Wikisource:Copyright discussions

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'

Index:Donegal Fairy Stories (1915).djvu

The specfic edition is clearly a pre 1928 US edition. However, I'm not on doing a little reading convinced it's suitable for hosting on Commons. The author wrote this in Ireland in 1900, The author of the text died in 1960. Applying a standard 70 year term, this may still be in copyright outside the US until 2030. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: To the best of my knowledge, the book was first published in the USA in New York in 1900 by an American publisher and the nationality of the author doesn't matter per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom ("A work, other than a broadcast, can qualify for copyright protection in either of two ways: by the nationality of the author, or by the country of first publication. [...] However, a work made before 1 June 1957, can only qualify for copyright protection by its country of first publication; not by the author's nationality. [...] If a work is first published in only one country, which is a party to the Berne Convention, then that is the country of origin. [...] If two or more Berne Convention countries qualify, and not all of them are in the EEA (such as Canada, the US, or Australia), then the Berne Convention country with the shortest applicable copyright term determines the copyright term within the UK, if it is shorter than the normal term for such work under UK law.")

But I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me. That said, it might have been a better idea to find and proofread the 1900 edition. --Ssvb (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, County Donegal is not a part of the UK, now I'm not so sure anymore. Seumas MacManus seems to be categorized as a British author on Wikidata. --Ssvb (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ireland is complicated. From 1800 to 1922, all of Ireland was under UK governance, but at the end of 1922 five-sixth of Ireland gained independence. See w:History of Ireland (1801–1923) for more information. So, when the book was published, MacManus was a UK author, but by 1923, he was no longer a UK author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey: Since the copyright situation is obscure for the non-lawyer folks like us (MacManus even relocated to the USA before 1922 and probably was an American citizen by that time), can we just move the djvu file from Commons to Wikisource and be done with that? --Ssvb (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

See also the Deletion discussion at Commons. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb: It seems nobody dares to get into the discussion in Commons. However, you can surely work on this book safely, because even if it were finally deleted from Commons, we will move it to en.ws immediately, and so it will not affect our index page at all. I will keep this discussion opened until Commons come to some solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Letter of resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted for missing license--Jusjih (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

A letter from Barack Obama to his former church written during the campaign season in 2008. This does not seem to be an official work of his as a Senator, and I can find no evidence that he put this work under a free licence. —FPTI (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Other of the Author:Barack Obama/Letters might also have copyright problems. FPTI (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@FPTI: Agree. Do you think you could list the other problematic letters here too? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say almost all of them, but reading through them I see he advocated for debates to be published under free licenses in 2008, such as in Barack Obama's Letter regarding the Open Debate Coalition and Barack Obama's Letter to Howard Dean. This makes me think he might have done the same at his website or something. Will have to look more into it. FPTI (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jusjih (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Index:Raggle-Taggle 1933.djvu

Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Raggle-Taggle (Starkie, 1933). I suggest the uploader pauses and does a little checking of previous uploads. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00: Absolutely check my other uploads!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern page 19 image.jpg

The deletion rationale at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern page 19 image.jpg still seems valid to me (I think). If that's so, then the license is wrong - it's not a public domain work of the US government, it's an all-rights-reserved image by Norfolk Southern Corporation (it even says so at the bottom!) - which means that we can't host this image at all. Duckmather (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Duckmather: As this is a copyright issue, I have moved it to our copyright discussion board and changed the template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Commons has determined (in a lengthy discussion with dozens of participants) that such images are allowed. This discussion (with only one comment besides my own) is not sufficient to change Commons consensus on that issue. In addition, this image (and many like it) are also considered acceptable here. Just as I explained in the deletion discussion on Commons, by being included within a Supreme Court opinion it becomes a part of the opinion, and is thus in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Constitution of Serbia

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Not undeleted, public domain status of the translation not proven.

User:No.cilepogača has challenged the deletion of the text of Constitution of Serbia, see User talk:Jan.Kamenicek#Constitution of Serbia, so I decided to start this undeletion discussion. For the related copyright discussion see WS:Copyright discussions/Archives/2024#Constitution of Serbia.

No.cilepogača has provided a link to an "official" publication of the English text at https://propisi.pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/content/800. However, there is only a small part of the text, not the full text, which is behind a paywall accessible for paying subscribers only. At the bottom of the linked page there is a copyright note: ©2009–2005 — Службени гласник РС. The publisher Sluzhbeni Glasnik seems to be a business company (aktivno privredno drushtvo) according to https://www.slglasnik.com/sites/default/files/pdf/o_nama/podaci-o-preduzecu.pdf. There is no sign of the English translation having been published under a free licence and so I still do not see any proof of the English translation of the constitution being in the public domain. Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

aktivno privredno društvo just means it's just active enterprise. Its legal form is javno preduzeće (state-owned enterprise). No.cilepogača (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Though surely that is irrelevant if they haven't actually published the full text of the English translation under a free licence ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

1973 Royal Command Convoking NPA

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

No indication of the source of the translation, no sign of that text when I search. The original contributor included "The document is translated from the Thai version by Chanathip Pinngoen, first-year student (30 May 2008) of Thammasat University's Faculty of Law", though that text was later removed by another. (It may be that the translation was by the original contributor, but I don't see that was stated, and cannot see that we are likely to be able to confirm that.) -- Beardo (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Address to the American Society of Corporate Secretaries

Seeing as copyright in Pakistan lasts the author's life + 70 years, this work is still under copyright there until 2028 as the author died in 1958. This means that this speech couldn't gave entered the public domain there prior to URAA, meaning, in turn, it won't be in the public domain in the United States for a long while. Norbillian (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that the speech was delivered in the US, it is likely that it counts as a U.S. origin work for copyright purposes, so {{PD-US-no-notice}} may apply rather than the URAA. E.g. if the text was published by the society in their monthly publication or something. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

HathiTrust comes up with one volume when searching for "my first experience of corporate secretaries at close quarters.", that is https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003007685 , a 1994 Islamabad text. I'd like to see a usable source before publishing this, as speeches weren't publication. (https://www.patrasbokhari.com/content/address-american-society-corporate-secretaries has an online copy, and is possibly the immediate source. No printed source, though.)

If we keep the author page, we should move it; Wikipedia gives his name as "Syed Ahmed Shah Bokhari (Urdu: سید احمد شاہ بخاری)" and HathiTrust as "Pat̤ras, Aḥmad Shāh Buk̲h̲ārī, 1898-1958." (and no promises the latter came through correctly.) https://www.patrasbokhari.com/content/background-pen-name-patras says Patras is a pen name and gives Pir Syed Ahmed Shah Bokhari as his full name. He published “Ancient Greek Rulers and Their Thinking” in 1919, but I don't know whether that was in English; reading his biography, it's entirely plausible he's published in English before 1930.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that there are two author pages - one spelt Patras and the other Patrus. -- Beardo (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As a note: edit summaries are important. Edit summaries when you're proposing to delete a work are essential, so they stand out to any seeing it on a watchlist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Address in Books and World Culture

Published 1958, so is not PD-US as claimed. Not PD-UN as claimed either, as it has nothing to do with the UN. I do not see another reason why this would be PD or compatible. — Alien  3
3 3 11:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Similar to above, we need a source to evaluate, and see if {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-no-renewal}} applies as a U.S. origin work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. According to this Web-site, the only source for the text, it was first published in Approaches to the Oriental Classics, which is copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  According to wikipedia, he was "Undersecretary of the UN, Head of Information" but would that make it a UK work ? The user created three works, this and the one above and one which was a UN press conference. Also they created Author:Patrus Bokhari as a duplicate of Author:Patras Bokhari. -- Beardo (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  Even if so, per {{PD-UN}} we would need an official UN source for it that makes it an official record or an official UN document. Merely being at a UN Press conference isn;t sufficient. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Constitutions of Syria (1953) and (1973)

Constitution of Syria (1953) and Constitution of Syria (1973)'s originals were surely {{PD-EdictGov}}, but we have no translator information, and as english isn't one of the country's official languages, it seems unlikely to me that the constitution's source would be in english. The Middle East Journal, the source for (53) is marked © 1953 Middle East Institute, and does not indicate any translation information. (73) is published on UNHCR site, with a disclaimer on it that says Disclaimer: This is not a UNHCR publication, and as such is probably not eligible for {{PD-UN}}. Does someone know why this would be PD? — Alien  3
3 3 06:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Lucy Etheldred Broadwood

Per Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2023#Lucy Etheldred Broadwood, Lucy Etheldred Broadwood and related pages should have been undeleted at the start of this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Contemporarily published Lovecraft poems

I’ve been going through Lovecraft’s works which are held here and scan-backing them; so far, I have added his writings from two major amateur periodicals, and will be working on and off on works published in other obscure, scattered issues. I have also been looking through his Author: page, and have made the following list (only of poems, so far) of works which were published in modern, copyrighted collections.

• Arcadia (Lovecraft)
• Dead Passion's Flame
• On the Creation of Niggers
• The Poem of Ulysses, or The Odyssey
• Tosh Bosh
• Waste Paper

The index for the third poem should be deleted, as well; it is a manuscript, which was not published (and not even clearly Lovecraft’s, but that’s besides the point). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that the copyvio template should be added after the header, not before.

Do you have details of where these were first published ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Beardo: That has never been the practice, so far as I am aware; the template blocks out the entire page, because it is placed at the very top. As for the original source, “Tosh Bosh” and “Waste Paper” were first published in A Winter Wish, and the others in The Ancient Track. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  You need to keep the header so that people know what the work is (and who wrote it). The template page says "Add the template to the top of the work after the completion of {{header}}". Whilst not particularly clear, what else can that mean ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

So, what exactly is "On the Creation of Niggers"—something I ask because with over 2,000 page views per month, it is literally one of the most viewed works on the entire site? Was it a poem genuinely written by Lovecraft, or is there some confusion about this? If it was actually by him and was indeed written in 1912, it may be keepable as an unpublished work, since Lovecraft died in 1938, and the manuscript clearly credited him, didn't it? So that would mean it wasn't anonymous or pseudonymous, which means that as an unpublished work it would follow the 70-year-PMA rule (apparently). If the poem is legitimate, in WS:PD terms it can be kept IMO since, though it was a rather bizarre work, it was the output of a clearly notable author.

By the way, Wikipedia says on this matter that "in this period [Lovecraft] also wrote racist poetry, including "New-England Fallen" and "On the Creation of Niggers", but there is no indication that either were published during his lifetime." and cites "Joshi 2010a, p. 138; de Camp 1975, p. 95." as its reference for that statement. SnowyCinema (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There's that source, and it seems that nobody familiar with the subject actually claims it's not his. There's a mimeographed copy, which implies to me that he did distribute freely without notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• SnowyCinema: It is only attributed to him, which is why the attribution is usually upheld; but there is no external evidence indicating that it is his poem. (Incidentally, “New England Fallen” is in the public domain.) The cut-off date for unpublished works was 2003 (according to the Hirtle chart), and The Ancient Track was first published in 2001, so that poem is indeed copyrighted. Wikipedia is certainly correct in saying that neither were published during his lifetime; “New England Fallen” was first seen in Beyond the Wall of Sleep, a 1943 collection (with issues on the renewal end which let a few works enter the public domain), while The Ancient Track has no such copyright issues. Prosfilaes: I don’t think that’s true: only one copy is known to exist, which may not even have been made by Lovecraft, and none of his extant letters reference the poem at all. The mimeographed copy was likely made by someone else, even if Lovecraft did write the poem. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  The source of that document - https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:425397/ - does say "no copyright" - but with no indication of the reason for that statement. -- Beardo (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Beardo: That same claim is made on all of their manuscripts of his works not published in his lifetime; for instance, this poem, not published until the Selected Letters of the 1970s (and certainly copyrighted thereby), is marked as being without copyright in the same manner. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)