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'

The Apostle and the Wild Ducks and The Spice of Life and Other Essays

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Collections deleted as their public domain status was not proven. The individual essays, excluding those, which were published earlier and were checked to be identical with our texts, were deleted too.

Two collection of essays by G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), published in 1975 and 1964. The ones in the latter are asserted (in the notes field) to have been never previously published. The other has no similar note.

My head isn't cooperating just now, so I'm dropping them here for help. We need to check the status of these, especially the allegedly unpublished ones, and update the listing. I suspect most of these are PD, including some of the ones currently tagged as being in copyright. It'd be nice to get these cleaned up properly. Xover (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• As collections, they should be deleted eventually, although they should be kept for now to facilitate copyright research on the individual essays. The note in The Spice of Life and Other Essays says, “None of them has appeared in a collection before.” They have, however, appeared in periodicals before. For example, the first essay in that collection, “Sentimental Literature”, first appeared in The Speaker for July 27, 1901. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Aha! Yes, that makes it even more likely these are mostly PD. Xover (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Collections have their own copyright, and having the table of contents and links to the individual essays here is probably too much. We can have the individual essays here, but not reproduce their headings and orderings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Collection copyrights are dumb. :-(

Anybody made any progress on identifying source of original publication for these, or alternate (PD) collections to which we could source them? Xover (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: “A Sermon on Cheapness,” The Speaker, March 29, 1902. The top of this page lists the sources, which are presumably correct. A lot of his articles were printed in the Daily News, as detailed in G.K. Chesterton at the Daily News. These stories should be listed on his Author: page, moved to top-level pages, and migrated over when sources can be found. Quite a bit of The Speaker is on Internet Archive, for example. After this, the collections can be deleted, as they are copyrighted. As for alternate collections, these all seem to be short pieces not previously published in book form, which is why they show up in collections. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you! Xover (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Apostle and the Wild Ducks is already solved and deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• The Spice of Life and Other Essays/Fiction as Food, Part 2 was found in T. P.'s Weekly, vol. 11 (1911), but it is not absolutely the same: It is called there differently ("Novel-reading"), is divided into sections with its own titles, and above all it has a different last paragraph. So unless somebody will rework it, it will have to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Soul in Every Legend found in The New witness v.17-18 Jan.-Dec. 1921, but there are differences in the text. Thus, the move is not possible as the text from the weekly needs to be proofread anew.
• Cannot find The Everlasting Nights anywhere to check them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • “The Everlasting Nights” was first published in the November 7, 1901, edition of the Daily News. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, that is stated in G.K. Chesterton at the Daily News, but the problem is that this edition seems nowhere available and so it cannot be checked. As it was shown above, many essays published in this collection were changed in comparison with the originals, and so we cannot simply move them unless they are checked against the original edition. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    • I have been working on getting copies of Chesterton’s writings in the Daily News, but they have not been easily forthcoming. In any case, as to your point below, it is better to keep a text that to delete where, as here, there is no noticeable copyrightable difference. While these should all, eventually, be migrated, I do not believe that that is necessary to preserve them from deletion now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

      That is really great if you plan to get the copies of the particular issues of Daily News, but I think the essays should be transcribed anew from these issues. We should not simply migrate the texts from this collection under the headings of the Daily News, because the texts in the collection often differ (sometimes more sometimes less) from the original editions in Daily News. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Aesop's Fables were published as an Introduction to V. S. Vernon Jones' translation of Aesop's fables. Imo would be better not to excerpt it from the rest of the publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC) There are also some differences in paragraphing and some minor typography, so it cannot be just moved/copied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• As Large as Life in Dickens was possibly published in The Daily News, 8 February 1902, but cannot be found to be checked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Charlotte Bronte as a Romantic was published in id=wu.89088290648&seq=61 Charlotte Brontë; 1816-1916 : a centenary memorial, but that text differs in paragraphing + various typography, including different spelling of Bronte/Brontë, so it would needs to be transcribed anew anyway.

After checking those above, I am not sure if it is worth the effort to check the rest. Imo it is not a good idea simply to move a transcription from some edition under a different title, I believe that each edition should always be transcribed separately, and so I suggest to delete the subpages too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless opposed, I will delete it soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

So I deleted the The Spice of Life and Other Essays and its subpages. However, the same imo applies also to all the other alleged articles of The Daily News (London), T.P.'s Weekly, The World (London), The Eye-Witness, The New Witness, The Speaker + four articles from The Illustrated London News (1, 2, 3 and 4), which were moved there from the subpages of The Apostle and the Wild Ducks. They should be kept only if verified that they are really the same texts. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A Gent from Bear Creek (novella)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

This Robert Howard novella, according to the description on the page, was initially published in the UK in 1937 and later in the US in 1966. It cites a Gutenburg AU project that presents works in the public domain in Australia. There is no copyright banner on the page, and while I may be missing some nuance, it's hard to see where it would have lapsed into the public domain under US law, which is necessary by Wikisource's copyright policy. -Pete (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The PG notice is not for A Gent from Bear Creek (novella), but A Gent from Bear Creek (short story), which is also a chapter of A Gent from Bear Creek (novella).

As published after 1963, it's not eligible for {{PD-no-renewal}}, but as this is wholly unsourced and I couldn't find a scan of it I can't check for {{PD-US-no-notice}}.

I'd say  Delete as we can't establish a certainty that this is PD. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 12:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: The short story (and possibly the others) may also need to be deleted. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 14:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. The book is a fix-up novella, containing original short stories adapted to form the chapter of a continuous narrative. All were previously published in magazines (most of them in Action Stories). Which means we have the copyright status of the original short stories (first publication) to contend with, where "was copyright transferred to the publisher"-type problems are in play, in addition to the new copyright for the (modified) versions in the 1937 fix-up novella. And just to add insult to injury this edition is so rare that there are only 11 copies known in private hands and 7 in libraries, so checking one for the presence or absence of a copyright notice is… challenging. The 1965 US edition is known to have a copyright page which also lists that as the "First American Edition", so it was not simultaneously published in the US.

ISFD is a great resource for researching Howard works. Here is the overview for the novel (including links to overviews for the individual stories). Here is the overview for the first edition. And here is the first US edition. Xover (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: At least one of the British Isles libraries which owns it should be willing to send me a scan (of the copyright information); I’ve just sent for one. I’ll report back here once that happens. Hopefully it will have more detailed information on the original sources of the short stories. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Are there any news from the libraries? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Unless some new information emerges, I will delete the work in a short time as a copyvio. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW

There is a concern by Wound theology at Talk:Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW: The copyright template here notes that the source was "legally published within the United States" but the definition of legally published is clearly not applicable here: Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending [...] A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: This ideally should be sent to Commons to sort out there, because really it should be deleted everywhere if it's deleted here. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Started that deletion discussion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Max Headroom broadcast intrusion.webm. Please take further comments there. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah Q and Others

This sucks... but it's possible that all the translations in this collection were previously published in China-based journals such as T'ien Hsia Monthly, The China Journal of Arts and Sciences, and China Today. Since Wang Chi-chen was born in China, all of these translations were possibly restored by the URAA, provided that they weren't initially published or reprinted within 30 days in The Far Eastern Magazine. Prospectprospekt (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

According to Wang Baorong's PhD thesis "Lu Xun's fiction in English translation: the early years", "Our Story of Ah Q" was serialized in the November 1935, December 1935 and January 1936 issues of the New York based magazine China Today. "Cloud over Luchun" and "Sister Sianglin" (renamed "The Widow" in Ah Q and Others) were respectively published in the October and November 1938 issues of the also New York based Far Eastern Magazine. "My Native Heath", "The Diary of a Madman", "A Cake of Soap", "The Divorce", "Reunion in a Restraint" and "The Story of Hair" were "especially translated", which I presume to mean that they were not published before their inclusion in the collection.

So, provided that China Today and the Far Eastern Magazine were published without notice/renewal, the only possibly problematic stories are "A Hermit at Large" and "Remorse", which were respectively published in the May and August 1940 issues of the Shanghai-based T'ien Hsia Monthly. Prospectprospekt (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if China Today and the Far Eastern Magazine were published with a notice (which is quite possible they were not), there is no record about the copyright renewal. So, based on the analysis above, I agree with deleting just the two stories "A Hermit at Large" and "Remorse". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Letter of resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ

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)

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)

Speeches by James Chichester-Clark

• Northern Ireland Prime Minister’s speech on 17 August 1969
• Northern Ireland Prime Minister’s speech on 24 March 1972

The texts are two speeches by Northern Ireland Prime Minister James Chichester-Clark (1923-2002). Per c:COM:UK, the standard copyright period of the United Kingdom is 70 years p.m.a., which means the texts will enter British public domain in 2039 and 2042. If Crown copyright applies, then they entered British public domain in 2019 and 2022. However, as both cases exceed the URAA date of 1996-01-01, and normal political speeches are not eligible as edict of government in the United States, the texts are very likely to be copyrightable and not within U.S public domain.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that if they are owned by the crown, there are likely covered by https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/waiver-information.pdf ("Text of ministerial speeches and articles") and hence licensed under the OGL and eligible for inclusion (e.g. a speech published by the current government https://www.northernireland.gov.uk/articles/crown-copyright "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website ... under the terms of the Open Government Licence.) My only hesitation is around the exact ownership arrangements of the Northern Ireland government at the time, MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

No source given, though it looks like the same translation as in Treaty Series, vol. 1498 (1997), which is copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Greek Declaration of Independence

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

There is no source given and I failed to find any evidence that this translation is in the public domain. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical Affairs Act of South Korea

The English translation comes from https://law.go.kr/LSW/eng/lawEngBodyCompareInfoP.do?lsNm=%EC%95%BD%EC%82%AC%EB%B2%95&lsId=001783&efYd=20241022&lsiSeq=265945&gubun=EngLs&ancYnChk=undefined . Using Google Translate I had a look at their copyright policy as for translations, and there is written "Please use it as a reference only as the foreign language is not an official translation", see here. For this reason I think we cannot apply {{PD-EdictGov}} here. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

When combined with the "reference only" statement, I believe the term "official translation" means that this English translation has no legal effect and cannot be relied on legal purpose. Unless we can confirm that it is not translated by the South Korean Government, I would vote for  Keep.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

They are translated and copyrighted by Korea Legislation Research Institute. While it is a government-funded research institute but still claiming copyright for its translations. "Commercial use and modification of the work are prohibited" (link 1) "Any unauthorized duplication and dissemination of the material prepared and posted by KLRI is prohibited." (link 2)

I'm not sure about the copyright status of translations uploaded on the Court and the Constitutional Court's website, where they granted free use (link 3, link 4) but for the Supreme Court, it says that the translation was made by KLRI. (link 5).--Namoroka (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: Both the disclaimers of the court and constitutional court specify (at least if DeepL is right), respectively, The materials provided on the court's website, to which the court owns all the intellectual property rights, may be freely used without separate permission, and The materials provided on the Constitutional Court's website, for which the Constitutional Court holds all of the intellectual property rights, may be used freely without separate permission (all emphasis mine.) As these are translated and copyrighted by the KLRI, the court and constitutional court do not own all the intellectual property rights, and therefore these releases do not apply, and this is indeed copyrighted. — Alien  3
3 3 08:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the English translation of the Constitutional Court was carried out independently by the Constitutional Court. So it should be kept. There is no evidence that it was done by KLRI.--Namoroka (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you give a link to this other translation? This version of the text, at least, was translated by the KLRI according to the source it gives. (If we find another version (which I did not manage to do), that is freely license, that can be kept, but not this version.) — Alien  3
3 3 08:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other English versions except for the translation by KLRI.

It seems confusing to mention all three different items at once. 1) Legal law texts (like Pharmaceutical Affairs Act): KLRI carried out the English translation. 2) Court rulings (like 2000Hu3418): KLRI carried out the English translation. 3) Constitutional Court rulings (like 2004HunMa554): The Constitutional Court carried out the English translation. Therefore, my opinion is that #1 and #2 should be deleted, and #3 should be kept.--Namoroka (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the translation of KLRI eligible for use under {{PD-EdictGov}} because it is 'a any translation prepared by a government employee'? KLRI also acknowledges that their works are part of public works. They states in copyright policy that, "According to Article 24-2 of the Copyright Act (Free Use of Public Works), works for which the KLRI holds all intellectual property rights or has obtained the rights holder's consent for the free use indication ... can be freely used without separate permission." The copyright policy on the English legislation website states that "copyright belongs to KLRI."--Namoroka (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that #3 should be kept.

KLRI is funded by the government, so I think (?) that we can say that its employees are government employees, and so it is PD in the US under {{PD-EdictGov}}, and can be kept.

(For copyright in Korea, the copyright policy seems to state that these works are under the w:Korea Open Government Licenses, as opposed to being released really unconditionally. Only the first of these four licenses is compatible with our copyright policy (it is roughly a {{CC-BY-SA}} equivalent), and I could not find under which license is this precise work. However, this is irrelevant to us as here only US copyright matters.) — Alien  3
3 3 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, only {{KOGL Type 1}} is allowed in Wikimedia projects. However, in this case, these works are not released in KOGL. / KLRI is classified as a "non-classified public institution" (기타공공기관) under Korean law. I am legally unsure whether employees of this institution would be considered as "government employees" under U.S. law.--Namoroka (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

An entity being funded by the government does not make its employees government employees (the government funds a lot of stuff, including aerospace, weapons, private labs in all sorts of fields, etc.). Even if they were goverment employees the edicts of government doctrine would not apply: it covers works that either 1) have the force of law (i.e. the text of a law) or 2) whose author for copyright purposes is a competent legislative assembly. Edicts of government covers a Korean-language original law when it is on the books, but not its translations unless the translations themselves have force of law (very very rare; I've never seen it in practice) or were translated by a competent legislative assembly (sometimes happens, typically under work-for-hire type arrangements). Xover (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If so, we should delete #1 and #2 unless they are translated by Wikisource user or someone else.--Namoroka (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they are under some KOGL: works for which the Korea Institute of Law and Justice holds all intellectual property rights or has received the consent of the right holder for free use are marked with the ‘Korea Open Government License’ and can be used freely without separate permission. (from [1]). But I don't know if it's {{KOGL Type 1}} or the others.

(For information, non-classified public institutions are part of public institutions, defined by the Public Records Management Act as The term "public institution" means a State agency, a local government and any other institution prescribed by Presidential Decree) — Alien  3
3 3 13:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

They release only selective works under KOGL like this. There should be KOGL mark. Not everything is automatically under KOGL unless specified.--Namoroka (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for me, sorry. — Alien  3
3 3 13:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Equal Employment Opportunity And Work Family Balance Assistance Act of South Korea

Same as above, the source being https://law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=1&query=EQUAL+EMPLOYMENT+OPPORTUNITY+AND+WORK-FAMILY+BALANCE+ASSISTANCE+ACT#liBgcolor0 . -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete also, as the KLRI copyrights its translations. — Alien  3
3 3 08:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wimbo wa Kimataifa

English re-translation of the Kiswahili translation of the Internationale. The Kiswahili version is claimed to have been translated by the Communist Party Marxist Kenya. As this party was founded in 1992, it is most likely still copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The song was translated by the chairperson of the Communist Party of Kenya, see their records. Or what does your statement mean - that it is still copyrighted? Anne Waithera (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As the party was founded in 1992, this was translated after 1992, and so it is not public domain by its age.

Pending evidence that this has been released into the public domain or a compatible license (list), we have to assume that it cannot be hosted here and delete it. — Alien  3
3 3 13:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:JS Journal Volume 1 No 1 Dec 1946.pdf

Absent evidence of simultaneous publication in the US, copyright was likely restored by the URAA. prospectprospekt (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hawaii approved for national crop insurance program

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)

To Restore America

This 1976 Reagan campaign speech was not made during his tenure either as governor or president (see the row in w:Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan#Speeches), and so it is not {{PD-USgov}} as claimed. I do not see another reason why this would be PD. — Alien  3
3 3 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. It was published without a copyright notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this seems quite like the case of Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. It'd be nice if CBS had fought that, but the main difference is that Reagan didn't immediately register it (though he did register a book of speeches a few years later that may include it).--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela's inaugural address

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)

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

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)