Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2007-08

No action

Public speeches in general

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to community discussion page

Hi, I saw above that public speeches where proposed for deletion. I thought that speeches were by nature in the public domain. I am asking because I intend to upload several public speeches by M. K. Gandhi made in England, in France, in Switzerland and in India. Are these OK? Yann 15:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We could really use some clarity on this topic. Public utterances, by a public figure, in a public place, were, I thought, at least in the US, not copyrightable. The specific recording made by a specific entity might be, but I thought a transcription was always OK. That's all my guesswork and I have no idea what really is true but knowing what would stand up in court and what would not strikes me as very useful. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Speeches are copyrightable in the U.S., and have been since at least the Copyright Act of 1909, which stated in its section 1:

"Any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this title, shall have the exclusive right:

[...]

(c) To deliver, authorize the delivery of, read, or present the copyrighted work in public for profit if it be a lecture, sermon, address or similar production, or other nondramatic literary work; to make or procure the making of any transcription or record thereof by or from which, in whole or in part, it may in any manner or by any method be exhibited, delivered, presented, produced, or reproduced; and to play or perform it in public for profit, and to exhibit, represent, produce, or reproduce it in any manner or by any method whatsoever."

For several concrete examples of speeches registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under this section, see Author talk:Martin Luther King, Jr..

M. K. Ghandi died in 1948. British and Indian copyright laws apply to his works but, whichever you choose, the U.S. copyrights were restored by 17 U.S.C. 104A on January 1, 1996 and run until 95 years after the date of publication. Indian copyrights expire on December 31, 2008; British copyrights expire ten years later. Physchim62 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So it is public domain if they do not make a transcription or recording (which someone has to do before we can get it)? What if someone else, independently of the orator makes the transcription? --Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright rests with the person who made the transcription. David Newton 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, at least in the UK and the evidence from the US points in the same direction. Copyright rests with the author of the words. If I dictate a letter, I choose the words, regardless of who actually types them. Transcribing a speech is not seen by copyright law as any more creative than photocopying a book; ie, not sufficiently creative to produce a new copyright. A sound recording of a speech is different under copyright law, but, if you transcribe the lyrics of a song from a recording, you infringe the copyright of the lyricist, not the singer (you may check the copyright credits in any teenage music magazine to confirm this). Physchim62 11:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand that example at all. If you are making a photocopy, the copyright status already existed in the original book. But when dictating, your spoken words had no copyright as they were intangible. The transcription is tangible, but it is not a creative work. I don't understand when copyright comes into play when dictating a letter. Is the transcription a derivative of the spoken dictation? If so, can a non-creative derivative of an uncopyrightable work become copyrightable? If so, how come a photocopy of a PD book is not considered copyrightable?--BirgitteSB 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But speeches are copyrightable. Martin Luther King delivered his famous speech I Have a Dream on August 28, 1963. It was registered at the U.S. Copyright Office on October 7, 1963, under reference A688840 (and again on October 18, 1963, under reference A653834), more than a month later. The copyright was renewed on December 6, 1991, by Loretta Scott King under references RE-560-426 and RE-560-427. The copyright has also been tested as far as the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Estate of Martin Luther King (a case whose transcript we really should have on Wikisource). The general rule is that copyright exists from the moment that a work is created in a tangiable form, and vests with the original author not any subsequent copier. Physchim62 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The MLK speech is totally different than dictating a letter and I disagree with you about the outcome of the "test" at the Appeals Court anyway (they disgreed with the reasoning behind the original ruling, whiich was in favor of the King Estate, and remanded it for determination). Plus the whole MLK case is based on pre-1979 limited vs general distribution which as no bearing on post-1979 works. Please stick to your example of dictating a letter, which is only two seperate works. A spoken work by the composer, and a written work by a transcriber. Do you really believe that the composer's work of speaking when dictating a letter is coptrighted to begin with? Or do you believe that the work of making a transcriction somehow grants a copyright? And what is your belief based on?--BirgitteSB 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset tags>I will deal first with my example of a letter, as you request. The secretary who is transcribing a dictated letter does not impart any "orginality" into his or her transcription: it is "slavishing copying", or a "sweat of the brow" work, constitutionally ineligible for copyright. Hence dictating a letter is only one work, not two as BirgitteSB pretends. I hope this replies to David Newton.
As for the MLK case (decided in 1999, so hardly ancient), it is indeed based on the Copyright Act of 1909 and not the Copyright Act of 1976 (which came into force in 1978, not 1979 as BirgitteSB pretends): as far as I'm concerned, all the better, as copyrights subsisting on January 1, 1978, were subsumed under the new regime (see chapter 3 of title 17) but it is harder to find commentaries about the old law and so it is in pre-1978 works where the greatest uncertainty lies.
A work of original authorship is copyrightable by the author if the legal requirements are met. These requirements have been simplified on many occasions since 1909, and no doubt there will continue to be debates on this pages as to whether particular (U.S.) works have fallen into the public domain. Similarly, the existance of an effective copyright has also been subject (in the past) to the fulfillment of certain legal requirements.
The United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment [13 F.Supp.2d 1347 (N.D.Ga.1998)] in favor of CBS (and not in favor of the King estate as BirgitteSB pretends): the case was then settled out of court. The ruling was 2-to-1 in favor of reversal, with the majority offering two distinct arguments as to why the "I have a Dream" had not actually been published when it was delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but only "performed". As such, Martin Luther King, Jr., retained his (at the time, in 1963) perpetual copyright in his "unpublished" work.
If I have a Dream can be copyrighted, despite being transmitted live on national television and radio, then, in principal, so can any other United States "literary work" which happens to have been delived as a speech. There is simply no grounds for a "speech exception" and no point wasting everybodies' time with the false problem of tangiable fixation: everything which appears on Wikisource is fixed in a tangiable form. Period. Physchim62 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all I think you misunderstand me on several points. I have always said that speeches are not publications. I have never said that I thought a speech is public domain because it is given "publicly". I have never understood how the "tangible" issue relates to this. Many of my questions have been to try and understand what other people think on that issue. I understand from the above that you think that anything which could be put on Wikisource must be tangible. I wonder what then would be an example of an intangible work? Why was such wording ever put into the law? What line is intended to be drawn by that wording?

As a final note, please understand that I have never claimed that I understand the copyright status of speeches or many other things. I have always tried to find answers from others and when I was given the impression something was neither a clear nor a pressing issue, I have directed my attention to rooting out the many clear violations of copyright on this project. If you wish to press forward on an unclear issue, you should expect to have to explain yourself, which is all I am asking. I am not trying to attack you here, I only wish to understand the issues. We are both people who care about copyright despite the fact we approach it with different priorities. Please assume that there is good faith behind my questions. They are sincere, if I thought I understood the issue I would be telling you what I thought not asking questions.--BirgitteSB 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly never wished to accuse you of bad faith: we all make mistakes, and it is only by confronting different sources that we are able to apply copyright law to the different Wikimedia projects (which weren't dreamt of when most copyright law was written). Physchim62 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly wish that the subject were clearer altogether.--BirgitteSB 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added an essay User:Physchim62/Copyright in speeches which explains why I think that speeches should be treated in the same way as other "literary works". All comments are welcome. Physchim62 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for your essay, but the first point of your argument seems to conclude that speeches are not copyrighted because there were not fixed in a tangible form. That's quite the opposite of what you say above. As for what I am concerned, I am quite sure that Gandhi didn't write down his speeches before hand. There are maybe a few exceptions. Secondly, which law has to be considered for his speeches? Indian law? the law of the place he was speaking? I cannot see how US law is relevent here. Regards, Yann 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed, covered by a larger discussion on the community discussion page. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:50:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NDP manifestos

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to community discussion page

• Manifesto for a Socialist Canada (1999)
• Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada (1969)

Both of these documents are works of the New Democratic Party of Canada (or more specifically, factions within the NDP). There is no reason to assume that the NDP has relinquished its copyright on either document. —Psychonaut 14:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're best awaiting a policy decision on whether texts released as "Manifestos" are going to be considered to have "opted-out" of inherent copyright...so I oppose deleting individual texts without a policy first in place. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει)} 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not our decision to make; it must be determined by the legislature and/or judiciary where the Wikisource servers are located. In the absence of such a decision, we must (regrettably) assume that copyright is in force. —Psychonaut 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A charming way of voting to delete while making it sound like you speak with gravitas, but it's really not - it is a policy decision, we are legally allowed to host works such as these under the rules of Canadian Crown Copyright, and of course some would claim fair use if nothing else (failing the NDP authors actually giving permission, which is also likely) - the issue is whether "their status" falls within Wikisource inclusion/copyright guidelines, not a matter of legislatures or judiciaries. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει)} 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. These documents do not in any way fall under Canadian Crown Copyright and pretending to do so is just a "charming way" of further confusing the discussion. As we have no reason to believe that the copyright has been released (especially not as regards modifications), such texts should not be the subject of special pleading. If Sherurcij knows the authors, he should ask them to email permissions-en at wikimedia dot org with the relevant permission. Physchim62 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The sexy part of being me, is that while I can be smug and arrogant, I can also be right. The "manifesto" is indeed free to distribute, edit, modify, publish, et al.

We do not require a guarantee with regard to what your readers may do./You are welcome to post our document under the circumstances you describe./ best wishes,/Barry

Forwarded to permissions@

Find me an author group for the 1969 one, I'll get the same response Sherurcij ^{(talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει)} 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed, covered by a larger discussion on the community discussion page. Also, the copyright release Sherurcij mentions above was not accepted (OTRS ticket#2007031210018673 ) and there was no further response to a request for clarification. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

"Banquet Night"

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This poem by Kipling "was first published in Debits and Credits" according to the www.kipling.org.uk website, that is, in 1926, and the copyright was renewed, according to the Stanford database, in 1953 (R117669), meaning its copyright is retained in the U.S. until 2020. 216.165.199.50 23:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep works which are PD in their country of origin. Yann 08:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yann. We would not be breaking any laws by hosting this free content work which is in the last 20 years of its US copyright term.--BirgitteSB 15:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This again might just be my ignorance of America's convoluted copyright laws, but I don't see how a work being in the last 20 years of its copyright term means it's okay for us to allow on this site. Does it also mean that other people can come and take our work and do whatever they will with it (things normally reserved solely for the copyright holder)?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This work is free content because it is in the public domain. Anyone living in a juristiction where it is public domain (UK, Canda, Austrailia, etc.) can take it and do what they like. A reuser in the US, however would not be able to treat this as public domain and that is why I proposed putting a warning on {{PD-old-70}} in the Scriptorium. I have always understood "free content" does not require being true in every juristition on the planet. If that were the case many of the pre-1923 works would need to be deleted since they are copyrighted in non-US juristictions. The way I am looking at this a work needs to be two things 1) free content 2) legal for Wikisource to host according to US law.--BirgitteSB 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I 'agree', in the sense that I believe we should basically host that which is not potentially legally-actionable, but perhaps include more specific templates explaining that "This is public domain in India, its country of origin..." or "This work is protected under eternal UK copyright, but is public domain elsewhere..." so that again, it "might not" (read: won't) stop casual browsers from reading the work, but it does indicate we warned them it was hosted for people outside the UK only, and it presents them the succinct reasoning for why they can/can't publish the work themselves, slap a new cover on it, and start selling it at flea markets near their home. However, just because some of our readers are unable to legally re-sell our works in their countries, is no reason not to host them. It's simply reason to inform them. Sherurcij ^{COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe} 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But this work is copyrighted here in the U.S. If it were copyrighted in the UK, Germany, or any other country, I would agree. But with it being copyrighted in the U.S., it is illegal for us to host and distribute this work.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Zhaladshar, please see the discussion in the G. K. Chesterton section a few inches up; Birgitte talks about an archive provision in the copyright law for hosts in the case you've just described. There is more discussion as well in the links to the Scriptorium in that section. 216.165.199.50 01:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Zhaladshar, I can understand your position of just following US copyright for inclusion guidelines. I definately think that is an approach we can take to make the mission here "free in the U.S." and basically do what Gutenburg does. However I remember disscusions in the past where people did not want to take that approach. I personally am not against it, especially as I have lost all faith in getting any substantial guidance or even workable a policy coming out of WMF. I am more positive in regards to the Gutenburg approach than I have ever been, but it should probably be a Scrictorium discussion--BirgitteSB 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not "free" but copyrighted in the U.S. "Last 20 years" archival exception is not applicable since the work is still subject to normal commercial exploitation: [1]. Lupo 06:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lupo.--BirgitteSB 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Could someone move it to Wikilivres before deletion here?--Jusjih 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Idem as for Chesterton. ;oP Yann 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I copied this to Wikilivres. So delete it here, if you want. Yann 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All works by Kipling published after 1923 are under U.S. copyright per 17 U.S.C. 104A. Physchim62 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of the Order of Canada and Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order of Canada

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Works of the Canadian government that appear to be covered by Crown copyright. The Canadian government has posted them online (here), but the accompanying copyright notice forbids commercial reproduction without prior written permission, which seems incompatible with WS:WWI and WS:COPY. —Tarmstro99 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Any comments on this? One section of the Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order of Canada mentionsed "approved 2004"; no other mention of dates. I believe Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years after publication.--BirgitteSB 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted as Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years after publication.--Jusjih 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Three Guineas

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Hello,

What is the reasonning to include this work? (Beside the useless statement on the talk page: <grin> I'm pretty sure this is in the public domain because the full text is elsewhere on the Internet.) Yann 09:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. It looks like a copyvio; the work is listed on Author:Virginia Woolf as being written in 1938. worldcat agrees. John Vandenberg 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

and renewed Sept 4, 1965. Definitely needs to go. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει)} 09:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 18:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Sukta

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

English Translation by Sri Swami Krishnananda who is still alive and there is no release under any license given either here or the website listed as a source.--BirgitteSB 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vivekananda a Biography

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

An individual created an account here to complain about the copyright status of this work by Swami Nikhilinanda in March of this year, but apparently he didn't know where to go. To quote his remarks: "The author died in 1973. This work is not in the public domain. It is available online elsewhere, but there acknowledgement of permission granted to put it online is given. (http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/)" 216.165.199.50 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It says it was "published" in 1953, although I do not know if it was published in the United States or not - but since Stanford has no indication of its ever having the copyright renewed, if it was originally published in the United States - it is public domain. Sherurcij ^{COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe} 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, no indication? All right, all right, just kidding, it wasn't actually your fault. Stanford put the name of the author in the wrong field in renewal record RE086197, which shows this work being renewed March 17, 1981, making its copyright expiration date in America the year 2048. 216.165.199.50 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good catch - I guess I searched by author name, not by book title...heh, I wonder how many other "typos" their database has. Well, I'll revise to a simple delete then :) Sherurcij ^{COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe} 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A Case of Murder

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

The author, Vernon Scannell, was born in 1922 and seems to be currently still alive.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked publication date, in case it was from the 50s and might not have been renewed, but it was seemingly first-published in the 1980 Points of View Book, so delete. Sherurcij ^{COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe} 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted.--Jusjih 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Works by H. G. Wells

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

These works were published after 1923 according to WP. How could they be PD? Yann 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• A Vision of Judgment, 1927
• The Stolen Body, 1927

Say, aren't you the one who said: "I think we should keep works which are PD in their country of origin"? British copyright law only gives 25 years for literature published before 1988 to be of exclusive use of the copyright holder. Then the publishing rights revert to the public domain. 216.165.199.50 01:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to use this tone. I am just asking what is the rationale to keep these works. It is not clear what you refer to. I don't see any mention of this in UK copyright law. Anyone has a confirmation of this? And please log in and sign.

Beside, there are no source, no mention of the edition used. And many other works of H. G. Wells are undated. Yann 09:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken. The 25 year rule is for "typographical arrangements" (whatever that means). The 1995 British copyright act became 70 + life of author for literary works not literature in general. I suppose that means fiction and verse. Wells died in 1946, so all of his literary works in Britain should be protected by the 70 + life of author rule which is 2016. In the United States, for all his post-1922 works, literary or not, it would depend on whether or not the copyright was renewed. 216.165.199.50 13:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(It didn't affect my opinion on the length of protection in this case, but looking at the language in the Wikipedia article my supposing a distinction between literature in general [i.e. including non-fiction] and "literary works" looks like a mistake as well. The operative sentence under "Copyright of ordinary materials" was "Copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works expires 70 years after the death of the author." The fact that "literary" is included first in a list of other words typically associated with the fine arts doesn't necessarily mean it should be interpreted in the same way using the narrow sense of the word.) 216.165.199.50 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• In five pages of H.G. Wells' works renewed in the United States, none of these three works appear, in fact it mostly seems to be articles he wrote/co-wrote. Sherurcij ^{COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe} 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Copyrighted in the UK until the end of 2016 (Wells died 1946). Copyrighted in the U.S. due to URAA restorations until 2022. Lupo 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a bit more complicated than that. We should be consistent accross all publications on Wikisource, i.e. if we keep some works which are PD in USA but not in their country of origin, we should apply the same rule for all works. Yann 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yann I don't believe these particular works are PD anywhere. I don't disagree with you in priciple, however at the same time we cannot violate US law. That would be a real liabilty for the WMF and not an issue of principle.--BirgitteSB 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, fine. I don't have a particular opinion about this. Yann 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • BTW, Yann, unfortunately Wells' works are still copyrighted throughout the EU. Also in France. In the EU, 70 years p.m.a. applies across the board for works of nationals of EU member countries, in all member countries, retroactively even for authors who died before the EU existed and also for works that under old laws might already have been in the PD. And there is no comparison of terms within the EU. That's the unfortunate effect of EU w:directive 93/98/EEC and the non-discrimination clause in article 12 of the w:Treaty instituting the European Community. It seems to me that if fr-WP follows French law, all the texts at fr:Herbert George Wells are copyvios. But I must admit I don't understand which laws fr-WP pretends to follow: French law, U.S. law, or both, or one or the other? See fr:Wikisource:Qu'est-ce que Wikisource ?#II. Droits d'auteurs (says EU law) et fr:Wikisource:Respect du copyright (says US law). Just thought I'd point that out, since you seem to have been involved in putting his works there. Lupo 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • AFAIK, fr-WS follows both French and US laws, i.e. accepts works which are public domain either in France or in USA. What I say above is relevent with the discussion at WS:DEL regarding Aborigines. And I agree with BirgitteSB there. Yann 16:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted both.--Jusjih 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Works of Philip Larkin

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

These poems are by Philip Larkin (English), whose dates were 1922 - 1985. No information is given about copyright status.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Of course they're copyrighted. Until the end of 2055 in the EU, for the U.S.: those published before 1978 until 95 years after their first publication, those published 1978 or later also until 2055. Delete them. Lupo 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• in 1951, had a small collection, XX Poems, privately printed in an edition of 100 copies. Also, in 1954, the Fantasy Press published a pamphlet containing five of his poems. The Marvell Press, based in Hessle, near Hull, published 'Toads' and 'Poetry of departures' in Listen. It would be the Marvell Press that published his next collection The Less Deceived. It wasn't until 1964 that his next collection, The Whitsun Weddings was published. - not sure how we want to look at UK law, but FYI none of those collections appear in the Stanford database as having their US copyrights registered/renewed. shrugs Sherurcij ^{COTW:Voltaire} 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter because of the URAA restorations. Lupo 09:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. --Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nīlakantha dhāranī

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

The english translation at least seems to be a copyright violation. Source listed as Sanskrit Texts from the Imperial Palace at Peking (STP) Parts 1-22, New Delhi 1968-1977, International Academy of Indian Culture) --BirgitteSB 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Aandhikhola

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Listed as a 1975 works at Author:Daulat Bikram Bista--BirgitteSB 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted.--Jusjih 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Unsourced anyway, but the transcript of an internet video is not free. Not GFDL compliant.--Doc glasgow 08:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted translation derived from a copyrighted recording. Definite violation IMHO--BirgitteSB 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted.--Jusjih 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

10 May 2007 Tony Blair resignation speech

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

I was curious if this falls under the Crown copyright since Tony Blair was still a PM when he made this speech or does the Crown copyright not affect speeches? I am sorry if this came up eariler. Wabbit98 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine this speech wasn't prepared in advance, which means it would be copyrighted.--BirgitteSB 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

With something as widespread as British Crown Copyright, and speeches by UK politicians, I can't imagine there would have never been a legal suit against a publisher if it were the case that it's illegal to host these works. But then, I seem to gradually be becoming more and more liberal in my definition of what belongs on WS. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week}_{have you done your part?} 16:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask me any questions that might help clarify my position for you. Maybe it's not illegal to host a copyrighted work under these circumstances, I don't pretend to understand the issue completely. I am also baffled by the constant publication of things which my own understanding would determine to be copyright violations. However I do think it has become clear that writing something such as the composition in question would result in a the creation of copyright. And I truly cannot imagine an announcement such as the one in question would not have been composed in advance.--BirgitteSB 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the Crown copyright is confusing, at least to me, I know that Acts of Parliament is covered. But I do not remember reading about speeches given by Prime Ministers while they are in office. It is hard to catch all those that might be violating a copyright issue since there are not a lot of us and the issue can be unclear at times. Wabbit98 04:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my interpretation in this case is that the oration was merely a derivative performance of a written work. The written work would be either under Crown Copyright or under the author's copyright prior to Blair's public oration.--BirgitteSB 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Deleted while there is no reason to believe it properly licensed.--Jusjih 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet anthem (parody)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Has no source and I found—in my brief search—no non-Wikisource references. —Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 02:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails multiple WS:WWI guidelines. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week}_{have you done your part?} 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to being copyvio, non-English article texts do not belong here.--Jusjih 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per all reasons given above. My own search has also failed to provide reliable references - and as Jusjih correctly points out, this is English Wikisource after all. Phaedriel - 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted.--Jusjih 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

I believe this work was copyrighted in the fifties by w:Ayn Rand. The contribution of this work calls into question not only its intellectual property status, but incidentally, Ayn Rand's patriotism. A text search of this deliberation on the source of a society's strength revealed that not once did Rand mention baseball. Are we to assume that in her vision of a better world, America's pasttime is no more? I'll leave it at that except to say that it goes to show that it's a pity that Rand, who had genius, was so Communistic. You can't trust those Russians, after all. Signed (not a red) -> 216.165.199.50 04:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm giggling at the fact your signature is red Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week}_{have you done your part?} 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Those who write mean nothing, those who copyright mean everything (Guide for future posters). 68.39.174.238 16:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Subversive communist literature which will poison our children's minds and lead to the destruction of the American Way of Life Atlas Shrugged was indeed registered at the U.S. copyright office on September 3, 1957 (ref. A304137) and renewed on January 7, 1985 (ref. RE-235-257). It will remain under copyright protection until the end of 2052. Physchim62 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Who am i ?

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

The author died in 1990. The WWW reprint is for free distribution is not a valid license. Yann 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But thsi book is reprinted for free distribution on internet, if you are not agree with this pls tell me the solution.

"free distribution on internet" is not enough for Wikisource. It should be free whatever the medium of publication, including commercially on paper. So there is only two possibilities: public domain or a free license (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc.) Yann 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracing the Origin of Ancient Sumerians

The author of this article was born in the 1940's, no indication of a license existing for this work.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, author sells his work through the "independent publisher" lulu.com[2], clearly this is a case where hosting the work does affect the financial saleability of his creative work. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Maxim Gorky} 14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone

Even more obvious. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Henry Ford} 18:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedily deleted as "clear and proven copyright violation".--GrafZahl (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of the Order of Canada and Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order of Canada

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Works of the Canadian government that appear to be covered by Crown copyright. The Canadian government has posted them online (here), but the accompanying copyright notice forbids commercial reproduction without prior written permission, which seems incompatible with WS:WWI and WS:COPY. —Tarmstro99 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Any comments on this? One section of the Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order of Canada mentionsed "approved 2004"; no other mention of dates. I believe Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years after publication.--BirgitteSB 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted as Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years after publication.--Jusjih 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara's Farewell Letter

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted

This text was already deleted by Zhaladshar back in March 2007 after appearing on the Copyvio page, but someone (possibly one of Castro's comrades) has fixed his efforts on immortalizing this Cuban revolutionary by reposting his speech on the same Wikisource page. 216.165.199.50 02:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as copyrighted material previously deleted. --Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 03:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept

The Adventures of Pinocchio

The following discussion is closed:

kept

This translation was done in 1926 according to the page. Not likely Public Domain, but the source link[3] doesn't doesn't any info. --Metal.lunchbox 05:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I found 2 english versions of this story on Gutenberg[4] including the one here, so I'll just assume it's PD. --Metal.lunchbox 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Kept as a Gutenburg edition--BirgitteSB 18:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)