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'

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)

  I suppose you the discussion you're talking about is this one? Let's quote the close:

  The included copyrighted content is de minimis in the whole document. It doesn't say everything included in a SC opinion is public domain; it only says that these lyrics there are de minimis, compared to the opinion they are in. The question here is, then, to determine whether here this image is or is not de minimis. That discussion doesn't give a blanket approval to any and all documents contained in an SC opinion.

  However this content may not be uploaded as a separate file, because in that case it cannot be de minimis in itself. — Alien  3
  3 3 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the de minimis determination in the Commons DR and believe page 19 of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern should be altered to include something along the lines of {{image removed}} or {{FIS|file=removed}} since although Commons (and perhaps some of our other sister WMF wikis) allows some de minimis fair use, Wikisource does not. Context matters and should not be taken out of context. —Uzume (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Kassaman

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

The national anthem of Algeria. The lyrics were written in 1955 by Mufdi Zakariah, who died in 1977. Contrary to popular belief, national anthems are not necessarily in the public domain, either in their home country nor in the US.

According to commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria, the copyright would have expired in Algeria in 2002 (1977+25). If I understand correctly, this would have made it copyrighted in the US under URAA until 2027. Furthermore, according to this article, Zakariah's heirs transferred the copyright for Kassaman to the Algerian government in 2017. This, I believe, is sufficient evidence that there is no exemption for Kassaman in Algerian copyright law. And since a national anthem is not an edict of government, there is no exemption in US law either.

And finally there is the matter of translation. The English translation appears to be based on the translation in National Anthems of the World (1960), which is still under copyright. The text has been revised since then, but not fully rewritten, so IMO the translation we have is still copyvio. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear Motherland

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

Specifically the translation. The same translation appears in Encyclopedia of National Anthems (2003), which credits the source as this defunct website. There is no copy of this page in the Wayback Machine, so I believe we must consider this to probably be copyvio. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Children Prayer

This translation is copied from something that very likely copied it from Wikipedia. At any rate, the translation is not attributed to a PD source, and I haven't managed to find one for it. — Alien  3
3 3 16:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. For reference, the translation on Wikipedia was originally copied from here, which only states "English Translation By: Unknown Source". —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's farewell speech to the United Nations Security Council

Claims to be {{PD-UN}}, however I could not find any UN-published, official, record of it, or containing it. I'm not sure that having been said at the UN makes it public domain. Note: when this gets deleted, also delete Author:Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, as having no works in scope. — Alien  3
3 3 16:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

About the author, I would have thought that there should be works in scope - though not listed on that page. Also, should that page have all those detailed descriptions of the books ? (Which I guess are under copyright anyway.) -- Beardo (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The record is hosted here: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/586026 paragraphs 58-84. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, good, thanks for finding that. I need to get better at finding stuff. — Alien  3
3 3 13:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There are several copies of a film of the speech - or perhaps several links to the same copy. I haven't watched to see if they are complete. And the official report does not include the (Ripping papers) at the end. The only texts that I can see with that are drawn from our version. -- Beardo (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Re finding stuff, that is one of the main value adds of Wikisource, especially when we have accurate sourcing information. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

(What I meant was that I'm not very good at having a transcription and searching for a source, as opposed to having a source and transcribing it.) — Alien  3
3 3 13:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

That was my point, digging this stuff out is hard. Going from Author:Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto --> speech --> source is a huge bonus to have a reliable transcription as a user as opposed to having to know how to search the UN site to find the same thing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

See also the newly started discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's farewell speech to the United Nations Security Council. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Cusco Declaration

As pointed out by User:Beardo on the talk page of this work, the translation source is still unidentified. This English version should be assumed under copyright until a source is found that proves otherwise. SnowyCinema (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

El Gran Carlemany

National anthem of Andorra. The full translated text can be found only in modern publications or in various internet pages, without any sign of having been released under a free licence. (Besides, it is a compilation of two languages, the Catalan section does not belong to en.ws anyway) -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete - our translation appears to have been copied from Wikipedia, where it was uploaded without a source on 20 June 2003. I can't find any prior copies of this translation, so it is possible that this is an original translation by the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it, but without confirmation of this we should delete it as copyvio IMO. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Zebra Mussel Act filibuster

I am copying here the concern raised by Jan-Janko at Talk:Zebra Mussel Act filibuster:

I apologize if this is a moot point, as I'm not super familiar with Canadian copyright law. However, I am somewhat confused (by no means accusing anyone of anything, just unsure); would this be in the public record, as it was presumably open to the public, or would this fall under crown copyright? Their website certainly implies that they hold copyright over their work.

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging WanukeX. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You should put the {{copyvio}} after the header, so people can see what is the subject. -- Beardo (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Surely, the important issue is what is the US copyright status. This doesn't look like an edict of government - does it ? Is there anything else that would make it PD in the US ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Re US and Edict of government, I am not sure as legislative history, proceedings and votes are critically important for understanding the meaning and purpose of a particular statue, which is one of the main purposes of the public policy exemption. I am not sure about the case law around state legislative journals in the U.S. though or any statement / precedent here around actual floor speeches (as opposed to, say, committees and reports). If so, then I would still suspect it is crown copyright within Canada, as the UK has a different history of copyright. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is clearly in the public domain in the United States, which is what matters: it falls under Georgia v. PRO’s course-of-legislative-duties test. Canadian Crown copyright would come into play if the Hansard was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, but that discussion would happen there anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Clearly" - on what basis do you say that ? Edict of government is defined as "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." Does this come under that definition ? How is Georgia v PRO relevant here ? -- Beardo (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Beardo: It’s quite clear if you read the opinion—it is our description which is out of date. “In the same way that judges cannot be the authors of their headnotes and syllabi, legislators cannot be the authors of (for example) their floor statements, committee reports, and proposed bills. These materials are part of the ‘whole work done by [legislators],’ so they must be ‘free for publication to all.’” Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 9) (quoting Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253 (1888)). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea. - but how does that make this work an "edict of government" ? As I wrote , does this come under "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents" ? And does Georgia v PRO apply to non-US works ? If not, then, surely, the question of Canadian copyright then becomes important ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    Read the opinion. Where does it say "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal document" is the test? MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    "Rather than attempting to catalog the materials that constitute “the law,” the doctrine bars the officials responsible for creating the law from being considered the “author[s]” of “whatever work they perform in their capacity” as lawmakers." Which explicitly rejects listing a "catalog of materials" provided by your list: "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents." MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    @MarkLSteadman - w:Government edicts doctrine - if PD-EdictGov doesn't apply, what license does ? The case that you quote is a US case applying to US matters. But does it apply to Canadian matters as well ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    I'm not an expert in any of this by any means, but a quick reading of Georgia v. PRO seemed to highlight the state's relation to copyright more than anything. Presumably, as the SC only has jurisdiction within the United States, it would default to Canada's treatment of copyright law under the Berne Convention, right? The U.S. can dictate was is and isn't copyrightable in its own borders, but it has no say in what Canada can or can not copyright (and must enforce that copyright internationally through Berne). Jan-Janko (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    That case defines what is a government edict. It didn't address the part of the defintion: "This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." So any "edicts of government", i.e. how defined in Georgia v. PRO, by "foreign governments" counts. Re the Berne convention it explicitly covers "political speeches and speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings: "(1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to exclude, wholly or in part, from the protection provided by the preceding Article political speeches and speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings." So the U.S. has the right to define within its own's borders how to treat those.. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    OK, understood! Jan-Janko (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    • Beardo: Like I said, it is our statement of the government-edicts doctrine which is out of date; the Supreme Court’s formulation (as set down in Georgia v. PRO, the most recent case on the subject) is of course correct—and that formulation is not limited to “judicial opinions.” As for territorial application, you mistake Wikimedia Commons rules for actual law. On English Wikisource, we only care if the work is in the public domain in the United States, so Canadian law is not relevant unless U.S. law looks to foreign law for any reason. Under Georgia v. PRO, “edicts of government” cannot be copyrighted. This ruling is not limited to U.S. jurisdictions, just like the court case itself was not limited to only Georgia but applied to all of the States. The case’s effect is limited to the reach of U.S. courts, but the holding effects the works of all governments. My quote above could not be more clear: “legislators cannot be the authors of … their floor statements,” and thus, those statements are in the public domain (in the United States) as edicts of government. At no point in the edicts-of-government analysis is the copyright-related practice of the government brought into question; thus, Canadian law on the subject is not relevant to the analysis under U.S. law. Jan-Janko: As to the Berne Convention, international agreements such as treaties are below the Constitution; as the edicts-of-government test originates from the Constitution, any treaty seeking to go against that is null and void insofar as it requires any unconstitutional action. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Garet Garrett

Hi all! I realize that works prior to 1930 are not under copyright. But what about other years? After all, the author died over 70 years ago. Arxivist (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Refer to c:COM:HIRTLE for details, but in a nutshell:

• if a governement edict, then {{PD-EdictGov}}
• if first published 1930-1977 without conforming with US formalities, then {{PD-US-no-notice}}
• if first published 1930-1963 and not renewed (use the stanford database to check), then {{PD-US-no-renewal}}
• if first published 1930-1977 outside USA, and was PD in its home country in 1996, then {{PD-1996}}

There are a few rarer cases, but these are the 4 most common ones. In the case of the works by Garet Garrett that we have, Manifesto for the Atomic Age is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. — Alien  3
3 3 17:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. These nuances are known. I thought that the conditions for authors after 70 years from death in the USA are a bit different. I guess I won't take any chances with upload of works after 1930 Arxivist (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

For works created but not published until after 2002 by authors who died 70+ years ago, see {{PD-old-US}}. But yes the copyright for works after 1930 can be quite messy, especially for international works and translations, aside from US Government works / free-licensed works which generally are clear. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Kosovo is Serbia

The link to the source given on the talk page is dead and no other source that could confirm the translation being in the public domain can be found. In fact the full English translation cannot be found anywhere (just short quotations that could have been taken from our Wikisource page), so there are also considerable doubts whether it is in scope of Wikisource at all. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment There are two previous discussions on this work, neither without any useful information. Both discussions are limited to adding a license template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)