Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2025

Address by Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, at the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly, 27 September 2008

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced by a copyright free version.

{{PD-RU-exempt}}, as far as translations are concerned, only puts official translation in the public domain. However, this, taken from [1], is explicitly marked as an unofficial translation, has no mention of PD status, and has, at the bottom of the page: © The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. — Alien  3
3 3 10:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The official UN record of the speech is here: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/638006/files/A_63_PV.14-EN.pdf?ln=en which as an official record the copyright should be {{PD-UN}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That translation is very different (diff), but nevertheless, we can replace the current one by it. — Alien  3
3 3 13:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

done, Withdrawing. — Alien  3
3 3 13:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hawaii approved for national crop insurance program

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: under a non-commercial license

This is the work of a state government, and I'm not clear on if the State of Hawaii releases its news releases without copyright. The website terms of service states: "Duplication or use of any content from this web site for commercial purposes or in any manner likely to give the impression of official approval by the State of Hawaiʻi is prohibited." Wikisource is non-commercial, and I don't think we give the impression of official approval; regardless, thought I ought to post it here. FPTI (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete: We are not commercial, but we only accept works which allow sharing under CC-BY-SA conditions, which allow commercial use. See WS:COPY#definition. — Alien  3
3 3 07:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Clear  Delete per original nomination and Alien's comment. -Pete (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 18:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela's inaugural address

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: public domain status not proven

I do not see a reason why this 1994 speech should be PD. The stated licenses, {{PD-SA-speech-1996}} (which is anyway not a US tag) and {{PD-1996}}, do not apply, as they both require the work to be published before 1989. It does not fall under {{PD-SAGov}}, because it is a speech, and not an "official text" "of a legislative, administrative or legal nature". — Alien  3
3 3 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2022 on The Nation's Capital

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: public domain status not proven

No source or license is given for this translation, and I cannot find its text anywhere on the web, so I do not see any reason why we could assume it is PD. — Alien  3
3 3 15:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. In any event, this seems incomplete, only having the preamble and first two article, whilst the version here - https://jdih.bappenas.go.id/data/peraturan/2022uu003Eng.pdf - has 45 articles. -- Beardo (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Debbie Does Dallas

The following discussion is closed:

Kept per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Debbie Does Dallas, which was withdrawn by nominator (and from available votes, would have passed consensus at Commons anyhow). SnowyCinema (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Though the video portion of the film is in the public domain, the soundtrack, from which most of this transcription is sourced, possibly is not. This film was first published in 1978, which means that it is governed by the Copyright Act of 1976. That act required a copyright notice (or registration within five years) only for material that "can be visually perceived". The soundtrack (which is excluded from the act's definition of "sound recording" because it accompanies a motion picture, and thus does not have to follow the formalities that were required for sound recordings) is heard, not seen, so it is not visually perceived. For those that have access, this is talked about in 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.06. prospectprospekt (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section shall be placed on all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." The work is the motion picture, defined as "‘‘Motion pictures’’ are audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any." An audiovisual work can be "visually perceived", so it needs a notice. If it doesn't have the notice, the audiovisual work loses its copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If not, then it's not covered by copyright law. Copyright law covers motion pictures and sound recordings as works, not soundtracks of motion pictures. It has no separate existence in the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prospectprospekt: I strongly suggest this should be brought up at Commons if there is a concern about a film's contents, especially if they're aside from the dialogue etc. The soundtrack, since there were no lyrical songs, is not replicated in our transcription of the film, and the video of the film is used on several projects, and while I can't give you a summary right now as I have to run in a minute, Commons has precedent already to keep movies of that description. The gist of it is that audiovisual works don't have copyrighted soundtracks, unless the soundtracks were copyrighted separately (such as in a music sheet or record published beforehand). SnowyCinema (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

(And even if a few of the soundtracks were copyrighted separately, they are such a minimal focus in a film focused on sexual arousal that I feel like some of that could be overlooked as de minimis, but it's not my call.) SnowyCinema (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on Commons at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Debbie Does Dallas. prospectprospekt (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. The courts seem to be clear on this. —FPTI (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: SnowyCinema (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)