne Convention, and with simultaneous (within 30 days) publication, it is the country with the shorter term. Which can end up with some weird results. Not sure a court has ever had to deal with that situation, but it's not completely clear. It would feel a bit "wrong" to call it a U.S. work (though it would be by URAA standards, so there would have been no restoration had the copyright not been renewed), but it's not impossible at all. It would be under copyright in all of Europe for the 70pma terms (2027 for text, 2047 for illustrations). And 10 extra years for Spain. I could see Commons not wanting to push the issue for EU users, certainly, but a strict reading of the Berne Convention would end up that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the parallel deletion discussion at Commons has produced a lot of great evidence. As it stands it looks like most of the illustrations were first published in the UK prior to their publication in the book, and so are still in pma. 70 copyright there. But as a 1926 publication their US copyright will in any case have expired at the end of last year, so we should be ok to host them locally now in any case. --Xover (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The Net of Faith

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The majority of participants in the discussion argue that the work is public domain. The consensus is weak in that the arguments rely on favourable assumptions and innovative interpretation of law (i.e. what is usually the providence of the courts), so if new factors come to light (especially any case law addressing the issue directly) there is no bar to reopening discussion of this text. The close is also not a strong precedent for similar discussions, and definitely not a sanction to treat all pre-1978 theses as public domain. But absent new factors the consensus for this specific work is strong, as most of those participating appeared convinced by the arguments presented.

c. 1443 Czech work by Peter Chelčický (c. 1390 – c. 1460), that claims to have been "translated in 1947 as part of a Bachelor's of Divinity thesis at the University of Berkeley." The source is however specified as nonresistance.org, which specifies no licensing. The translator is given as "Enrico C. S. Molnár", who appears to have either died in 1999 or may still be living.

@Jan.Kamenicek: I think possibly you may be interested in this work. Xover (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Xover: That source is spurious, and a later attribution; that “edition” may be found on IA here. This would be PD-US-no-notice for the thesis, right? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  The source (nonresitance.org) was probably right because the IA scan is also a 2006 reprint by nonresistance.org. What is more, as an IA contributor they mention Tom Lock who runs nonresistance.org and with whom I cooperated when saving On Spiritual Warfare by the same author. I agree that we can assume {{PD-US-no-notice}} for the 1947 thesis (if not, then {{PD-US-no-renewal}} is a certainty). If the edition available from the IA is found satisfactory, I will be happy to proofread it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: Unlike On The Spiritual Battle, which is listed as being translated by Lock and Enns, The Net of Faith is listed as being translated by an "Enrico C. S. Molnár" (whose identity I haven't been able to establish with any certainty in a quick bit of googling, but is once listed with vital years 1913–1999). Thus Lock and Enns do not have the power to license this work, barring some form of copyright transfer from Molnár. Xover (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Xover: Of course, I know. I wrote about it only to show how I know that Tom Lock is connected with nonresistance.org and that the contributor who added it to Wikisource could really have nonresistance.org as their source (because above it was doubted as spurious). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: A thesis submission is just limited publication. In order to be published for copyright purposes some further action must take place, for example if nonresistance.org had gotten a license from Molnár or his estate to publish it that would then constitute general publication. Xover (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Xover: Is there any official ruling that explicitely states that thesis submission is not considered fully published? I have found two sources which seem to state otherwise: Copyright and Publication Status of Pre-1978 Dissertations, p.825 (it deals primarily with dissertations, but in principle it may IMO apply to any university thesis), and especially Copyright and Cultural Institutions, p. 230). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: I haven't (re)read Hirtle 2009, so it may contain something of relevance (Peter Hirtle is generally a good source for such things), but last I heard his stance was that general publication could not be assumed for dissertations. Clement and Levine 2011 is an interesting approach, but the article suffers from methodological problems and confirmation bias. For example, they quote a commercial microfilm distributor assuring university publishers that works distributed on microfilm, as a format, are eligible for copyright protection (through fulfilling the deposit requirement iff deposited with the LoC) in order to argue that the works in question can not be protected by copyright.

  But mostly, Clement and Levine do not really make a legal argument (they're mostly doing digital humanities, not law) and consequently ignore Estate of Martin Luther King. In that case the 11th Circuit found that King's I Have a Dream, which was performed before a crowd of thousands, broadcast nationally on multiple networks, and where they handed out the text of the speech in a press tent at the event, didn't constitute general publication. The court sets the bar pretty high and establishes several factors that must be present in order to find that a general publication has happened, not the least of which is that the publication has to be authorised (cf. also Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F. 3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2013)).

  The bottom line is that while there are circumstances under which a pre-1978 dissertation could have ended up in the public domain, it cannot be assumed; and determining the actual status with any certainty would require specific knowledge of the circumstances of the particular dissertation in question. Xover (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Xover: Diversey dealt with a university stealing a student’s dissertation before it was finished, making copies, and distributing those copies in the university’s library. The case also deals specifically with (unauthorized) distribution. The language in this case (which is newer, and thus may carry more weight) implies that once the dissertation was placed on the library’s catalog, where anyone could view it or check it out, it becomes published for copyright concerns. (See p. 13.) [The library can’t claim fair use for distributing copies of a work that was not legally published; by inference, a dissertation is published when placed in the library’s catalog for viewing, a claim substantiated elsewhere in the opinion.] In Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., the issue was that his dramatic reading of his (prepared) speech was a performance, not a publication; although I may be misremembering, as I haven’t read it recently. If my memory is correct, Estate applies with less force here, and Hotaling is more relevant. (Also, thinking about this, these important and discussion-relevant cases should be scan-backed here.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  The MLK case says:

  We emphasize the summary judgment posture of this case, which necessitates that we disregard evidence that may be important or even dispositive at trial. In other words, in this summary judgment posture, we consider only the evidence with respect to which there is no genuine issue of material fact. This evidence includes only the fact of the oral delivery of the Speech to a large audience and the fact that the sponsors of the event including Dr. King sought and successfully obtained live broadcasts on radio and television and extensive contemporary coverage in the news media. In this regard, we do not consider at this stage of the litigation two potentially important pieces of evidence brought to our attention by CBS. First, an advance text of the Speech was apparently available in a press tent on the day of the speech. According to an eyewitness affidavit submitted by CBS, members of the public at large—not merely the press—were permitted access to the press tent and were given copies of the advance text. However, the Estate has proffered affidavits which contradict the statements of the CBS witness, and suggest that access was controlled by the SCLC within reasonable means. Moreover, the Estate argues that much of the content of the Speech was generated extemporaneously by Dr. King and was not contained in this advance text—an argument that we do not consider but that can be explored by the district court.

  So the court said that if the text of the speech was available to everyone, then that might change things. Since a University library offering works via ILL does make it available to everyone, that clearly distinguishes this from the MLK case. The crowd and broadcast parts are irrelevant for this; it's understood that's not publication. In general, if a dissertion was completed at a US university and a copyright notice-free copy was given to the university for their library, to be distributed to a general audience, I'd say that's a clear case of general publication without notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  That they don't rule on those points does not mean they don't consider the associated issues in their reasoning for what they do rule on. They go into significant depth on what factors would be necessary in order for a general publication to have occurred, and as I recall (I'd have to re-read it to be sure), that includes the need for the publication to be authorised.

  Which bears on this case in the sense that consensus in the area appears to be that mere deposit in a university's archive is not sufficient even if a given university is willing to distribute it through the ILL, because 1) ILL may be sufficiently restricted in who can use it and through access agreements, and 2) deposit is required in order to get your degree (I think some places they even specify the number of paper copies you have to submit) but not necessarily agreement to publish beyond academic fair use and archives exceptions. Even Clement and Levine (who, as mentioned, suffer from too much wishful thinking) found that their most optimum selection of "community of practice" saw a significant difference between microfilm distribution (which, AIUI, was a commercial service) and deposit with possible ILL access.

  If you want to persuade me that this particular thesis is PD through some path involving a general publication without notice I am happy to entertain the argument; but that all pre-1978 US thesis and dissertations can be ipso facto presumed PD is a couple of bridges too far. In addition, it would be nonsensical for us to adopt such a crude presumption that directly conflicts with what US university libraries and archives' own practice and guidance is. Xover (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  • The publication of a dissertation is authorised, because the writer of the dissertation chooses to go to university, enter a program requiring the submission of a dissertation, write a dissertation, and submit it for approval, &c. It is, in sum, the writer’s choice to enter the dissertation program, and thus they must allow (and legally authorise) the publication of the dissertation once written and formally received. “ILL may be… restricted,” but there is no indication here that they are so restricted. That university libraries are more difficult to access than other libraries is not relevant, so long as the library is not a private (whether business or personal) one. Really, I would be more inclined to consider the deposition of dissertation copies as the method in which dissertations are published, and thus released to the academic community. I don’t think that such a policy is in such great disagreement with (then-)contemporary university library practice, either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  I tried to contact Tom Lock but did not get any answer. However, I still think that this work is in public domain, per above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Xover: Looking through the Compendium, I find some choice quotes, which I believe rather dispositive: “[P]ublication occurs when one or more copies … are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work” (§ 1905.1). “Lending, renting, or leasing copies of a work constitutes publication of that work” (Ibid.). “[P]ublication occurs when copies … are distributed to the public by means of a sale or other transfer of ownership … . Likewise, publication occurs when copies … are distributed by means of rental, lease, or lending” (§ 1905.2). Similarly, from here, “a work is ‘published’ if one or more copies … embodying it are distributed to the public—that is, generally to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of its contents—without regard to the manner in which the copies … changed hands” (p. 138). The Compendium also discusses how limited a distribution must be to qualify as “limited”—a key, recurring requirement is that the number of people is limited, which is not the case for a book placed in a library’s catalog. It seems quite clear to me that all thesis publications would fall clearly under this definition of “publication.” In addition, the Compendium clearly distinguishes Estate, which was publicly performed, not publicly displayed. Such a difference does not apply, and could not apply, to a work placed in a library’s catalog for loans. Thus, it seems clear to me that all dissertations released into university library systems (and ILL systems) were published, as there is an initial presumption against giving copies of a book to a library for further distribution being somehow a “limited publication.” (The Compendium also discusses offering a work to others, in what would be limited publication, being a general publication when the offer is made “‘for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display’” (§ 1906.1, citing 17 U.S.C. § 101). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I created Index:Chelčický, Molnar - The Net of Faith.djvu for this. Yann (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems to me there is weak consensus for keeping the work. If closed as kept, I will gladly proofread the index. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Kerry vs. Pickens

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted both for unclear licensing and source. Please request undeletion with better evidence.

• Senator John Kerry's letter to T. Boone Pickens in acceptance of the Swift Boat challenge
• Senator John Kerry's letter of reply to T. Boone Picken's letter

These are by a sitting Senator, but the whole swiftboat thing with Pickens and the SBVT are hardly obvious parts of his official duties. Kerry was at this time a candidate for the Democratic nomination (he hadn't yet dropped out and endorsed Obama), and the SBVT attacks targeted Kerry personally, so these are pretty obviously him acting as a candidate and not a Senator.

On the other hand, we've traditionally given waaaay wide latitude to what we consider to fall within the scope of a Senator's duties (way too much, and I think we should tighten that up going forward).

In this specific case I'd be comfortable with deleting under the former rationale, or tagging them as {{PD-USGov}} under the latter, but I'd like to hear where the community sits on this. Xover (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete I'd definitely agree that these letters were not within (or even remotely discussing) his official duties... they are completely irrelevant to, and don't even discuss the topic of, any legislation that was under consideration at the time. The SBVT thing was purely political theatre, on both sides. Given that I see no way in which these letters would be any different if Kerry had been a candidate who was not in office at the time, it seems obvious that it's not exempt. Jarnsax (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The whole SBVT thing was asking about his service in Vietnam which was part of his official duties as a Navy Officer. If it were written at the time as an officer it would count no? If he were an admiral coming up for senate confirmation would we reach the same conclusion it wasn't part of his official duties? MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: The exemption is specifically for "works of the United States Government...prepared by an officer or employee...as part of his official duties." This implies a 'work for hire' (it's a corporate author), so we can also pull in "a work prepared as an employee as part of his employment."

• Kerry was no longer a serving officer at the time, and thus had no "official duty" to comment about his previous service. While he was still serving, the work would still have to be explicitly "part of his official duties," so something that he was actually obligated to prepare.
• An officer seeking confirmation from, or testifying before, Congress, would do so only under direction from the Commander in Chief, so it's part of their duty. As the law currently stands (getting into untested ground a bit, here, but as it seems to stand in the US) an Officer of the United States (and thus part of the Executive Branch) they cannot be compelled by the Legislative to testify when it relates to their official duties, as when carrying out those duties they are using "a portion of the Sovereign Power of the United States" delegated to them by the President and are thus eligible for qualified immunity from contempt of Congress for refusal to testify.
• There is no exemption under statute law for works of Members of Congress.. they are neither officers nor employees of the United States Government (specifically prohibited from being so by the Ineligibility Clause of the US Constitution)
• The relevant exemption for Congress is instead from the common law, is for "edicts of government, broadly construed" and dates back to an 1830s court case, but was addressed quite recently by the Supreme Court

  For purposes of the Copyright Act, judges cannot be the “author[s]” of “whatever work they perform in their capacity” as lawmakers. Because legislators, like judges, have the authority to make law, it follows that they, too, cannot be “authors.” And, as with judges, the doctrine applies to whatever work legislators perform in their capacity as legislators, including explanatory and procedural materials they create in the discharge of their legislative duties.

  —Georgia et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)

• The definition of "law" in this case in extremely broad (this is a principle of the common, not statute law).... "non-statute" materials prepared by Members in the course of drafting legislation, that could be used by judges to construct the meaning and sense of Congress behind the words actually enacted, are "law" in the sense intended, as is the 'administrative law' in the Code of Federal Regulations. The concept is that "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" - essentially that you have to be able to know what the law is to commit a crime. Jarnsax (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. My main question was thinking through this in a more rigorous way given that it all seemed a bit wishy-washy. My inclination was that it didn't apply and I was pushing to nail down why it doesn't apply. For example, that {{PD-US-Gov}} is not for legislators. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda took it as a request to try to really explain the reasoning behind it... it's why the Constitution starts "We the People" though we know what specific people actually wrote it: because our representatives, when acting as the legislative, are essentially us, we (as a people) are the collective authors of the works it creates, that we give our implicit consent to when electing congresscritters. WE are the swamp, lol. Jarnsax (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• • Jarnsax: “There is no exemption under statute law for works of Members of Congress”—actually, that’s not true. “Copyright protection under the Copyright Act is not available for ‘any work of the United States Government.’ … This includes works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government while acting within the course of his or her official duties.” (From the Compendium.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. You're arguing with the Supreme Court (see quote above, or look up the case). What you are missing is that Congressmen are not Officers (or employees) of the Unites States Government. First sentence of w:Officer of the United States... "a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States..." ...as I mentioned above, the Ineligibility Clause... "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." They are not "employees" because they are not hired or fired, it's an elective office not a 'job'. The reasoning goes way off into too much depth for here, but 'law' is ineligible for copyright due to a lack of authorship as defined by the Copyright Act. In the specific case, the Georgia Legislature is denied copyright in 'non binding annotations' that were published along with the actual statute. Jarnsax (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Jarnsax: This work was published after Public.Resource.Org was decided; it references that case in the paragraph I quoted. Here is the full quote:

• “[T]he bar on copyright protection for federal works … applies to works created by all federal ‘officer[s] or employee[s],’ without regard for the nature of their position or scope of their authority.” Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498, 1509–10 (2020). This includes works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government while acting within the course of his or her official duties. It also includes works prepared by an officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the organized territories under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

• You can read the rest here (p. 36, § 313.6(C)(1)). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. Now read the very next section of the Compendium regarding government edicts, 313.6(C)(2). It tells you the same thing I just did. Jarnsax (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

To explain a bit more, when it mentions "Congress" in (C)(1) it is referring to Officers and employees of the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) like the w:Architect of the Capitol, who are not Members of COngress and have no legislative authority. Jarnsax (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Since this is probably going to go here anyhow, actual "laws" (passed by both houses, and signed by the president) are edicts of Government, as are "rules" (i.e. administrative law) written by agencies with rulemaking authority delegated by statute (like the EPA). That they are not copyrightable is a "principle", it's not written in the statutes, it's common law (England does copyright laws, but they actually passed a law post-revolution to make it that way). Congress can also (and does) create "works of the United States Government" when they do things like pass a simple resolution in the House to express condolences after a former member dies, and those are not copyrightable under (C)(1), but they are also not legislation. Jarnsax (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: This discussion is interesting, and can have far-reaching consequences for how we treat works by congressmen on the project. I have always been unclear on what exactly the copyright situation for these are.

The executive branch are fairly clear as {{PD-USGov}}, and the judiciary are usually fairly clear as {{PD-EdictGov}}. And Congress as such is normally also producing works that fall under EdictGov, especially after PRO.

But we get a lot of works by individual congressmen that can be anything from speeches on the floor, to press releases, speeches to the electorate, town halls and Q&A sessions with constituents. We have historically given wide latitude to keeping these under the theory that PD-USGov was in effect, and a congressman's "official duties" includes various kinds of schmoozing with constituents. But if there is no PD-USGov exemption for congressmen, that means only PD-EdictGov controls the issue; and EdictGov (even after PRO) will only apply in those narrow circumstances where whatever work somehow bears on a law or other edict of the government. That would eliminate a wide swathe of texts that we currently host.

In other words, this is an issue I believe it is worthwhile spending some time and effort to get right. Xover (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover Yeah, "employees" is obvious, and it's fairly easy to define an "Officer of the United States"... nominated by President, confirmed by Senate, has a physical paper commission, swears an oath to the Constitution.

What's kind of odd is the case to watch right now [20] isn't actually a copyright case, but probably will go towards the point here... if a congressman speaking at Trump's Jan 6th rally was 'acting in the scope of his duties' by addressing the public at a political event. There have been other, similar cases (like Murtha), but I think they are generally more about the Westfall Act (tort law) which has it's own definition of 'employee' that is much broader.

All the copyright compendium really says about "edicts of government" is citing cases where courts have agreed that since the Copyright Act doesn't explicitly create a copyright in them (doesn't mention them at all) then there isn't one (and people have been calling BS on Georgia for years). We're just left with that it should be 'broadly construed' in the public interest. Jarnsax (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So, after some more digging around, I tracked down the 11th Circuit's decision in Georgia v. PRO here. [21] What's interesting about it is they get to the same place starting from first principles, and essentially create a three part test:

Because our ultimate inquiry is whether a work is authored by the People, meaning whether it represents an articulation of the sovereign will, our analysis is guided by a consideration of those characteristics that are the hallmarks of law. In particular, we rely on the identity of the public officials who created the work, the authoritativeness of the work, and the process by which the work was created. These are critical markers. Where all three point in the direction that a work was made in the exercise of sovereign power -- which is to say where the official who created the work is entrusted with delegated sovereign authority, where the work carries authoritative weight, and where the work was created through the procedural channels in which sovereign power ordinarily flows -- it follows that the work would be attributable to the constructive authorship of the People, and therefore uncopyrightable.

This test (which the SC did not adopt, so it's only precedent in the 11th Cir.) excludes a lot of Congress-proximate stuff. Jarnsax (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Jarnsax: This is a test for whether a work is an edict of government, not if a work is a work of the U.S. government made by Congress (or a member thereof). “It tells you the same thing I just did”—it mentions the edict-of-government exception, yes; but it also, separately, mentions that the works of “[the] President [and] Congress” are “‘work[s] of the United States Government,’” which seems to imply there are non-EdictGov works by the President and Congress which are still USGov. In addition, I would say that all resolutions passed by Congress are edicts of government, and fall under that exception (rather than the more general government-work exception). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. Wrote a bunch, and wiped it, because I think I know the difficulty here. You are looking at and referring to the Copyright Compendium, which is useful, but does not have the force of law.

From 17 USC §101, the actual statute, "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." That is the sum total of the definition. Actual elected officials are neither Officers of the US nor employees (employee is not defined, so law dictionary meaning. Who is their 'boss' that directs them how to do their job? Not employees.) The Compendium has to be read in context of what the law itself says, it is explanatory of USCO practice, but not 'proscriptive'... in context, they are trying to make clear that they are talking about any officer or employee of any part of the federal government whatsoever, but the restriction "officer or employee" cannot be expanded upon by anything but a revision of 17 USC by Congress. Officers of the United States are created through the w:Appointments Clause, and Members of Congress are prohibited from being an Officer by the w:Ineligibility Clause. Jarnsax (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Jarnsax: While engaging in this discussion, I have come to agree with the concerns raised in your position. However, we are neither judges nor legislators, and so (in my opinion) for Wikisource purposes the Compendium is dispositive, regardless of any such potentially serious errors. Unless the authors and editors of the Compendium decide to rewrite it to reflect this concern, or some new law or court case declares it so, we must follow the “leading law” (as much as the Compendium is that) in this case. The introduction to the Compendium gloats about how it has been cited in court cases as “highly persuasive,” and we cannot say that a judge will absolutely disagree with the Compendium’s finding, so, until such a change happens, I say we should follow the Compendium. (Also, because it supports my opinion.) As for your comment evincing a different interpretation of the Compendium, I disagree; I believe the catch-all clause at the end (“any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government”) would cover officers and employees of Congress whether or no the sentence mentioned “Congress” separately; and I don’t think that the reference to “Congress” was meant to refer to “the officers and employees of Senators and Congressmen but not the representatives themselves”—a distinction they could have made. Regarding the 11^th Circuit’s opinion, while it is not a nationwide standard, absent a Supreme Court ruling, I see no reason why Wikisource should not (in a general manner) adopt the finding as interpretive policy for EdictGov, as being more specific than the Supreme Court’s ruling. (By the way, as a separate matter, this discussion should probably be moved to a more general forum; but that can happen later.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. Yeah, I was happy to find the 11th Circuit ruling, also they do a really good job explaining why edicts are a matter of 'authorship', even though that admittedly sounds completely nonsensical on the surface. Regarding the Compendium, though, it does also state (in the intro) that it doesn't override any statute and isn't even binding on the Registrar... it just has the 'force of argument', and doesn't set precedent. We may disagree, but I'm pretty sure applying PD-USGov to anything not authored by an 'officer or employee' would be doomed to fail (though in reality they are probably written by staffers and USGov as works for hire anyhow). I think it's the boundaries of deviant congresscritter behavior (Murtha, anyone?) and what is 'campaigning' vs 'legislative' that's more likely to be an issue. Jarnsax (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

(as a quick interjection, cases like Murtha - under the Federal Tort Claims Act - are irrelevant to us, because the FCTA has it's own, extremely broad, definition of 'employee'. The criminal case about Jan 6th I linked above is going to hang on if it was part of the MoC's 'official duties', not his 'employee-ness') Jarnsax (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. It might be helpful to look at the two relevant templates over on Commons, c:Template:PD-USGov-Congress and c:Template:PD-USGov-POTUS. Both (correctly) attribute the works they apply to as those of 'employees'... of Congress on the one hand, and the 'Executive Office of the President' on the other. Works of the United States Government created by employees of "Congress" are works for hire, and per 17 USC § 201 (b) "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title"... so, the 'author' of works created by employees of Congress is Congress "itself" (as a corporate body) for purposes of copyright. The same logic applies in the other case.. they are employees of the President, so their 'works for hire' are works of the "President" (as an 'office', a 'corporation sole', not personal property ofc). Parsing 313.6(C)(1), they actually say "works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government". All of the items listed before the semicolon are 'corporate bodies' (for instance, it does not say 'judges', but 'the federal judiciary'...stuff like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Jarnsax (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: By my count you're outnumbered 3:1 on this one; but I don't like closing these on mere majority vote, and especially not for a delete outcome. Would you be very strongly opposed to closing this as delete now and then let the issue of the possible primacy of the Compendium shake out over time in other copyright discussions? Testing the reasoning against different facts and situation often leads to better conclusions and better elucidates an issue. --Xover (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken; I have come here to discuss copyright, not to argue for deletion or not. I have not, until after this comment, looked at the actual text in dispute here. I would think that the materials here relate more to then-Senator candidate-for-President Pickens, and thus not be relevant to the general dispute regarding what constitutes the work of a Senator. (Supposing these to be deleted, the Wikipedia page should be updated to reflect that, and also the 10-year-old discussion that deleted the other letters.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Hmm. Thanks for the clarification. However, while I am somewhat prone to extended discussions in abstract myself—as you may have noticed :)—the primary goal of these discussions on WS:CV is to reach a practical resolution for the text in question. In that light, can I assume that if you do not express a direct !vote through {{vd}}/{{vk}} you are discussing abstractly rather than arguing any particular way for the specific work? I want to stress that your input is both helpful and (very much!) appreciated, but I need to try to balance the concerns so the backlog here doesn't grow any longer than it already is. Xover (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

General interest (not about a specific file)

The following discussion is closed:

Link to external references and general discussion. No action required.

While Googling around copyright matters I found this interesting article [22].... The title "Simultaneous Internet Publication and the Berne Convention" expresses what it's about pretty well...to quote, "This Article recommends that works of foreign origin should still be included in the definition of “United States works” when the copyright holder actively solicits customers in the United States via the Internet" and justifies it pretty well IMO. Seems like the argument (or at least points from it) could be enlightening here....I vaguely recall an Australian case (regarding slander, I believe) hinging on this. (c.e. I seem to be unable to copy a working link.... Google it, its in the "Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal.") Jarnsax (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't see where it makes any difference for us, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• See also Country of Origin and Internet Publication, which I disagree with. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The ransom note by Leopold and Loeb (1924)

The following discussion is closed:

Of the eight people participating in the discussion, five argued or expressed support for the opinion that this private letter from two persons (Leopold and Loeb) to a single person (Franks' father, the "Dear Sir" to whom the letter is addressed) was somehow subject to an authorised general publication, and because it lacks a copyright notice it failed to gain copyright protection per {{PD-US-no notice}}. Of the remaining three, two expressed no clear opinion. I thus have no option but to close this as keep. But the reasoning is neither supported by the facts nor comports with copyright law, so I very much hope someone opens a new discussion about this at some point in the future.

Affected wikipages:

• Leopold and Loeb's ransom note for Bobby Franks
• Page:Leopold and Loeb's ransom note for Bobby Franks.jpg
• Index:Leopold and Loeb's ransom note for Bobby Franks.jpg
• File:Leopold and Loeb's ransom note for Bobby Franks.jpg (on Commons)

@Billinghurst: because you transcribed a work on this murder case in the past. I was going to enter a transcription of this notable ransom note by Leopold and Loeb, which is on Wikimedia Commons. However, it would almost certainly qualify as an unpublished work, so the rules may be different. According to c:Template:PD-US-unpublished, 1.) This work wouldn't apply to the death pre-1951 rule, because while Loeb died in 1936, Leopold died in 1971, which is after 1951. 2.) A pseudonym is used, so I guess it'd actually apply to the third note, which is that it should have been created before 1901. It wasn't.

So my unfortunate conclusion is that this note is not in the public domain in the US. Unless its publication of the note in newspapers and the like counts as publication...but I don't think that Leopold and Loeb themselves endorsed any of that, and I don't know that the newspapers in that case could be considered the copyright holders per se of the note. What do you think? If this is determined here to be still in copyright, we should bring the discussion to Wikimedia Commons and have them delete the image file. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• It was as well printed and reprinted to have found its way to The Loeb–Leopold Case (1926); which, being published after the trial, prints public record material. Criminals cannot claim their illegal acts as legitimate for infringement (counter)claims, anyhow. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: I have transcribed a lot of works for myself, and others in passing, over the years so expecting me to remember little things that I did can be pushing my recall.

The upload comment on the file mentioned says "Chicago Daily News" so I am guessing it was printed at the time. It is one of those works over which I wouldn't normally fuss about copyright. The heirs can submit a DCMA request, and see how it goes with WMF legal, IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of the notes by the Author:Zodiac Killer were uploaded under {{PD-Disavowed}}. Not sure this template applies here (or even if we want to encourage use it on enWS) but could be worth knowing about? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I placed the template on the transcription of the ransom note. However, I agree something else should preferably be used. Would you say that enforcing a copyright on a work that was made illegally in the first place is virtually impossible? If so, we might want a template like Template:PD-illegal-act which explains the ginormous unlikelihood of a work made as a criminal act having any copyright enforced on it. (It might be appropriate to have this be a proposal in the Scriptorium because I feel like it's a discussion with a lot of legal nuance.) PseudoSkull (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that illegal acts are not copyrightable, see Eldar Haber’s treatise published by Yale Law School. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The copyright could conceivably be confiscated, as could any actual proceeds, by a court; but there is no general copyright exemption for a work based on its legality or lack thereof (unless we get into terrorism and national security: there are… special cases to consider there). And {{PD-Disavowed}} is nonsense in legal terms, and should not be used except in extremely exceptional circumstances (and I can't think of a good valid example off hand). That a suspected author has disavowed a work simply makes it anonymous, and follows the copyright rules for anonymous works; and if they have acknowledged authorship then they are the author and needs to make a legally valid and binding dedication to the public domain or release the work with a compatible license. {{PD-Disavowed}} tries to pretend that the mere assertion that someone is the author is sufficient to make it so, and that their denial ("disavowal") of authorship is the same as a valid dedication to the public domain.

Oh, and enforcing a copyright on a work that was "made illegally" (I presume we mean "produced in the commission of a crime" or "which is evidence of a crime") is neither impossible nor even particularly difficult. If the crime was notorious you may have trouble because fair use reduces the market for your copyrights, but otherwise all you have to do is sue infringers or enter into licensing contracts. Typically after you get out of jail, but that's unrelated to the validity or enforceability of the copyright. Xover (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Has it ever seen publication authorised by the authors? If not then it is unpublished (newspapers get fair use exemptions, and public records are accessible, but none of that affects copyright). That it was published under a pseudonym isn't really relevant since the real authors are known and have been since shortly after it was written. Xover (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"Specifically, publication occurs when one or more copies or phonorecords are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work." Copyright Compendium III, 1905.1 Distribution to the Public. There was no restrictions included in that note regarding its disclosure, nor is it reasonable to read implied restrictions into something like a ransom note. Having it published is a normal reaction, and if Leopold or Loeb wanted to use the force of the law to stop that, I'd think they were obliged to say so.

Also, cf. "DANJAQ LLC MGM UA v. Kevin O'Conovan McClory". They've had 95 years to object to the continuing exploitation of this note, and we are at great disadvantage due to what agreements Leopold or Loeb may have made, informally or formally.

Finally, we're putting in a lot of argument for something that's been published for a long time, that has no economic worth, and de minimis non curat lex.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Much as I hate to disagree with you on matters like this… While you can make an argument based on level of risk versus amount of effort expended, claiming de minimis specifically here is stretching the concept when we're using all of the work and not as an incidental part of our own creative contribution. And why in the world would we assume any more "intent to publish" for a ransom note—documenting a criminal act—than any normal letter? The doctrine of laches is an affirmative defence, so the mere assertion of it presupposes and admits both the existence of a copyright and our infringement of it. Planning in advance to make use of a laches defence thus makes the infringement wilful, and unclean hands is a bar to a valid laches defence even if it would otherwise meet the criteria. Which this wouldn't, because the clock doesn't start until the owners of the copyright become aware of the infringement, which, barring a lawsuit I'm unaware of, has not yet happened. There is also no reasonable argument to be made that the owner's delay prejudices us in any measurable way, neither evidentially nor economically. But even worse is that, as an affirmative defence, much like fair use, latches would protect us but not our re-users. Even in Danjaq v. McClory there is no question as to latches invalidating or otherwise affecting the copyright itself, only McClury's ability to gain equitable relief for the alleged infringement of it, for the specific alleged instances of infringement by the specific named parties. Xover (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not about intent to publish. It's about "distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work." The receiver of the note was under no express restrictions about disclosure, and notices like this are regularly published, putting to doubt any claims about implied restrictions. I'd feel that any demand or threat to a hostile party would lack that "implicit restriction", and certainly one which public policy would against prohibiting the publication of. That's not a full-throated PD-Illegal; just that if you get a note about an illegal act, the implication should be that you should publish it, not hide it, and the copyright law read at the time that if there was no implication the receiver should not further distribute it, it was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Laches may not apply to us, but note that Danjaq v. McClory was clearly not limited to past infringements; laches were applied to the 1999 movie The World Is Not Enough, for which this litigation, started in 1997-1998, was clearly timely. That ruling didn't leave any door open for McClory to sue Danjaq for future infringements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I would expect that while sending the letter doesn't convey copyright ownership, it does convey an implicit license to publish it since there is no expectation of privacy in this context as would affect a personal letter. It would seem similar to me as sending to a newspaper editor or magazine, we wouldn't say that a letter written in 1910 to a newspaper wasn't published because we can't find a written agreement conveying the right to publication. So Leopold and Loeb gave an implicit right to publication and the copyright would then have expired without the registration / renewal after it was published. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with the analysis above. Mailing a note to members of the public causes publication because no implicit restrictions (such as a pre-existing relationship), and unlike other examples, such a mailing a manuscript to a publisher covered by "limited distribution": "to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose", any purpose here is criminal and not a valid purpose and therefore ineligible for limited distribution protection. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My opinion on this now is that because it was published in so many other sources later (in PD years like 1925 and 1926), this became effectively published material and therefore public domain. There would have been no way for Leopold or Lobe to really object to this happening, nor did they. I think we should give this the benefit of the doubt, and close the discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)