Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2024

Index:OASIS Summary of Mobile-assisted language learning - A Duolingo case study.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as the file had been deleted in Commons as a copyvio.

While the main article is not free, the summary is also not free (the license is, as is stated, “NC” limited). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, even something as mundane as a summary of another work is default copyrighted, which is something editors should keep in mind. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Review of the state of methodological trends in open and distance learning literature 2009-2018.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

Despite VGPaleontologist’s falsification (on p. 1) of the license, this article is “NC” limited. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. The image on page 1 is different than what was given in the transcription of the page. The scan's image clearly stated non-commercial. @VGPaleontologist: Was this accidental? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this was. My apologies are all I can offer. VGPaleontologist (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@VGPaleontologist: No worries. Would you like me to speedy it? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

French Constitution of October 4th, 1958 (1960)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, translation still copyrighted

No licence given, from a 1960 book published in London. While the original is PD-EdictGov, there is nothing to indicate it applies to the translation as well. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Now I have noticed that it was noted to be a probable copyvio at its talk page as early as in 2008. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Constitution of Nepal

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as PD-EdictGov.

which is in fact the defunct 1990 Constitution of Nepal. Original contributor did not add any licence tag for the translation and there are no signs of the English translation being in the public domain in the U. S. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a (slightly reformatted) copy of the official English-language translation, which is PD-EdictGov. It was also published in the Himalayan Research Bulletin, XI(1–3), which is released under a CC BY 4.0 license. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah true, now I have found it in the bulletin too, and there is a note it is an official government translation. So I will tag is as PD-EdictGov. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Por una Cabeza

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-Argentina}}, but nominated in WS:PD for violating WS:T and WS:WWI.

Looks like a Wikisource user's translation of a Spanish song. The song was composed in 1935, so the Spanish original is probably still not in the public domain in the United States. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep This work is correctly marked as PD-1996. Per commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina, Argentina joined the Berne Convention in 1967, and the Argentine copyright term in 1996 was 50 years p.m.a. The lyrics to Por una Cabeza were written by Alfredo Le Pera, who died in 1935, meaning that the copyright on the lyrics expired in 1985. This copyright was restored in 1997 when Argentina extended their copyright term to 70 years p.m.a. (until 2005 for this work), but the work was out of copyright in Argentina on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So I am withdrawing this proposal, nominating it to WS:PD instead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! This prompted me to redo Module:PD-1996, so thanks for that. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Church History

The following discussion is closed:

The discussed issues were registered in the US and copyright not renewed, and so they are eligible to be hosted in WS.

w:Church History is a quarterly journal published by Cambridge University Press (i. e. in the UK) "on behalf of the American Society of Church History". Can this be considered as being published in the US simultaneously, and can {{PD-US-no renewal}} tag be used for pre-1963 articles from this journal? I am considering adding an article from 1943. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: So far as I can tell, the issues were formally registered in the United States (as copyrightable matter), so U.S. copyright rules apply. In any case, they were clearly held out for sale by the ASCH, which suffices as “publication” for copyright purposes. Also, I checked renewals for issues of periodicals, and found none for Church History from 1943. I can check the specific article which you wish to add for renewal, if you’re interested. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • If it’s that Spinka article, I’ve checked and found no renewal. If you don’t have easy access to Church History issues, I can order a copy for you, if you’d like. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Yes, it is :-) I have an access to the article, though I am not able to get the PDF of the whole issue. So although uploading the whole issue would be better, it is not absolutely necessary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

    • Jan Kameníček: I checked over all of the contents of that issue, and none were renewed. If you want to take your time, you can download the individual items from JSTOR here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Albert (Tolstoy)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, English translation copyrighted in the US

Appears to have been first published in the 1933 collection Nine Stories vol. 5 of the Centenary Edition by OUP. Google Books , and hence URAA restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Nokoreach

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, English translation not proved to be in the public domain

English translation of the national anthem of Cambodia, without any licence given, moved here from Wikipedia in 2005. There are various versions of this text all over the Internet, their wording often deviating more or less from our version (e. g. in the 4th verse). The oldest printed book among Google Books that offers a very similar version (but not identical) is Songs of Freedom (1967), see here. Not found in any publication in HathiTrust. To sum it up, there is no trace of any proof that the translation of the lyrics is in the public domain. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Kureshy Akhtar Aly

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio

Marked as possible copyvio, The listed source seems to have a standard copyright message. The author appears to be a living lawyer and academic, so I'm not understanding the license tag, applied. If it is own work, the tag can be removed. The uploader/contributor appears to have had a number of images deleted at Commons. Also there is already an author page.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The texts are also here Wikisource:Authors-Akhtar Aly Kureshy, Author:Akhtar Aly Kureshy, the Category:Authors:Akhtar Aly Kureshy and the Category:Authors-Akhtar Aly Kureshy.  Delete all of them. Even with self release, it needs proper sourcing / etc. but I doubt it would pass WWSI anyways as self-publishing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedied and the contributing accounts blocked. The first try to bring this Kureshy issue here took place on 16 February, see User talk:43.245.207.47. They brought it here just because they did not succeed in Wikipedia, where User:Jinnahpk was blocked for suckpuppetting, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnahpk/Archive. I suspect we may expect more attempts to add similar texts from them, so they should be deleted upon spot. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as published in the US in 1930 within 30 days from the London publication and with copyright not renewed

This copy, at least, indicates publication only in London. As the author died in 1936, the work was copyrighted in the U.K. on the URAA date, and the copyright in this work is restored and will last until the end of next year. I haven’t checked for this work whether there was simultaneous publication, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: First, you could have pinged me. That said, I believe your analysis is incorrect. See this five-point test on Wikipedia. There was a New York edition published at pretty much the same time: see this Worldcat item. It was published pretty well around the world to my knowledge. It was merely unfortunate luck that it's the London edition that archive.org had. (I'm not seeing month-level specificity here, but I think the identical year is sufficient to show it was simultaneously published.) SnowFire (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I've checked the book "Marmaduke Pickthall: British Muslim" (archive.org link). It implies that if anything, it was first published in the United States, which means the lack of a copyright renewal should seal the deal. Here's the quote: "His translation of the Qur'an, first printed in the United States in 1930, has since been reprinted several times in the United Kingdom, the United States, India, the United Arab Emirates, and Libya." (From page 1, or page 16 of the PDF.) SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Simultaneous publication requires actual publication in the US no later than 30 days after the first publication. It's usually impossible to document this with absolute precision, but we do need sufficient evidence to make it probable to within about a week at least. Your quote saying it was published first in the US and later reprinted elsewhere is a good indication, but that source can be wrong for any number of reasons so more research is needed. Xover (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Case in point, the first mention I find of this work is in the Liverpool Daily Post for 18 October 1930 (p. 4) where it is mentioned as "… which Mr. Knopf is preparing for publication next month [i.e. November 1930]." The next earliest is in The Cincinnati Enquirer for 20 December 1930 (p. 7) which says that "[it] will be published by Alfred A. Knopf in January [i.e. January 1931]." Based on these dates the work was first published in the UK, and US publication did not happen within 30 days. It's still possible that these dates could be wrong—the UK mention is forward-looking and somewhat vague, and it is the only UK newspaper mention of this work which is somewhat unusual—but on the available evidence one certainly cannot assume simultaneous publication. Xover (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the above "Marmaduke Pickthall: British Muslim" source is the stronger one. I'm not saying books can't make mistakes - they can and do. But this is to my knowledge the (only?) book on Pickthall that deep-dived his work and read all the related primary documents, and I didn't see any howlers when I read through it. I'd trust it as the most scholarly source on the topic. Contemporary newspapers make far more mistakes - here is a newspaper talking about a 1953 (!) printing of Pickthall's Koran but seems to be under the impression it's a new translation, which is fully wrong. Just means that newspaper editors weren't perfect.

As for the US publication date, I can't find a scan of the US printing, but per Worldcat, it had a 1930 publication date, which suggests to me that it probably did make it out in time for a December 1930 publication, although I suppose it's possible that it was printed with a 1930 date but actually was in stores in January 1931. But that seems unlikely and not the first thing to assume. I found an Amazon listing of a 1930 edition with a photograph taken that, if you zoom in, does indeed show "New York" as the printing location rather than London, so Worldcat isn't wrong. (There's also that archive.org seems to think it was free to use, hence not requiring the "borrow" option and allowing the PDF download to begin with, although yes, I know that this is even less reliable than newspapers or the cited book given that archive.org sets those overly generously at times.) This is more a side note though, I still favor going with the best (IMO) source that researched Pickthall which says the New York publication was the first one. SnowFire (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent) Okay, I have what I think might be the smoking gun here. This requires an NYT subscription to read, but see [1] , a letter to the editor of all things. It says "the book had originally been manufactured in London by Alfred A. Knopf and a few hundred copies sold in the United States, before Mr. Knopf conveyed the rights to George Allen and Unwin." The author of this letter is w:Victor Weybright, writing as a Chairman of a Library (EDIT: of the New American Library, the publisher) who'd know what he's talking about. The London edition has the George Allen & Unwin marker on it, so it was the later publication. (Although apparently the physical book was actually created in England then shipped to America to be sold?! Weird. But apparently true.) SnowFire (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a NYT subscription, so there may be other relevant context in the letter, but that sentence really only says Knopf also shipped a few hundred copies to the US for sale. It doesn't change the fact that according to the Liverpool Daily Post Knopf published it in the UK first, or that according to The Cincinnati Enquirer those "few hundred copies" didn't go on sale in the US until January following. That the rights were later conveyed to George Allen and Unwin is immaterial here. Xover (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  That isn't my reading of what the NYT letter says. While it is of course possible that the letter is in error, if the letter is not in error, it directly says that the shipment to New York happened, and then later the rights were transferred to George Allen & Unwin. The PDF scan of the 1930 London edition shows George Allen and Unwin, and if the first Alfred A. Knopf shipment was really only a few hundred copies, it wouldn't be shocking if there were two layers of putting the book on sale in America - a small initial shipment largely centered in New York in 1930 (that doesn't come up in newspapers.com searches), and then a larger shipment that went nationwide in late January / February 1931 (that does come up in newspapers.com searches). Localized releases like that were more common back then; this doesn't sound unusual or implausible to me. I checked the Liverpool Daily-Post, and it doesn't say that this will be the first-and-only release, merely that it will be released soon - it's not saying that this small New York shipment didn't happen. A small shipment to New York (at some point in January-November 1930), a November or December 1930 UK release, and a wide release nationwide in the United States in February 1931 would reconcile the newspaper articles you found with why both Pickthall's biographer and an editor involved in the 1953 reprinting all say it was first published in America, not in the UK. That seems the most plausible explanation to me. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're getting confused by the subsequent transfer of title. A. Knopf was the first publisher for this book in both the UK and the US. Knopf later sold the publishing rights to George Allen & Unwin. The Allen & Unwin publications unquestionably happened later, but are immaterial because they were not the first publication.

  The actual evidence points to the Knopf edition being published in the UK somewhere in the range 28.–30. November 1930 (Bookseller lists it on these dates, so the 29th is a good bet). The actual evidence points to the first US publication happening in January 1930, so there is no way to reconcile this as being less than 30 days. Xover (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re-reading my earlier comment, I realized I garbled Weybright's role some by saying he was "Chairman of a Library" when he's really the publisher. To go more into why I said Weybright was a very strong source: he directed the publication of the 1953 edition, which included lining up the rights. See Worldcat, which lists for publisher of the 1953 edition "New American Library, New York, 1953". Weybright signs off as "Chairman and Editor, The New American Library of World Literature." The introduction to the letter makes clear he's talking about why he republished Pickthall's edition; he writes "In our search for an interpretive rendition of the Koran into English we found "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran" the most widely known and respected throughout the Moslem world..." So this is one of the strongest possible sources attesting to an initial American publication: someone who investigated the issue with money on the line, near in time to the event, and publicly talked about it. SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent) Re Xover above: I disagree on where the "actual evidence" is pointing. I had assumed simultaneous publication when uploading but further investigation has genuinely convinced me it was first published in America. (This might be my Wikipedia side talking, but secondary sources > contemporary sources, so the biographer's opinion in "Marmaduke Pickthall: British Muslim" should be trusted by default here IMO.) If we set aside Weybright's letter above as confusion over the nature and timing of the transfer to George Allen & Unwin... we can check how later publications cite it on their licensing pages. See Everyman's Library 1993 edition. (Amusingly enough, published by a successor to Knopf, but that doesn't mean it's still copyrighted - just that they published older stuff and threw in some new introductions, calligraphy, notes, etc. They mark those as copyrighted, but not the original.) It directly says "This translation first published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1930." I don't know how much I'd trust the quran-archive edition (they're probably using the public domain in author's life + 70 rules from non-US where it'd be uncontroversially PD), but note that it also says "This translation was first published by Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1930." If all the more modern publications think it was first published in New York, and we have Weybright saying a small shipment was sent to New York (which is probably NOT the January 1931 shipment that the reviews in Midwest newspapers were talking about, if the original shipment was really so small), this does make it sound like they wanted to publish first in the US for whatever reason but with a tiny printing. Unfortunately, because it was small, it doesn't appear to have earned newspaper reviews, at least in easily searchable places. But I still don't think that's a reason to disbelieve it happened. Weybright uses "originally" very directly when talking about the first sale, Pickthall's biographer says it happened in the US first, and later publications say it happened in the US first. If I'm wrong about this apparent publication in New York at some point in 1930 (earlier and separate from the Jan 1931 shipment seen in outside-NY newspaper reviews), I'm at least in good company with others who all believe this too. SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Secondary sources must be assessed for reliability too, and secondary sources, writing much later, that just make a bald assertion, as an aside, with no supporting details, and which do not cite their authority or evidence for the claim, do not trump observable reality (not even on enWP). You are also citing a bunch of far-removed sources and assigning them an authority far out of proportion to their fallibility, but adduce numerous reasons why a contemporary account with direct knowledge "must" be mistaken. IOW, I think we're at the "drop the stick" point. Xover (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  So my understanding is that we are going back and forth about whether the 1930 date on this edition [2] means it was actually published in 1930 (based on the book date, his biographer, the later publications) or January 1931 (based on the Cincinnati Enquirer article), and hence whether it is was 3 weeks or say 6 weeks. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a biographer to have access to records or a major publisher to do a rights check that may be more definitive but it is also certainly possible they just looked at the book, saw 1930, and went with it, we don't know since it doesn't have a citation for the "published by Knopf of New York in December 1930" statement in the biography (and even whether that represents confusion between the London and New York branches). It all depends on your priors around such things, I understand the dismal as well (no citation and it is worthless). My general take would be there is enough to say, yup there is enough evidence for us to go with 1930 rather than requiring definitive proof but YMMV. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's a pretty good summary of the issue, yes. Xover (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. SnowFire, I started this discussion because of the potential for evidentiary disputes about original month of publication like the one you had with Xover after I brought attention to it. At the end of your long conversation, while it’s a close call, the balance of the evidence in my view is that there was initial U.S. publication, or that U.S. publication occurred only a very short time after U.K. publication. Therefore, the work is covered by U.S. copyright rules and is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep In addition to my statement above, I suspect that it is close enough that even if the official publication date is in January, actual publication for copyright purposes appeared earlier for example distributing review copies or to people for Christmas etc. Given that it didn't seem that copyright was a major concern, no filing or copyright when I looked for instance, I doubt they would have been super strict about control not making sure the books left the warehouse anyways. Well it isn't definitive, I think I have seen enough to say that is probably the best match to the available evidence. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"To a friend intending a difficult work" by Thomas Browne

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. The oldest found publication of the English translation dates to 1964, so still copyrighted in the US

I don't think this English translation of an original Latin text is free of copyright. First, it was not published in the 1835–1836 edition of Browne's works as claimed, but appears in a modern edition first published in 1928, with a revised edition in 1964. According to the preface, the translation was by William LeFanu who only died in 1995. Sgconlaw (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Two clarifications. The Latin text was published in the Wilkins 1835 edition so the 1835 date references the first publication of the Latin original. The translations from Latin is missing from the first edition, volume 5 actually published in 1931 has the other texts, (which volume matters because the 1928 volumes are in the public domain in the US, Geoffrey Keynes died in 1982 so still copyrighted in the UK). LeFanu would have been 24 in 1928, and 27 in 1931, old enough to have done the translations, but it seems they only date to 1964 (when renewal was not required).  Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Discipline in school and cloister (1902).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as being in the public domain in the US.

There is no author lifetime, and there is no infromation about any potential translators, It is PD-US (1902 publication) date, but I'm not going to apply PD-old-assumed without further information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PD-old-assumed states that it was published >120 years ago, so I am not sure what further information is needed to apply it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed. It is perfectly reasonably to start a conversation (on Commons) to update it to be a 130 or 150 or what not, but it is what it is so I am not sure what information you are looking for since it is clearly compliant with that template. If we found the death date of the author we wouldn't apply PD-old-assumed by the appropriate death date, no? MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally the information needed is the translator/author, Otherwise I am not sure it can be hosted on Commons according to it's rules. PD-old-assumed needs a "reasonable" effort to be made to find that information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well presumably same who wrote this (in 1893) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8579911 based on "30-years" diary... and this is probably a pseudonymn anyways (per french WS: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Auteur:Jacobus_X and the BNF) publishing erotica, there isn't much to go on. That certainly meets the reasonablessness check for me that this isn't some obvious well-known name. Keep MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Per various sources Jacobus X is a pseudonym of w:Louis Jacolliot. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Per the links cited, "His real identity is unknown. Various recent writers, notably Matt Cook in London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914 (2003) p. 93 claim he was one “Louis Jarolliot”, without presenting evidence. Others give Jarolliot’s dates as 1837-90, which would appear to be a confusion with the well-known colonial judge and travel writer Louis Jacolliot, who lived at these dates, while a few say Jacolliot was indeed the “attributed” author, though he was not a doctor and he died well before the books were written. Yet others, apparently led by David Friedman, A Cultural History of the Penis (2008) p. 123, identify the author as one Dr. Jacobus Sutor." Digging into the various claims and arguments here is fine on the talk page say, all names here are way pass PMA-70 for France and all this argument is about Commons hosting anyways, it is clearly hostable on WS per our policies, and arguing about a template {{PD-old-assumed}} that doesn't even exist on WS.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

With no more arguments coming, I think we can close this discussion as kept for English Wikisource. If there are doubts about its status in Commons, it would be better to discuss there to give the Commons community a chance to express their opinion too. Whether we want or need to have something like PD-old-assumed is a more general issue which can be discussed at an appropriate place, such as Scriptorium. Until then, {{PD-US}} (or {{PD-anon-US}}) should be sufficient to keep this work here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, probably copyrighted

National anthem of Nigeria. The music, not reproduced here, is apparently very much copyrighted (see here), and I have found no indication that the lyrics are not also likewise under copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Myth of Starbuck

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, copyright not renewed.

Unbelievable as it is that any Discordian primary source could be copyrighted, this one might just be. Things are a bit complicated, so here's the dot points:

• Included in the first edition of the Principia Discordia was "The Myth of Ichabod". As printed in "Historia Discordia" the section in question has "Copyright 1963, Gregory H. Hill" handwritten at the end.
• The last page of the first edition of the Principia Discordia states "Permission is hearby granted to quote from or to reproduce this manuscript on the following conditions: a) that credit is given to the DS and the author; b) that any money made from the direct result of usg this ms be forewarded to the DS treasury to be used by the DS at large (c/o Gregory Hill). Any deviation from the above conditions requires written permission by Malaclypse (The Younger), K.C. Note that "The Myth of Ichabod" is legally copyrighted." I note that if the notice is only considered to apply to the single chapter, the rest of it would be PD-US-no-notice.
• The first edition was published in 1965. There's a copy of a different (earlier?) version in the National Archives, and that version doesn't have the copyright notice, but I don't think it counts as a publication.

Anyway, it's a pretty complex situation. Arcorann (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean the National Archives? US publication in the 1960s was pretty complex, so I'd be interested in knowing the details.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was collected in 1978 and added to the JFK collection of the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations. For some reason I've been having trouble hunting down an online copy (even though it was online in the past). Arcorann (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Was there a copyright renewal? With a notice date of 1963, I think that was required (in 1991). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing for the Principia Discordia (which incidentally would include the Loompanics edition material), or the Myth of Ichabod/Starbuck; however, 1965 was after the date at which renewal is no longer relevant. I don't know how to reconcile the discrepancy between notice date and publishing date. Arcorann (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

If the copyright notice says 1963, and it was published in 1965, then the copyright would have started on 1963. There was a movie from 1943 or something, and the copyright notice said Copyright MDCCCCXXXIII, and they lost copyright because they didn't renew it 28 years after 1933, when the copyright notice was dated. So it would need a renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a source where I can confirm this? Just to make sure. Arcorann (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed in United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 4/Section 406. I think we can close this now (and I'll correct the copyright tag). Arcorann (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A Mental Suggestion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Published in 1969 and thus still copyrighted.

This short story was to be published in A Vocation and a Voice (1898), but as that collection was never published (owing to the failure of The Awakening), this short story was first published in the Complete Works (1969). As that volume is still copyrighted, this short story (first published therein) is also copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Duty, honor, country

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyrighted, not elligible to be PD-EdictGov.

Is this speech by Douglas MacArthur one given as an official of the US Military? And if so, is it therefore public domain? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Per wikipedia, it seems that he had retired ten years earlier. -- Beardo (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Since it is from 1962 it would need to have been registered and then renewed? Also even if serving as a military officer it isn't clear that this is related to his official duties. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bremen Town Musicians (without source)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvios.

Recently flagged by Beleg Tâl. Looks like this is D.L. Ashliman's translation: "Translated by D. L. Ashliman. © 2001-2006", with no free license that I can find. --Yodin^T 11:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Have gone through User:Stellatomailing's contribs and found the rest of them that are still up at their original title. We have scan-backed public-domain translations of all of them by Margaret Hunt (including the above story):

• The Tailor in Heaven (unsourced) (Translated by D. L. Ashliman. © 2002); Hunt's translation
• The Girl without Hands (unsourced) (Translated by D. L. Ashliman. © 2012); Hunt's translation
• The Louse and the Flea (unsourced) (Translated by D. L. Ashliman. © 2002); Hunt's translation
• The Singing Bone (unsourced) (Translated by D. L. Ashliman. © 2002); Hunt's translation

--Yodin^T 14:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed all links to these works from other pages (translations pages, etc.) --Yodin^T 14:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• One more, but from a different source: Clever Gretel, translation revised by James Stern in 1944, copyright renewed in 1972. --Yodin^T 15:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  By chance, I had changed the Clever Gretel into a redirect just a few minutes before it was nominated here. If somebody disagrees, it can be returned back easily. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks 👍 sifting through the contribs from around that time by the user who added this one, I've found one more that hasn't been tagged for deletion: Talk:Snow-White and Rose-Red (was moved out of the mainspace in 2010, after noticing that it wasn't translated by Marian Edwardes as claimed); this is another translation as revised by Stern in the same 1944 book, renewed in 1972. --Yodin^T 17:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hopefully the last one: The Three Army Surgeons: the earliest exact match I can find for this translation is in Grimm's Complete Fairy Tales (1993), but it's heavily based on Stern's 1944 revision of Hunt's translation. --Yodin^T 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you @Jan.Kamenicek; I think you might have missed one though! The Singing Bone (unsourced). --Yodin^T 17:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Fun of It (1932)

The following discussion is closed:

Copyright not renewed so the book is elligible to be hosted in Wikisource.

Amelia Earhart's second book The Fun of It was published in 1932. I can find a scan on IA. But I cannot find a copyright renewal in the Stanford database nor in the online scans at Gutenberg. Can anyone else find something, or do we have a case of a lapsed copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• I manually checked both the original registration (which does exist) and the renewal issues from the time (and the one for the next one, in case of a late registration). I didn’t find anything, so this looks like PD-US-no-renewal to me. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Deep Elm Blues

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

No source; misspelled title; notes that point out this was a song first recorded in 1933, but claim it's "traditional". This feels like a copyvio. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson

The following discussion is closed:

Poems with no date and poems published after 1928 deleted.

While Dickinson died in the 1800s, many of her poems were only published in 1929 or later. The 1929 collection's copyright was renewed in 1957, and the same goes for later collections. See List of Emily Dickinson poems for info. It seems that many non-PD-US poems are on Wikisource. They'll need to be deleted and set for undeletion in the appropriate year (some as early as next year) according to the publication details. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning this is going to require huge amount of work and I am afraid it will be difficult to find someone who will undertake it. The pages with Dickinson's poems lack basic information like year of publication, source and even licence. Especially the licence is crucial for their keeping, but I wonder who is going to go through all 1775 of them, verifying copyright of each of them and adding licence templates. What is more, some of them (like The feet of people walking home) need to be split as they contain several versions in one page (all of them unsourced of course). Besides, the system of their sequencing by number instead of adding them to subpages of the works which they were published in is inconsistend with our practice. It might be better to delete them and allow editors to start anew, I believe that works of such an author as Emily Dickinson would be added again quickly. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The poems we have which are from the collections (like “Within my reach!”) can be kept, but they should be moved to sub-pages of the main pages (like Poems (Dickinson)). I think that redirection is appropriate for those poems, but the other ones can be deleted (to be re-created later as redirects if necessary). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This is one of the major problems with many of our works 1. not being scan-backed or 2. not being part of collection subpages or 3. not following a consistent style guide on titles. It creates these very kinds of problems. If the material needs to be verified, deleted in bulk, assessed, etc., this suddenly becomes much more difficult.

So we could maybe, rather than consider this a single deletion debate, consider the Emily Dickinson effort a large-scale maintenance project to change bad titles, identify original sources, collect the material in subpages, and maybe delete some if necessary. I'll think about taking it up, but don't take my word for it that I will. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A note on Wikidata: I found that the poems have Wikidata items, but they are categorized at the work level rather than the version level. For example, Within my reach!. There is also a Wikidata item on WS numbering of works by Emily Dickinson that will need to be completely deleted, since we need to just do away with this numbering scheme, since the numbers appear to have no basis in any source other than ourselves. If I take this project on, I'll fix up all the Wikidata stuff as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: if you want to tackle the WD items associated with Poems (Dickinson) I'd appreciate it, but if not I intend to try and take care of those eventually. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: If I didn't start the Wikidata thing in a week or two, leave me a message somewhere or ping me. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I got started on it yesterday and split off the wikidata idems for Part I and Part II, but I think I'll leave the rest to you lol —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(Also I got rid of "WS numbering of works by Emily Dickinson" - I merged it into the item for the 1955 Poems of Emily Dickinson where the numbers originated) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So here's the hard numbers. Apparently 962 of the poems we have were made after 1929, and 64 have an unknown date of first publication. This gives us a lofty number of 1026 possible individual copyright discussions we may need to have in the future... Just over a thousand sections. Isn't that lovely?

This is all according to the Wikipedia list at List of Emily Dickinson poems#Table. I've made two userspace pages to visualize:

• A list of poems probably copyrighted
• A list of poems without a listed date. Some of these could be copyrighted, but we don't know.

Hopefully this is helpful, if not scary for some. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

My personal recommendation is a bulk deletion. Just to be on the safe side. But that's just me. Added to the fact that none of the samples I'm seeing for presumably copyrighted ones have scans to back them. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: Most of the 962 definite-date poems were originally published in one of a few (dozen or so) volumes of Dickinson’s poetry, so there could just be a few headings which list all of the articles thereunder. However, all of our copies of the poems here are the original versions (taken from her handwriting), and those were generally first published in the variorum editions of 1955 and 1998—meaning that basically all of her poems which we hold (and are not scan-backed) are still copyrighted. As for the poems without a listed date on the table, I believe that that means that they were first published after “the Todd & Bianchi volumes of 1890-1945” (that is, in the two variorum editions I mentioned which were published in 1955 and 1998). So, if you want to consolidate the tables and/or make more tables based on this information, or maybe just one table listing all of her poems which are not scan-backed, that would probably be the table from which to make deletions. The numbering schemes (of which there are two, of which we use either one or a combination) are from the two variorum editions, so they’re not wholly Wikisource-originated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I've also been long suspicious of the tendency in these poems to use spaces between em dashes, in both titles and the poems themselves. An example is at Suspense — is Hostiler than Death —. Are there any scans that prove they were actually written this way? Because this practice is generally something we avoid here. @Beleg Tâl: I saw you working on these. What are your thoughts? I'd like to see those pages moved, and the poems fixed (for the ones that aren't deleted). If a bot for that job is desired, I'll volunteer. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

None of the poems in Poems (Dickinson) have dashes in their titles. Beyond that, I really don't know. I suspect that the "preferred" titles for these poems would remove the dashes entirely. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The dashes, like the index numbers, appear to originate with Thomas H. Johnson's The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1955). This edition has no titles, but refers to each poem by first line. The dashes in the text do have spaces surrounding them. If this edition were hosted here (ignoring the fact that the collection is still under copyright), we would remove the spaces around the dashes per WS:MOS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete the poems with no date, and the poems published in 1929 and later, as copyvio. The rest of them are included in collections that are already in progress, and once they're completed we can discuss their deletion at WS:PD (the 1890 collection is already under discussion there). Next year we should also prioritize proofreading Further Poems of Emily Dickinson (1929) to restore those poems to our collection. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to SnowyCinema for creating both the list of poems probably copyrighted and list of poems without a listed date. Unless some new ideas appear, I will delete the listed poems in a short time and close this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted and imo ready to be closed. The sequencing system from the header of the rest should probably also be removed (see e. g. here), but that can be discussed somewhere else. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Covenant of Omar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, no evidence of the translation being in the public domain in the US.

The original text is from long ago, but it's unclear where the translation came from. Perhaps there is a public domain or freely licensed translation available, but I see no reason to believe this is one. It appears to be one of the versions that has been copy-pasted all over the web. The archived webpage I linked in the "notes" does mention a book it's from, but not the year of the book, and I wasn't able to find info about the book with a brief search. Seems more likely than not a copyrighted translation. -Pete (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, I see that another version of this is under discussion above at #Pact of Umar. Pinging User:TE(æ)A,ea. -Pete (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Pete: So far as I can see, the “Covenant” (or “Code”) is a different translation of the first part of the “Pact.” The source given (from here) is to Tārīkh al-Umam wal Mulūk, an Arabic (extant in Turkish and Persian) source text, not an English book. I am not sure of the source of this translation. A definitely public-domain translation can be found here, pp. 168–169. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I said "version" when I meant "translation". Not making any strong claims here, just pointing out adjacency to somebody working on related material. -Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Dada Manifesto (1916, Hugo Ball)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, no evidence of the translation being in the public domain in the US.

The text for this translation is from a transcription of a handwritten copy done much later; the translation, so far as I can tell, was made by Christopher Middleton for John Elderfield’s version of Ball’s diary Flight Out of Time, at pp. 219–221 in the second edition (which is “Copyright © 1974 Viking Press, Inc.”). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• I trust this is an accurate report, so  Delete. However, per the page's talk page, there's at least one incoming link; seems like higher priority than some to find the actual version it purports to be. I did a quick search, seems like there's a page scan here and another purported transcription here, though it might take more research to be confident they are truly the 1916 1918 version. If a legitimate PD version can be located, a redirect from the above link should point there. -Pete (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, translation copyrighted.

This is an incomplete copy of a copyrighted translation (from the mid-1980s). There is no official translation, so far as I know, that could replace it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Also failed to find any trace of the translation being in the public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, translation not in the public domain in the US.

This translation is from Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1973, Moscow, Volume 15. It's possible that this translation is in the public domain, but I doubt it. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Besides, it is a second-hand transcription from marxists.org, and so it should be removed upon this ground anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom and per Jan above. --Xover (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird Tales/Volume 19/Issue 3/The Thing in the Cellar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as being in the public domain in the US.

According to https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/weirdtales all of volume 19 no 3 was renewed. The WT listing page says Copyright renewed R250136. -- Beardo (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. @Fenrix1958: per Talk:Weird Tales/Volume 19/Issue 3/The Thing in the Cellar -Pete (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Letter recommending persecution of certain Muslims

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The identification of the translator in the text was incorrect; the discussion has identified both the correct translator and a clearly public domain source for the text.

This claims to be a translation by David Price, with no identifying info. The link goes to a U.S. rep born in 1940, though that David Price's bio does not mention Arabic or translation among his skills. Still, no claim of free license or public domain status is asserted, and the Wikisource edition is the only one that appears in a basic web search. Seems unlikely this translation is PD or freely licensed. -Pete (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Different David Price (1782-1835), the source is one of the volumes of this book: https://archive.org/details/chronologicalret03pric  Keep (wrt to copyright). I've updated the link. MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Too bad my search didn't include just dropping the years, whoops. Seems to me the {{copyvio}} banner could be dropped from the page, at minimum, and maybe this should just be considered resolved. @MarkLSteadman: any reason not to just close this now? -Pete (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: copyvio discussions, once opened, generally need to run for two weeks to let others chime in. The only exceptions are noms made in bad faith or noms determined to be eligible for speedy deletion. And I think that's a good idea, because I have made copyvio noms that seemed clear-cut but which other contributors were able to identify as public domain; and there have been cases where things that looked clear-cut the other way (clearly PD) took a turn and ended up being deleted.

Not that I don't support some IAR'ing in some cases to avoid excess bureaucracy, but I tend to be conservative on that for copyvio discussions because 1) the area is often very complicated (benefits from multiple contributors) and 2) despite this it is often possible to arrive at a bright-line decision (unlike other deletion discussions). Xover (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

As it stands the page carries a very forceful comment in the editorial voice, which I think no individual Wikisource contributor actually believes. "The contents of this page may violate Wikisource's copyright policy." It also blanks the contents of the page on that basis. I have no problem with letting the discussion continue, but keeping the blanking banner in place during that discussion seems more or less like bureacracy for bureaucracy sake, at the expense of the reader's access to information and understanding of Wikisource editors' analysis. .Pete (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Maugham - Of Human Bondage, 1915.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept / no action required. The work was first published in the US more than 95 years ago, and as such it is eligible for hosting on Commons.

W. Somerset Maugham died in 1965. Does this file therefore need to be localised? It's in the current MC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

On Human Bondage appears to have been first published in the US. The New York Times for June 6th, 1915 lists it as being scheduled for June 26th, while The Observer for August 8th, 1915 lists it as being scheduled for publication the same week. As such it would be a US work for Commons licensing purposes (because it is a US work in all Berne countries), with pub. +95 being the only applicable copyright term. Xover (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Xover: Trying to parse this, do you conclude that the copyright would have expired in 2010 in the US, which is the only relevant country in this case for both Commons and Wikisource, ergo compliant with both Commons and Wikisource copyright policies? -Pete (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Xover (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Aash Al Maleek

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probably copyrighted

A 1935 1984 work where the author died in 2017. And no information on the translation. -- Beardo (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The Wikipedia article says the Arabic lyrics were written in 1984. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point, yes, it does seem unlikely that he wrote it the same year that he was born. Someone put the wrong year in there in an edit in 2011. Unless the words have some special copyright status through having been requested by the King, my point stands. -- Beardo (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Text from the Rosetta Stone

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

This appears to be the translation by Quirke and Andrews, published in the 1980s, and almost certainly copyrighted. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Moon Treaty

The following discussion is closed:

The work falls under {{PD-EdictGov}}.

As an international treaty, what license should be placed on this work? I can find nothing on Help:Copyright tags that applies in this instance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

We generally use {{PD-EdictGov}} for international treaties. Our most recent discussion on the subject appears to be this one. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that it was drafted at the UN, {{PD-UN}} may also be appropriate [3]. [4]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This treaty was never ratified by any country, and the UN is not itself a competent legislative assembly, so EdictGov does not apply. {{PD-UN}} would seem to be the nearest, but I do not immediately see that this falls within any of the relevant categories. Xover (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It was never ratified by a country with a manned spaceflight program, but it was ratified by 18 countries; see here. Since the treaty has force of law in those countries, it seems to me that {{PD-EdictGov}} should apply (although {{PD-UN}} might also apply idk) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It was passed as a resolution by the General Assembly and included in the official Resolutions and Decisions list so I would think it would count as "Official Records". MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unsatisfied with {{PD-EdictGov}} because it is a statement about US copyright status only, and since this has not been ratified by the US, the tag seemed inadequate on its own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-EdictGov}} applies to foreign laws as well as local laws, so even though a treaty is not ratified in the US, it would still be PD in the US. (Mostly commenting this for anybody referencing this discussion in the future.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Writing for the World - Wikipedia as an Introduction to Academic Writing.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-USGov}}.

Two questions here: (1) Is English Teaching Forum a publication by the U.S. government or merely one maintained by it (allowing individual contributions to have copyrights)? (2) Is the author (described in the text as “an Assistant Professor of Writing, Rhetoric, and Discourse at DePaul University in Chicago. She has taught ESL/EFL writing for over 15 years in the United States, the Czech Republic, Japan, and Turkey.”) one to qualify for PD-USGov? The PDF indicates that she held, at some point, a government job, so I’m not sure there either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any copyright information in the English Teaching Forum publication itself. The website links to the Department of State copyright information page, which states "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission." For this reason, I am inclined to believe that English Teaching Forum and its contents fall under {{PD-USGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Content related to 2008 U.S. presidential election

Unclear how the following works are or are not compatible with Wikisource copyright policy. I'm putting three somewhat different topics under one heading, because they're similar, but they might need different outcomes.

1. John McCain Concession Speech

This one seems clear-cut to me, this is a speech given by a senator and a presidential nominee, but in his capacity as a candidate not as an agent of the U.S. government. So {{PD-USgov}} seems to clearly not apply.

•  Delete as nominator. -Pete (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding some similar speeches below; none of these appear to be in McCain's capacity as senator, but rather as a guest of private organizations. -Pete (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• John McCain speech in Kenner, Louisiana
• John McCain speech on Foreign Policy to the Hudson Institute
• John McCain speech to American Israel Public Affairs Committee

2. Barack Obama's 2008 election victory speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unlicensed

• Same reasoning as above,  Delete as nominator. -Pete (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

3. Press conferences of incoming Obama administration

The press conferences of the incoming Obama administration:

• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 7 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 24 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 25 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 26 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 1 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 3 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 7 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 11 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 15 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 16 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 17 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 18 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 19 December 2008

This one has been discussed before, thank you MarkLSteadman for the info. See: Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-04#Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 25 November 2008 So I'm not proposing deletion for these. However, while the CC-BY 3.0 template may be accurate, the reader has no way to verify the accuracy. The reasoning that's provided in the Wikisource discussion should be made available in some way on the page. What's the best approach? It could be accomplished in several ways (through individual notes on each page, through a note on a new Barack Obama's president-elect press conferences parent page, etc.) What's the best approach to empower the reader to verify that the asserted license template is accurate? -Pete (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Pete (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

For convenience here is an archive link of the copyright policy at change.gov (which is a dead link in the discussion linked above) [5] -Pete (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In terms of missed life opportunities, I sure wish I could have been in the meeting where Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Susan Rice, Jim Jones, and Joe Biden, or their lawyers...as well as the reporters who asked the questions...(i.e., those who "authored" the December 8 press conference)...agreed to a CC license. -Pete (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

well this gets into off the cuff remarks and eligibility for copyright in general too as opposed to the prepared statement https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_of_Political_Speeches MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That meta wiki page is really interesting, thanks for linking it @MarkLSteadman:! Lots to learn. It does seem like scenarios could emerge where it's not possible to host a scan or other source document on Wikimedia servers without violating (to my eyes questionable) copyright a media company might claim; but maybe that's not something to worry about. -Pete (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I believe a link to [6] in the {{textinfo}} template on each work's talk page would be the usual and least confusing place for this, wouldn't it? —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Âlt: That seems like one reasonable option, if the pages are to be kept, yes. It wasn't done when the previous discussion was closed, and I was wondering if there was something more going on here. For what it's worth, I haven't found a clear policy on where sources should be linked for works that don't have proper scan-backing; {{No source}}, for instance, does not prescribe where the source should be added. I understand that the talk page has been the "traditional" place, but it seems to me much more useful to add it to the "notes" field in the header template. I don't have any stake in these particular works, but I am interested to hear if there's a problem with me adding such information in the header template as a general rule. -Pete (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a policy per se, but using edition = yes in the header and then {{textinfo}} on the talk page is such a well-established precedent and standard that I would highly recommend sticking to it (or at least, I'd seek community feedback at WS:S before changing it up). Bear in mind that we operate as much on precedent and consensus as we do on official policy :) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Aha! The "edition" parameter is the part I'd been missing. Yes, what you say makes perfect sense now. -Pete (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And if I may add:

4. Democratic Debates

There are these two, with no source given:

• 2008 Democratic Debate - 13 April
• 2008 Democratic Debate - 16 April

with no source, I cannot see how we can know if these were released. -- Beardo (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination -Pete (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• The page lists CNN / Messiah (the hosts) https://www.messiah.edu/compassion_forum/pdf/transcript.pdf for the first and ABC has a transcript for the second, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1 so it is possible to find sourcing. Whether they are eligible, the candidates signed a media release etc. is a different matter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_of_Political_Speeches MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Pellucidar

The following discussion is closed:

Issue with license tags has been resolved.

This has recently been completed and tagged with {{PD/US|1950}}, which doesn't work. It was first published in 1914, but this edition is from 1962, so I'm not sure it's PD. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 06:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Since it was from 1962, {{PD-US-no-notice}} would apply to any editing and the cover art (although the images are currently tagged {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, which would also apply). {{Reprint license}} is a possibility to use as well (especially if we do tag no-notice which is confusing because it does have the 1915 notice.). MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If a (pre-1978) US reprint of a US work has just the original copyright notice that's now PD-old, the whole thing is governed by that copyright notice (or has no notice) and is PD-US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: PD-old means that the author died more than 100 years ago, which simply is not true. The author died in 1950. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

PD-US then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the current tag, but it's generating an error, because of the issues posted above and below. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to {{PD-US|pubyear=1914|deathyear=1950}}, that seems to correspond more to this case. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333: 1914/1915 is the year it was serialized in a magazine, and it the year for copyright of the text. No new copyright claim was included in the Ace Books edition. I have an open conversation with @Xover: about the problem of needing to include both year of publication and year of copyright. This may need to be a wider conversation, but it will almost certainly require the rewriting of code. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That was the idea behind {{reprint license}} to allow it to be tagged with both dates with the relevant conditions (e. g. dates of the cover artist). I understand the headers might need updating to pull from wikidata though. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)..

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Kaushîtaki-brâhmana-upanishad

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio--Jusjih (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient information is provided about the translation to determine copyright status. As far as I can tell, it seems to have been part of this 1991 publication which is almost certainly copyrighted. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, evidence exists that the translation is default-copyrighted. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete It may not have been that publication, he died in 1984 [7], but in any case it was URAA restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:THEORY OF SHOCK WAVES AND INTRODUCTION TO GAS DYNAMICS.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Index already deleted as file deleted on Commons (see here).

The auhthor of the Russian Original died in 1987. I'm not sure how this can be hosted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, the Russian original is copyrighted in both the US (as published less than 95 years ago) and in the source country (as the author died less than 70 years ago). I have nominated the file to be deleted also from Commons and will speedy it here as a clear copyvio in a short time too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So it seems the uploader thought that allowing unlimited distribution, as expressed on the first page of the document ("Distribution of this document is unlimited. It may be released to Clearinghouse, Department of Commerce, for sale to the general public."), is equivalent to releasing the work to public domain, see the discussion at Commons:User talk:Sunlitsky#File:THEORY OF SHOCK WAVES AND INTRODUCTION TO GAS DYNAMICS.pdf. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It was; it was a 1967 work without notice in the US, and the Soviet Union and US had no copyright relations until the Soviet Union joined the UCC in 1973, so PD-US until the URAA came in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So we can undelete this in 1946+96 = 2042, and Commons will wait until 1987 + 71 = 2058. Should we localize a copy so we can undelete it here on our time scale?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Localizing the copy to enable its undeletion when its time comes is a good idea. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The Potential of Ayurveda

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as explicit copyvio

No source, no license, no indication of why this work would be PD —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. No indicia of free release. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. The source appears to be linked from here: https://web.archive.org/web/20060712033956/http://www.serveveda.org/research_papers.htm and it clearly states: "© Copyrights reserved by SERVEVEDA.org" MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Letter to millions as he heads off to Grant Park

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

No license while done in 2008 presidential election.--Jusjih (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

He was still a Senator in 2008. Is there any indication that this was presented as being a product of that position? BD2412 T 01:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The letter is very short and simple, and clearly written in his capacity as a successful presidential candidate, not as a legislator. -Pete (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The copyright statement from barackobama.com: https://web.archive.org/web/20081106233052/http://www.barackobama.com/terms/

Your use of Information Contained on Website

The entire Website is copyrighted. Certain articles or materials within the Website also may be separately copyrighted by us or by others, as indicated. If you find these materials useful, you may download, copy, display, print out, or send a copy to others so long as each copy indicates the appropriate copyright notice, credits us as your source, and is used only for your personal use. You are expressly prohibited, however, from downloading, copying, displaying, printing out, or sending a copy to others for bulk or commercial uses, or for any defamatory or otherwise illegal purpose. You acknowledge that the permission granted in this section does not constitute an endorsement by us of you or your use of the information and content. Please contact us directly for special copyright permissions.

Noncommerical is prohibited on WS.MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, then. We have no choice. BD2412 T 03:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding my  Delete !vote, agree this seems like a clear-cut case. -Pete (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as copyrighted - I wonder why this is still open after two months. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 23:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Because CV is horribly backlogged and I haven't gotten around to it yet. Xover (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Durruti is Dead, Yet Living

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as PD-US-no-renewal

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-release}}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally found some proof of the study's publication at [8]. I think the fact it was published in appendices does not matter too much and it can be considered a work on its own. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Commencement Address, William & Mary's College

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio

.}}

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Letter from Chiang Kai-shek to Adolf Hitler

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, translation supposed to be copyrighted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Secret History

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Research done during the discussion suggests that the work is most probably in public domain in the US.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Index:Indian Philosophy Volume 1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Commons deleted the file

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard letters to Weird Tales

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, copyright renewed

There are three letters showing with no license:

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Room to Roam

The following discussion is closed:

Meanwhile, the page was moved and a redirect was created. Now, revisions containing the copyvio have been hidden.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes and Queries( Later volumes)..

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.

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

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

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

  Nobody has pointed out any specific copyrighted contributions since the discussion started (9 months ago), so unless there is some new relevant input, I will close it as kept. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

An End to the Armed Campaign

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Shipwrecked Sailor

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Beast from the Abyss

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

Despite the fact that the author died in 1936, the work was first published in 1971 in The Howard Collector, #15 Autumn 1971. I couldn't find that exact issue, but the previous issue does have a copyright notice as was required at the time: [9]. If I'm understanding the copyright guide correctly, this means this is under copyright until 2066. BrandenJames (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto_of_the_league_for_social_reconstruction

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Life's Mystery

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Early Autumn (Langston Hughes)

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Grandson, on thy Second Birthday

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

This page has no source. The only asserted date I could find is 1934, on the author page, but there's no indication where it was published, or whether copyright renewals have been checked. After checking renewal records from 1961 and 1962 ([10] [11] [12] [13]) it seems plausible that the copyright was never renewed, but without knowing where it was published or whether the 1934 date is accurate, it's tough to say with confidence. (I did a few web searches including Internet Archive and have not been able to find this poem. There is a different poem by Sheehan that has an interesting OTRS release, so I searched Commons as well, but found nothing to match this file.) -Pete (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Petro Poroshenko's Inaugural Address

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed Muizz's Inaugural Address

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Alma Mater (Adrian C. Wilcox High School)

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

Fight On Wilcox (Adrian C. Wilcox High School)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, public domain status not proven

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

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

Difficult to say what they meant by "compiled". I am not sure if it is enough to suppose the translation can be covered by PD-USGov. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)--Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Western Front

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied by SnowyCinema as a blatant copyvio.

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

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

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

The WP page for that does say The book entered the public domain in the United States in 2024, with [14], that looks mostly reliable, as a source. Sure it isn't? — Alien  3
3 3 16:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Scientific Ape and The Clockmaker by Robert Louis Stevenson

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-old-US}}

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

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

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

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

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

From "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988"

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

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

From the 1956 act:

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

(a) the publication of the work,

(b) the performance of the work in public,

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

(d) the broadcasting of the work,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Toodyay Letters

The following discussion is closed:

Letter by William Sykes jr. deleted as potentially copyrighted, the rest kept. However, it cannot stay in the portal NS, and needs to be moved to main NS.

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

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

Here is the history of these documents:

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I understand it right, we can close the discussion with the result of most letters being in the PD, with the exception of the letters by William Sykes Junior which might have been restored by the URAA and so should not be kept here under precautionary principle. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

F. R. Benson's Richard II

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

The essay as published in The Manchester stage, 1880–1900 is substantially different, so this resourcing is not possible. Did not find the Manchester Guardian scans for December 4th, 1899. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Copenhagen Document" (1990)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-EdictGov}}.

This can be found online in a few places ([15], [16]) but there's no indication it has been released into the public domain, so I assume the copyright holder is still the OSCE. Cremastra (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. The government contribution makes it a government work: e.g. "More specifically, where there has been a Government contribution in connection with the preparation of the work, e.g., use of Government time, facilities, equipment, materials, funds, or the services of other Government employees on official duties, and the subject matter of the work directly relates to or was a type involved in the employee’s field of governmental employment, then the work generally is presumed to be a “Government Work” and not available for copyright." [17] ("any work of the United States Government")

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

I have been trying to find the basis for b. and am struggling based on the text of statute, as well as the lack of any statutory mandatory licensing back to the US Government, requiring presumably a separate agreement for the US government to use the joint work. It also seems unlikely on government intent grounds: that large swaths of DoD documents or Department of State documents are outside of US Government control and under the copyright control of foreign governments within the US (e.g. a joint US / Iran effort in the 70s would require a license in the 80s) or for the public to loose access to government creations by having the government do a joint work with someone (e.g. to an EPA cleanup plan if developed jointly with the responsible party). The idea is precisely that a commercial agreement with the US government is fundamentally different as there is now a compelling interest of the public of having access, among other things to prevent the double payment: the public pays to create it using government resources, hands it over to a public company and then pays again to license it back, that is why a CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) is necessary for transferring the rights back when using a government lab [18], because it is decided that having the research is worth the US Government investment in the lab. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

So for example: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/2532 [PL: 102-511]. Requires "adhering to the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Charter of Paris;". The Charter of Paris [19] contains "Proceeding from the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension, we will cooperate to strengthen democratic institutions and to promote the application of the rule of law." "The function of the Office for Free Elections will be to facilitate contacts and the exchange of information on elections within participating States. The Office will thus foster the implementation of paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE' (the relevant provisions are contained in Annex 1)." On the EU side, the association agreements have language like: "CONSIDERING the commitment to the implementation of commitments made in the framework of the CSCE, in particular those set out in the Helsinki Final Act, the concluding documents of the Madrid, Vienna and Copenhagen meetings, those of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the conclusions of the CSCE's Bonn Conference, the CSCE Helsinki document 1992, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Energy Charter Treaty as well as the Ministerial Declaration of the Lucerne Conference of 30 April 1993" http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/1998/98(1)/oj . I think that it is reasonable to interpret this document as incorporated into legislation and hence eligible for EdictGov. Another example is the Istanbul Document signed by Clinton [20] . "In this respect we reaffirm our commitments, in particular under the relevant provisions of the Copenhagen 1990 Human Dimension Document, and recall the Report of the Geneva 1991 Meeting of Experts on National Minorities" MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Unless some more input appears in a short time, I will close the discussion as kept per {{PD-EdictGov}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

•  Delete per nomination. --FPTI (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

2008 Republican Debate - 30 January

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

•  Delete per nomination. --FPTI (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Monthly Weather Review

The following discussion is closed:

Issues up to 1973 can be licenced as {{PD-USGov}}, issues up to 1976 as {{PD-US-no-notice}}.

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

When Wendy Grew Up

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

• Keep. So far as I can tell, the 1957 publication was not renewed, so it is in the public domain. (Also, the 1957 first-publication date does seem to be accurate.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep per Teaeaea. Relevant links: IA [22] -Pete (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • FPTI, Pete: If either of both of you are interested, here is the book: File:When Wendy Grew Up.pdf. The images are local (because they need to be cut down to size and color-corrected): File:AnAfterthought-frontis.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p13.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p15.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p19.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p23.tif, and File:AnAfterthought-p29.tif. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, copyright renewed.

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Index:Property and Improperty.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Confessions of an Economic Heretic

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:PD-American Samoa

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: ----Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Non-free images have to be redacted in our scans.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Implications of Trump v. United States

The following discussion is closed:

Discussion closed.

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

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

  That also is under discussion recently, K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, "The court agreed, stating this statute permitted President Trump, in his capacity as an "officer... of the United States", to remove the state suit relating to duties of his office to federal court." [23] MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

No copyright notice on the work.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Morse Code for Radio Amateurs

The following discussion is closed:

Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Works which were in the PD in their home country on the URAA date do not have to be checked whether they were published in the US too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Scotch rhapsody

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should be deleted as public domain status does not seem to be completely proven. I am not inclined to the waiting solution as it does not seem worth it. It is badly formatted and it seems better to transcribe it from scratch after it definitely slips into the PD (preferably together with the whole book). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

British War Aims

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-EdictGov}}.

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

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

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

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

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

So, unless there is some new input, I will tag the work as {{PD-EdictGov}} and close it as kept. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

McCain Addresses Boston College Convocation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Constitution for the Federation of Earth

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

The licence {{PD-ineligible}} does not seem justifiable here. For the related discussion see User talk:BeLucky#insufficient licence information, where BeLucky states they received an email from the publisher allegedly confirming it is "without copyright restrictions". However, we would need this to be confirmed by VRT. I am also not sure, whether this loose wording includes modifications of the work, as required by our policy. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• In my mind, “without copyright restrictions” (if that is exactly the author’s phrasing) is equivalent to PD-release, and is sufficient. (To prevent modifications of a work, one could release it under a CC BY-ND or similar license; however, such a license is necessarily a copyright license involving “copyright restrictions.”) Jan Kameníček: On that talk page, BeLucky states that VTR permission has been sent (Ticket #2023081910001389). Could someone verify this? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will ask about it. I suppose that we will need approval with the release of all the authors, i. e.: H. Philip Isely, Terence P. Amerasinghe, Syed Md. Husain, D. M. Spencer, Max Habicht and Drafting Commission. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  "The ticket was closed as invalid", so I am going to speedy it now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

2007 Democratic Debate - 26 April

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status of this debate and of others listed was not proven.

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

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

@FPTI: Debates deleted per nomination. BTW, it seems to me that 2015 Democratic Debate - 13 October should be deleted per the same reasoning too, do you agree? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. Thanks for finding that. --FPTI (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Letters to Barack Obama

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

First Affidavit of Steve Pitkin and Second Affidavit of Steve Pitkin

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:Salvador Allende's Last Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Declined, not an edict of government.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom 2000-05-22

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Discourses on Livy (Neville)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

whereas the opening sentence of the version on Wikisource is:

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The Art of War (Neville)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Open Letter to Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy kept, released under CC BY-SA 3.0 License.

Previously published at https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/08/open-letter-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders , where it was licenced under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, but non-derivative licenses are prohibited in Wikisource per Help:Copyright tags#Creative Commons. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Where are you getting "CC BY-NC-ND 3.0"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The source given at the talk page is the one I linked above. The only thing I found there was a notice saying "Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely." The archived page that you have linked to has a different license, which probably means that it has been changed on the web page meanwhile. I think that the rule is that once a work was released under some free license, it cannot be later undone, and so we can keep it under the original license. (Sigh): That is a general problem with texts copypasted from other webs, which may change any time. It is good that you found the archived version, but will the archived version be also available any time later to confirm the license if the work is challenged again in the future? Anyway, let's keep the work now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, yes, it is true that you cannot relicense a Creative Commons-licensed work to make it more restrictive, only less so. Will the Internet Archive be around in the future? Probably? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Ralph Nader's letter to Barack Obama

The following discussion is closed:

Request rescinded.

As the above, it was appropriately licensed. @Jan.Kamenicek:, are you even checking these sources before deleting? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course I am, and the work was neither licensed nor sourced, and its deletion was supported in the copyright discussion. The discussion has been opened since July and nobody challenged the deletion. At the top of this page there is written about nominated works: "If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted." So if somebody raises some doubts about the copyright of a work, the work can be kept only if the following discussion dispels these doubts, which has not happened.

As for the request to undelete the work, can you provide a link to the source releasing it under a free license, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken, but I assume that it was part of the same series as above. Did the talk page have a source listed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the talk page did not contain anything. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I rescind this request. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Although it looks as if written by an employee, it is not certain and I failed to find anything that would confirm that Cheryl Gibbs wrote the message in the course of employment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

I am not sure if we can keep a work based on this reasoning, and we do not have a proper licence tag for that anyway. Any more opinions? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-USGov}}.

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

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

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

 Keep: The file was already discussed in Commons in 2020, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Some stories in Modern Japanese Stories

The following discussion is closed:

Copyrighted stories deleted.

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

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

(not-yet-transcribed stories)

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-USGov}}.

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

Author was at the Naval Academy, received a commission before [24] and served as an engineering officer in the navy [25] after. In theory he could have resigned his commission, paid back the tuition etc. attended graduate school and then joined afterwards, I am sure someone can find his service records to confirm, but I suspect he was serving in the Navy at the time. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Index:Model Engineer & Practical Electrician 1501.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Spring and all - William Carlos Williams.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

File localized to WS.

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

I suggest TE(æ)A,ea. to raise the question in Commons, because 1) if the work is not in the Public Domain in the US, it should not be present in Commons either, and 2) there we are more likely to receive opinions from people conversant in Canadian copyright. Or, I can do it myself, although I am not sure if I am able to explain the problem well enough. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have raised the question at Commons too, see here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Copyrighted parts (French originals and translations of two poems, and Portuguese originals of two poems) were redacted by CalendulaAsteraceae and revdeleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@EncycloPetey:: On the other hand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that only those lyrics where it has been verified that they are unconnected to the original can be kept. So if anyone makes such a research and compares literal translations of full originals (i. e. not just excerpts as in the examples above) with Lehrer's translations of the lyrics, then a list of lyrics to be spared from deletion can be made. The rest will have to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this for the French songs. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The French lyrics look to be a pretty faithful translation (full comparison at User:CalendulaAsteraceae/Lehrer's translations). Deletion steps:

• Redact and request revdel for the scan on Commons
• Delete the underlying scan pages
• The subpages in the collection have already been updated

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave my comparison page up for a bit so people can verify, then proceed with deletion. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Kept.

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

@ShakespeareFan00: The work has been uploaded to Commons, which is thus also affected. Can you create a deletion request there too? You may also get there more replies. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted, It's only the program that's at issue , if at all. It's not included in the Wikisource Transcription obviously. The rest of the document is obvioulsy a US Gov work of the NBS/NIST. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

After no serious objections having been raised, I suggest closing the discussion as kept. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Luigi Mangione Manifesto

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; unambiguous agreement that this is most likely a copyright violation, and no evidence that it's not. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The apparent text of Luigi Mangione's manifesto. The given sources are copyright and there is no release from Mangione in these sources—explict or implied. An IP has put {{PD-US-Gov}} on it because it was apparently transcribed by the FBI. Transcription of a text does not vest copyright in the transcriber, so that's not a valid license. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - Not released by the copyright holder. Also pinging Gabldotink to participate here, since they were at the talk page recently with the same concern. Noting here that we'll probably need to delete the author page as well after this, since I can't imagine there'd be anymore works to transcribe. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete definitely—while notable, it certainly hasn’t been released under a free license. So far as I can tell, the FBI hasn’t even released it: the only source for it is some blog. Even if the FBI did release it (or a transcript of it), it would still be copyrighted unless and until Mr. Mangione decides to release it under a free license (which is probably not his biggest concern at the moment). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per reasons brought up above and Talk:Luigi Mangione Manifesto#Copyright violation? Gabldotink (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per above comments.—Alalch E. (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - as per above. -- Beardo (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete — this work was not released under a free license, and is as such still under copyright. —FPTI (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: SnowyCinema (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Miser's Gold

The following discussion is closed:

Poems from Author:Robert Ervin Howard/Poetry suspected to be copyrighted were deleted, the rest tagged with a proper license.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to w:Robert E. Howard bibliography (poems I–O) the poem "Miser's Gold" was published in Fantasy Crossroads #8, May 1976. So, if I understand it right, unless we have some evidence that it was published there without a copyright notice, it is copyrighted until 1976+96=2072. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The poem Cimmeria was published in The Howard Collector #7 in 1965. Unless there is some evidence it was published without a copyright notice, it is copyrighted until 1965+96=2061. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to The Road To Hell published in "Singers in the Shadows" (1970) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Romance (Howard) was published in 2002 in "A Rhyme of Salem Town and Other Poems" and thus it is copyrighted.

San Jacinto published in 1989 in "Shadows of Dreams" and thus copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The Weakling first published in 1986 in "A Robert E. Howard Memorial" and thus copyrighted.

The women come and the women go ... first published in 2002 in "A Rhyme of Salem Town and Other Poems" and thus copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Diamonds To Sit On

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Civil Code of Cambodia and associated pages

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted all as unlicensed translations--Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope (Lu)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

@Pngleee: might be able to answer. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo of America Inc. v. Tropic Haze LLC

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

I noticed that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xeverything11 proposed deletion of files used on Wikisource; at closer inspection, even the document itself is not free. It's not the work of the US government, or a judicial decision; it's the work of Nintendo of America and its lawyers. It is not in any way released on a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nintendo of America Inc. v. Tropic Haze LLC.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete. This is a filing by Nintendo, and merely filing a legal document does not make that document copyright-free. —FPTI (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A few indexes of works published in the UK after 1928

The following discussion is closed:

Index:Nature and Life (1934).pdf + Nature and Life kept, the rest deleted as copyrighted.

Following the previous nominations of Index:Property and Improperty.djvu and Confessions of an Economic Heretic, I am adding more:

• Index:L. T. Hobhouse, His Life and Work.pdf (1931)
• Index:Poverty in Plenty.djvu (1931)
• Index:Veblen (Hobson).pdf (1936)
• Index:Imperialism, A Study.djvu (1938)
• Index:Essays in Science and Philosophy.djvu (1948)
• Index:Adventures of Ideas.djvu + Adventures of Ideas (1933)
• Index:Nature and Life (1934).pdf + Nature and Life (1934)

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Imperialism has 1902 and 1905 editions, which could be substituted. Essays in Science and Philosophy and Adventures of Ideas were simultaneously published in the United States, and both were renewed. Nature and Life was actually first published in the United States; our copy is a later (British) re-print. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! So Nature and Life should be eligible to be hosted here as not renewed in the US. Unfortunately, the 1938 edition of Imperialism contains a long chapter Introduction to the 1938 edition, due to which it is not possible to host this scan here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

According to the note in the header, the translation is supposed to be done by the Association for Participatory Democracy, so the source is most probably http://www.e-democracy.md/en/legislation/constitution/ . However, at the bottom of the web page there is copyright claimed, only with a note that "Reproduction of the materials is welcomed provided the source is indicated", which is not enough to consider it released under some of our accepted licences. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Well of Loneliness

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-US}}.

Index:Radclyffe Hall - The Well of Loneliness.pdf

First published by Jonathon Cape, London and Paris. The author, Radclyffe Hall, a brit, died in 1943. This has been given the 95 years United States license, but I find no evidence of publication in the United States before the 1950s.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when it was published in the US; works first published anywhere more than 95 years ago are in the public domain in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Per this, it was registered in the US in 1928 anyways.. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog/R173233 see also Google Books . MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep per above comment. FPTI (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Index:The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

So far as I can tell, this translation was first published in 1967. The source, “Marx-Engels Collected Works Volume 1”, was published in 1975. Presumably the 1902 publication was the first publication of the thesis in the German, but I cannot find a publication in the English from that time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Constitution of Serbia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

Unknown source, translation licence not given, no proof that the translation is in the PD. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to follow the version posted by the Serbian Government: http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/documents/Constitution_%20of_Serbia_pdf.pdf. (other versions omit the first page). MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not exactly. E. g. in the part 1. National Assembly, Article 99 there is written:

2. appoint and dismiss judges of the Constitutional Court,

which is in our version followed by:

3. elect four members of the High Court Council, ...

while in the linked source it is followed by:

3. appoint the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation, ... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian Declaration of Independence

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

Translation licence not given, no proof that the translation is in the PD. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Constitution of the Soviet Union (1977, Unamended)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

The talk page contains the information that this text was translated by Novosti Press Agency, Publishing House, Moscow, 1985. As such it is most probably copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Songs for Children Sung in Japan

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven. Link to the work added to Wikisource:Requested texts/1942 so that it can be undeleted in 2038.

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

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

Yeah. But that's going to be very hard. Looking at w:ja:西條八十 with Google Translate, it seems that Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Mr. Moon and maybe Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Canary are old enough, but who knows about the rest?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The Japanese text is published in this book, which means that that text is also PD-US-no-renewal. Absent specific evidence to the contrary—which should always be the basis of a deletion discussion—this must be kept. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The volume we have is printed by The Hokuseido Press, in Occupied Japan. https://discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2022/10/26/yukuo-uyehara-1/ is the one source I can find on the net for Yukuo Uyehara, which makes it clear he was domiciled in the US (so the URAA wouldn't have restored his work) and "In March 1940, Uyehara published his first book, with Hokuseido Press of Japan. Titled Songs for Children: Sung in Japan, the book consisted of a collection of fifty “doyo,” or Japanese children’s songs, that were popularly sung in Japanese classrooms at the time." So the book was printed in Japan and these songs were previously published works, so this book would have minimal impact on their copyright status.
  • No, we shouldn't accept foreign works just because nobody has enough knowledge of the foreign language to look up information about the texts. If we have no information, we should at the very least assume the most likely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Prosfilaes: So you’re admitting you don’t have any evidence that any part of this work is copyrighted? If so, you have no reason to start this discussion. The songs were all printed by Hokuseido in this book; that is evidence of a publication. Insofar as you have not shown any earlier publication, “we should at the very least assume” that Songs for Children Sung in Japan is the first publication of the songs. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
      • If we assume that, the works of Japanese authors published in Japan in Songs for Children Sung in Japan were restored by the URAA unless they were out of copyright in Japan at the time. These authors weren't out of copyright in Japan at the time, and some of them aren't out of copyright in Japan now.
      • And the standard of Wikimedia projects has never been just assume it's out of copyright until someone hits us over the head with it. For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed doesn't just assume that every work created more than 70 years ago is out of copyright in life+70; it's not impossible that 120 years from creation is too short for a certain work, but that length of time has been chosen as a reasonable assumption.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
        • “If we assume that, the works of Japanese authors published in Japan in Songs for Children Sung in Japan were restored by the URAA unless they were out of copyright in Japan at the time.” This is not true; the work was published in the United States and not renewed, so those songs which were first published in Songs for Children Sung in Japan are in the public domain for failure to renew. The URAA cannot restore an American copyright, after all. For the most part “assumptions” are based on a lack of initial information. But here, there is basic information; we have one publication, and it’s old enough to be presumed to be the first publication (that is, it’s not an Internet copy but a physical book). I don’t understand how you think it’s then reasonable to assume against this evidence, especially as you have repeatedly stated that you have no evidence to support your assumption (whereas I of course have the book I scanned as evidence in support of my view). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
          • Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/10 says "Printed in occupied Japan". See above, where I pointed out the 1940 copy was printed by "Hokuseido Press of Japan". It was not published in the US.
          • You can presume anything. But multiauthor collections are usually of preexisting material, and I can not remember, and I can not imagine, any collection of translations that aren't translated from preexisting material. Why would someone? First-run rights cost more than reprints, and you get your choice of a lot more material going for reprints. And we certainly shouldn't assume the improbable happened.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
            • The location of printing is irrelevant. This volume was printed for sale in Japan and Hawaii, and thus was published in the United States for the purposes of U.S. copyright law. Once again, this volume was not only the translation but also the original texts. Without any evidence (which you have not provided) of an earlier printing, we should not “presume” that such a printing exists. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
              • Where's your proof it was printed for sale in Hawaii? This does not seem like you care about the facts of the matter as much as getting the book in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
                • It says so in the colophon. It even has an American price ($1.50). Could you do a modicum of research before you nominate my hard for work deletion? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
                  • Where does it say that? What does it say? Link, copy, paste. I can't find any such thing. Yes, the 1949 version has an American price. That was published nine years after the book was first published in 1940, so that doesn't matter at all.
                  • This is a 1940 work published in Japan with texts that were previously published in Japan by Japanese authors (see above for Yaso Saijō's Mr. Moon, for example). Why don't you do enough research to establish that it's actually in the public domain?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
                    • What are you even talking about? The book is my evidence: it was published in the United States, and there was no renewal. That is my basic evidence which establishes that this book is in the public domain. You, however, have provided no evidence that the book is not in the public domain—only speculation. I have pointed this out before in this discussion, and yet you have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence in support of your claim. I can’t refute your claims because you haven’t provided any evidence to support them. Just as you say, without evidence, that the book is copyrighted, I can refute your claim by simply stating, with as much evidence as you gave me, that it is not copyrighted. I have already provided evidence to support my initial claim, that the book is not copyrighted; and I am happy to dispute your counter-claims on equal grounds. But I cannot try to oppose your claim with evidence, when you have provided no evidence in support of your claim in the first place. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
                      • You shouldn't be trying to oppose my claim. You should be trying to establish the facts of the matter. That you do treat this as a debate makes me question whether you would conceal or even falsify evidence to keep the book in Wikisource.
                      • When were the poems originally published? I've done some work above and found evidence that at least two poems were published outside this book. This confirms my assumption that the poems weren't first published in this volume. You just want to assume they were.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

About the poems/songs. I found one where it (and the music) was published at jp.wikipedia. It was a challenge to find these songs, heck, even the authors have that thing where sometimes they go by Given Family (name) or maybe Family Given (also name). The book has been set up so that when jp.wikisource wants to, they can fill in the jp pages and perhaps also help to research the original publications. Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/82 had an image. Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/80 is set up to be proofed at jp.wikisource. {{iwpage}}. It was a miracle I found this.

Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Tapping of Shoes

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9D%B4%E3%81%8C%E9%B3%B4%E3%82%8B--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• The more this “discussion” drags on, the more clearly you act in bad faith. “You shouldn't be trying to oppose my claim”, you say: why not? Are we not supposed to have adversarial discussions, with different people holding different opinions? Or are we supposed to roll over and delete whatever you don’t like, without asking questions? You mention “trying to establish the facts”, and I agree that that is a valid goal; in fact, I have been trying to get you to establish your facts for quite some time now. I am personally in favor of hosting as much public domain material as possible, and frequently contribute to discussions here in an effort to save works which would otherwise be deleted; but I have contributed to a number of discussions where I was the one to find the single piece of evidence which confirmed that the work was copyrighted, and which, but for my action, may not have been deleted. Your accusing me of hiding or falsifying evidence is unconscionable. As to your question of first publication, I have provided my evidence, but you have not provided yours; but there’s no reason for me to belabor this point, as you presumably have no evidence to bolster your unsupported attacks (or you would have shown that evidence the last several times I asked you). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, we are not supposed to have adversarial discussions. People can have different opinions and both be trying to get to the truth, not trying to oppose each other.
• Fact: these poems are Japanese works by Japanese authors. RaboKarbakian linked a page that shows the poem was "first appeared in the November 1919 issue of the magazine Shojo -go ."; that is, these poems were published before the book. I don't think that it's reasonable to demand I do bibliographic research in Japanese to prove a poem is copyrighted in the US; if you want to keep the poems, prove they were out of copyright in Japan in 1996 (i.e. the author died before 1946) or they were first published before 1929.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

commons:Category:Winnie The Pooh, 1926 the illustrator is not in Britain's public domain yet, but because this book was published in the United States, the images are as PD as the book is. I am pretty sure that the same would be true for the poets who have poems in this book.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons and the English Wikisource have different rules. Any book published in 1926 is in the public domain in the US; even if Winnie the Pooh was only published in the UK, it would still be in the public domain in the US, and acceptable for the English Wikisource, but not for Commons. These poems weren't first published in this book, and as they were works by Japanese authors published in Japan, they get a full 95 years of copyright from publication. Retroactively, only US works needed renewal, and since these aren't US works, renewal is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The book was published in the U.S. in 1949, and copyright was not renewed. --FPTI (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The book was published in the U.S. in 1949, and copyright was not renewed."--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  @FPTI, @RaboKarbakian: Your argument for keeping seems based on the fact that the translation is apparently in PD in the US. However, if I understand Prosfilaes right, his argument is that the Japanese originals were first published in Japan and so are suspected to be copyrighted because of the URAA. Did you consider this when voting too? Can you comment on that in more detail, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Jan Kameníček the poems written in Japanese were also in this book. It is a U.S. publication that also contains Japanese poetry in Japanese with no individual copyright notices for them. Photographs need an individual copyright on them to have a copyright that is separate from the overall publication; that poetry is different than this is not believable and inconsistent. If you would like to claim that the publisher was wrong to publish them this way, okay. But that is not about being in the Public domain today.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Thanks for the answer. I do not want to claim anything at the moment, I am just trying to understand the points of all people here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Berne Convention has never required copyright notices, for separate copyright or otherwise. These poems were works first published in Japan; their publication later in the US doesn't become "first publication" or "publication within 30 days" just because the US publisher did or did not do something with the copyright notice. Since they were works first published outside the US, they would have been restored, no matter what a latter US publication did.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the case was resolved in Commons where the file got deleted, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu. Because it is always a big pity when we have to delete such a well-proofread scanbacked work, I added the links to the work and its index page to Wikisource:Requested texts/1942, hoping that somebody will undelete it when its time comes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Wind in the Willows-Rackham.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied per WS:CSD#G6 (renewed)

Ever since I saw that only the Spanish translation of Poor Ceco was copyrighted, I was certain that all of the Rackham works were in the Public Domain.

I was wrong and this one was renewed.

Please, please delete this soon!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• For copyright issues, discussion should be at WS:CV. Haved moved this discussion from WS:PD to here.
• More specifically, for such cases that are clearly and unambiguously copyvios, tag them with {{sdelete|G6}} instead (see WS:CSD#G6), it'll go faster. Will speedy delete the Index & the Page:s under that criteria
• This and its extracted images are hosted at Commons, so we cannot delete them. You should ask that at Commons.

— Alien  3
3 3 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 13:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sons and Daughters of Saint Lucia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Any news? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  More than 9 years after this discussion was started we still do not have any decisive evidence of the work being in PD. So, unless there is some new input, I will delete it in a few days. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Old Bugs

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

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

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

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

Thanks for finding that MarkLSteadman.

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

    I am afraid there is too much uncertainty which prevents unequivocal conclusion the work is in the PD. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Jan Kameníček: What uncertainty do you have? This is similar to the discussion below, which you closed. Derleth did not write “Old Bugs,” so to be the proprietor of the copyright in the work he must have obtained the proprietorship somehow. Do you have some evidence that he did? If not, then the reasonable, neutral conclusion is that he did not have proprietorship rights, in which case, the work is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

      The evidence that he must have obtained proprietroship somehow is that 1) the book itself says copyright Derleth, and 2) Derleth's heirs claimed the renewal. So, we can keep the book only if we have some evidence that these claims are false, not vice versa.--Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Index:Little House Big Woods-1953.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as renewed

Not out of copyright, see Discussion at Commons (c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Little_House_Big_Woods-1953.djvu) , a Renewal in respect of the Illustrations in the specfic edition was found. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: That renewal has "Date of Creation: 1999" written on it, whereas this work was published in 1953, so creation had to be earlier than 1953, so this renewal does not appear to be about this work. — Alien  3
3 3 12:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Ah, indeed, makes more sense like this.  Delete as renewed. — Alien  3
3 3 14:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep-The cited "renewal" covers books from 1978 onward. This book was published in 1953 and was not renewed in 1965.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Alien, RaboKarbakian, ShakespeareFan00: The hyper-link is broken, so it points to something which is obviously different. To find the correct item, go to https://cocatalog.loc.gov/, Search for: RE0000104037; Search by: Registration Number. This gets the correct result which ShakespeareFan00 identified. In addition, this record appears to be correct: a renewal for a 1953 publication would have had to occur in 1953+27/28=1980/81, and this renewal is from 1981. RaboKarbakian, the Hirtle chart says that books published between 1929 and 1963, inclusive, had to be renewed between January 1 of the year which is 27 years after the year of publication and December 31 of the year which is 28 years after the year of publication; 1965 is just the year (after which?) the next group which Hirtle identified begins. You may wish to read the Commons version of the chart. Unless anything can be put forward to counter the renewal, this must be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is SPECIFC to the illustrations. I'll run a check for the text, but I didn't find aything immediately.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) - Addendum :See Commons Discussion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Little House in the Big Woods? Funny story, when I was in elementary school we read that book, and I remember thinking of it as particularly boring at the time. Of course, I probably wouldn't think so anymore. But yeah, I would imagine this extremely popular title to most certainly be copyrighted!!! And I was right: R240866 indicates the original 1932 text is for sure copyrighted. And there also happens to be an entry for RE104037 - the renewal for the illustrations (though I didn't think they'd have renewal entries past 1978, what's up with that? Thought those were only in the federal database. . . .) So  Delete SnowyCinema (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So, now with my expanded understanding of this copyright thing. Will the original work and the original images still go into the public domain in 2029?

SnowyCinema the books of the series are good in that they were written each with the language and viewpoint of that age of child/young adult. So, (for example) by "The Long Winter", you have the words and thoughts of a young adult trying to make a living in a sparsely populated area known for weather extremes. They are really good for learning to read with and growing that skill with. I was so happy to be dropping this in new texts on Dec. 24. And I was gracious too! Not pursuing the original and leaving it for its public domain day!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• RaboKarbakian: Actually, it will be in 1932+95+1=2028 for Little House in the Big Woods (the first book), while Little House on the Prairie, the third book, will enter the public domain in 2031 (as it was published in 1935). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 08:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Na Pule Kahiko.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyrighted in the US until 2058 (see also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Na Pule Kahiko.djvu)

1983 work, and the source listed proved to be be a 'limited access' version. I suspect the work is still in copyright. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It's listed on the Commons work page as CC-BY-SA, but we'd need solid evidence for that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, clearly copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)