Kept

The Influenza

This poem was tagged as PD-1923 but, it stated that it was written in 1890, but not published until 1940 which wound mean it is copyrighted until 2011-01-01. —unsigned comment by Zginder (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008.

Refers to The Influenza. —Giggy 09:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was published in 1940 which is outside of the terms of {{PD-1923}}; on that grounds (unless no new information is found) ~~delete~~. —Giggy 10:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand new information comes up; thanks Sherurcij. I concur with the keep. —Giggy 14:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (in the future, please alert the person who added the text to WS so they have a chance to defend their addition, before calling for its deletion.) It was published enough to be awarded a prize by the school in 1890, the fact it was reprinted in the school newspaper fifty years later doesn't dimish its original composition and submission.

"The Influenza" was written by the fifteen-year-old Churchill in 1890 when he was a pupil at Harrow School. For his effort he received a House Prize which went some way towards redeeming his position, both with his schoolmasters and his parents who had been less than impressed by his recent behaviour and scholastic achievement. The poem is remarkably accomplished for a fifteen-year-old and gives an early glimpse of Churchill’s command of language, his sense of history and his impish humour. It was published in The Harrovian, the Harrow School magazine, fifty years later on 10 December 1940, when the "Famous Old Harrovian" had become quite a celebrity.
Winston Churchill and Harrow by E. D. W Chaplin (Harrow School Bookshop, 1941).

Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon} 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine. Memorandum on Security Assurances

Published 1994. I see no indication that it is in the public domain, and it certainly isn't inelegible (tagged {{PD-ineligible}}). —Giggy 09:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it published? In which language? This seems to be an official document. What Ukraine law says about these? Yann 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this copy containing, among other documents, the English of the Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with the (Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus) accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (all dated 5 December 1994), it was "Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages". That PDF also contains the Statement by France on the Accession of Ukraine to the NPT.

This looks like a multilateral treaty, or part there of, that adds Ukraine to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which doesnt sport a copyright tag.

I think {{PD-ineligible}} is a reasonable interpretation of U.S. copyright law. See question "3.6) Can the government copyright its works?" at copyright FAQ, which points to The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01: 206.01 Edicts of government. Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal docu- ments 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.

The template for that is {{PD-GovEdict}}. Bilateral treaties are edicts of the governments involved. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems correct. Should be fine to include on WS. --FloNight 21:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks for your clarification John. —Giggy 03:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Song of Roland

This translation first published in 1919 with a second impression in 1920. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (comments by closing admin) Hello,[reply]

This translation is mentioned here and here as CLNA: THE SONG OF ROLAND. Done into English TITL: in the original measure by Charles Scott Moncrieff. Introd. by Hamish Miles. Illus. by Valenti Angelo. Design by Edmund B. Thompson. NM: introd., illus. & design. ODAT: 20May38; A118560 DREG: Inc. ; 18Mar66; R382565. RREG: George Macy Companies. Yann 06:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Gutenberg has the same one. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin If it turns out, (which it likely will) that the copyright renewal here only applies to the intro by Hamish Miles, images and other new work not to the actual translation by Moncrieff, which is available at Project Gutenberg in theory as a PD work, please change the link at Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Book I/Chapter 3 which is actually located on Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/46. Change from [[W:The Song of Roland|Song of Roland]] to [[The Song of Roland|Song of Roland]] and remove the hidden note I left there. Jeepday (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

Seriously Cool: Marketing and Communicating with Diverse Generations

Source is given as [1]. Copyright asserted on page 46.--BirgitteSB 16:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of free licence being granted. Eclecticology 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon} 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inversiones extranjeras en panama

Spanish text; a copy of this, which is the website of the w:Inter-American Development Bank. Listing here just in case.. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agree, copyvio. Delete. giggy _(:O) 09:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta

Only one online source is found at http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.2.3#

Contains:

Revision history

05.iii.1998-22.iii.1998: JAB, editor: translation
26.iv.1998: GZ, editor: proofreading
10.v. 1999: GZ, editor: minor corrections
10.v. 1999: GZ, editor: SGML tagging
14.v.1999: ER, editor: proofreading SGML
14.v.1999: ER, editor: web publication
01.vi.2003: GC/JE, editor/technical developer: XML/TEI conversion

Would appear to be a copyvio, Jeepday 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, their bibliography doesnt mention any PD sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A True Threat to Freedom

Source is http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=291&issue=047

Contains:

Non commercial exeption is not compatible with GNU Free Documentation License. Jeepday 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately {{PD-manifesto}} depends on the author clearly wanting broad distribution. In this case they have a notice restricting distribution. Also, there is no mention of this being published, except on a website. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete, despite being listed as a "Speech" on the author page, it appears to be an article. If it is indeed shown to be a speech, I'll likely change my vote and argue to keep the text - but if it's indeed an article from their publication, it seems a clear violation of their copyright. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 23:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolshevik Myth

Copyrighted 1925 in the United States, with a renewal in 1953 (renewal ID R107390). Barring further retroactive extensions of the copyright term, U.S. copyright in this work will expire 12/31/2020. Tarmstro99 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Dana Ward, who is hosting this copy, to see if he can shed some light on this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reply from Dana Ward. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --BirgitteSB 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seize the Time

This work is tagged {{PD-release}} and states, in the page header: “Released into the public domain by its author with the words "Fuck copyright".”

I was able to find the notation “Fuck copyright. Feel free to mirror this book, print it out, quote parts of it, or better yet -- ACT upon it!” at this page, but the notation is unsigned and there is nothing to indicate that it was written by the copyright holder (as opposed to the party who posted the content to that site). The use of the term “mirror” in its contemporary Internet sense of “keep a digital copy of” makes me doubt whether the disclaimer really dates from 1968. Tarmstro99 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is a clear copyright in the published book. I searched for the phrase “Fuck copyright. Feel free to mirror this book, print it out, quote parts of it, or better yet -- ACT upon it!” and only found it on the web site lemming.mahost.org, and two places that appear to be mirroring http://lemming.mahost.org/library/seize/index.htm. Also note the title at http://lemming.mahost.org/ is "Way Beyond Legal". The text of the book on WS is on sub pages, I am going to block them pending (speedy?) delete. Jeepday (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately it seems to be a case of the website adding its "own" release, which is useless to us. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon} 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted This was clear-cut.--BirgitteSB 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian authors again

Hello, After the precedent discussion (Indian authors), and deciding to delete The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, what do we do with other works like these? We need to take a decision. This concerns Autobiography of a Yogi, Bose's Letters to M. K. Gandhi, all works by Mahadev Desai and by Gandhi published after 1922 (which will be in the public domain in India by 1st January 2009). Yann 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The internet is still largely frontier country, and the law of the land is written by those willing to show the spine to do it. I remain a strong advocate of Wikimedia Foundation, and specifically Wikisource, having the cajones to stand up and say "We respect the moral rights of all authors and their native copyrights", without bending ourselves over backwards to meet arbitrary deadlines like the "PD in its home country prior to 1996" clause. If it's PD in its home country, we should host it.

We face no legal ramifications for hosting such a work, since they have peculiar status wherein they can't be reprinted in the United States...even though there is no American connection to the author. Their home country allows free republishing, recognising the PMA has passed and the work is now Public Domain - but the United States simply refuses to let anyone publish/preserve it. This is not a slippery slope like Google Books, hosting works where the author holds a clear copyright - this is the exact opposite, this is recognising that everybody related to the author and his homecountry disavows and publication restrictions on the work...except Sonny Bono.

Personally I think it's time to revisit WS policy on "non-American works that are public domain throughout the world...except the United States". Maybe the answer is as I suggested, maybe it's petitioning WMF for a feature to allow us to show a "This book is not available in your jurisdiction" notice based on IP address, maybe it's something entirely different. But "We simply refuse to untie our hands and shrug as countless valuable works are removed for no reason" is not a solution at all. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 00:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The law of the land is set here; the only thing that will protect you against a hostile copyright holder is vigorous adherence to the law and the willingness to defend your rights when you have them. US law is set by publication date; it's arbitrary, but as fair as any other rule. If you're going to blatantly violate copyright, I don't see why PD in its home country should have anything to do with it; just go for it. You're breaking the law anyway you cut it, and may well get sued for it, so why not go for gold? The rights of the authors in the US is to have their works protected for 95 years from publication, and the copyright holders--who may have immigrated to the US, or sold their rights to a company with interests in the US--may not appreciate our use of their works. For example, w:Royal National Institute for the Blind now holds the rights to Arthur Conan Doyle's copyrights... of which the only ones remaining are the copyrights on the later Sherlock Holmes stories in the US. Do you think they're ignoring those rights?--Prosfilaes 00:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the issue here; there are no "hostile copyright holders", because there are no "copyright holders". The remaining family of the the Indian author, for example, is not a legal copyright holder of the text, and does not have the right to restrict publication of it - because the text is in the public domain. Now, if they moved to the United States and published the texts there, obviously they would be legal U.S. copyright holders of the text - but this is dealing with cases where that wasn't done. Where nobody has ever published the text in the United States, and now nobody is ever allowed to do so. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 00:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. The United States recognizes the remaining family of the Indian author (or whoever) as copyright holders, no matter where it was published. The US Copyright Office Report on this is terribly clear: under eligiblity for restoration (page 2), [2] says "If published, the work must have first been published in an eligible country and must not have been published in the United States during the 30-day period following its first publication in that eligible country." "must not have been published in the United States", not "must have been".--Prosfilaes 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but you're missing the key portion of that statement. "The work is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of the term of protection..." - since we're discussing works that are in the public domain in their home country, there is "copyright holder" who can "restore" American law to themselves...or can any Indian citizen show up in the United States and get the rights assigned to them? There are no Indians who have any claim to Yogananda's work...therefore there are no Indians who can show up in the United States and claim copyright of the work...therefore, nobody can publish the work in the United States. It's a legal black hole, and one which we shouldn't allow to drag Wikisource down with it. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the key portion of that statement; "Copyright in eligible works was restored in January 1, 1996." Anyone who owned copyright in these works in January 1, 1996, still owns copyright on it, at least in the United States, and would hardly have to show up in the US to enforce it. The fact that you can't post works that are still in copyright is hardly going to drag Wikisource down.--Prosfilaes 13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Prosfilaes: If I publish these works, I don't break any copyright law, since my country recognizes the rule of shorter term, and there are in the public domain where I live. Yann 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you take them to Wikilivres, instead of putting asking Wikimedia to something that's at best questionably legal for it?--Prosfilaes 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason we don't take them to Geocities, we're here to decide what Wikisource will do, not what WikiLivres will do. The solution to every question is not necessarily the path of least resistance; as I'm sure one as combative as you in attitude knows all-too-well. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 07:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikisource should do is what it is unquestionably legal for it to do.--Prosfilaes 13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Prosfilaes. I rather be over cautious rather than get in trouble for copyright issues. Better safe than sorry. --Mattwj2002 11:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I need to precise what is the issue: I think that most Wikisource subdomains publish works if there are in the public domain in the country of origin, whatever their copyright status is in USA (at least French, and Indian languages do that for what I know). The local community agrees and nobody outside really cares about it. I am fine if we decide to delete these works, but we have to be clear, including with the consequences. We have hosted these works upto now, it seems that nobody really cares, and that's the most annoying to me. Yann 11:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Prosfilaes's assessment of the policy, if there is not a clear path to publish on Wikisource, it should not be posted. Yann, this should not discourage you from continuing to try and document a clear path to post the material. If a clear path can be found within the law and Wiki policy, then it should be posted. Jeepday 11:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been deleted similar works and following the URAA deadline for some time. I don't see why we would treat these works any differently. So I would have them moved to Wikilivres and deleted. --BirgitteSB 16:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Autobiography of a Yogi is not concerned. See Self Realization v. Ananda Church. I moved and added a copyvio notice on:

The Glimpse of Reality

The following discussion is closed:

delete

Yann 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help finding the status of this work? It is supposely published in 1926 as part of Translations and Tomfooleries, of which there is record here. Yann 09:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenberg puts it as published in Translations and Tomfooleries, 1926. [3] giggy _(:O) 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence, ~~keep~~ (to make it clear). —Giggy 14:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That should have said delete. Why I had 1927 before 1923 is beyond me. —Giggy 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is on PGau, which is a great sign that it is copyright in the U.S. Incomplete manuscripts were written in 1909/10[4], but everything points to it being first published in 1926 and first performed in 1927. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Dialogues on God, creed and scriptures/Islam

Here is the text, and the author is alive according to this biog. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (comments by closing admin) A recent work with no indications about its copyright status at all. Eclecticology 11:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5] mentions this author. He might be still living. I would say delete. Yann 13:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Su shi

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

The work titled "The Gay Genius" was published in 1947 and renewed in 1975. Therefore, it is not public domain. Excerpts of this book are on this page. Psych less 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is a 1947 translation by an author who died in 1976 (w:Li Yutang), of poems written by someone who died in 1101 w:Su Shi. I'd say this is definitely copyrighted, considering that, according to the page itself, all translations seem to be unique. Jude (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:57:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Other

copyright

The poem that I added can't be a violation of copyright as it was written by John Keats who died nore than a hundred years ago; so his works fall in public domain. —unsigned comment by Mercy82 (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2008.

It was tagged by a bot and quickly reverted by a human being. No problems, and welcome to Wikisource! An gr 10:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]