Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2010-12

Kept

State of the Nation Address 2010 by President Jacob Zuma

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, It is PD Jeepday (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Work seems to fit the tag applied. If that applies, it would seem to be PD by the SA legislation making it fit within PD-GovEdict. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly PD in South Africa, but, as with the cases above, I'm not sure about its status under US law. See the discussion in the previous section. Htonl (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Comment - Just wondering if the State of a Nation address is formally required by a Constitution, legislation or similar? Has it been given with any regularity? On or about the same date anually regardless? George Orwell III (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's required by any law; it seems to be more part of the Parliamentary tradition. (The Constitution has a general requirement that members of the Cabinet (including the President) must provide Parliament with "full and regular" reports about their duties.) The address is given in early February every year, with an extra one on the opening of a new Parliament after a general election. See w:en:State of the Nation Address (South Africa) for a bit more information - Htonl (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then I vote keep because this kind of speech mirrors the goal of the American version and mimics it's reasoning -- where it is a matter promting public policy. George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Keep - George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Keep - ResScholar (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we take this as a decision that it can be tagged with {{PD-EdictGov}}, so that the situation is clear for the future? - Htonl (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Res Gestae

The following discussion is closed:

kept — billinghurst sDrewth 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting situation, and I don't know enough to nominate or not, so anyone who knows please advise. This work was apparently translated by a Wikisourcean from the Latin original at Latin Wikisource into English. There are tell-tale signs that this is an original translation, namely the English spelling mistakes (he/she must be a tri-linguist). This part is fine, as far as I know.

The interesting part follows: there are four footnotes at Latin Wikisource that were translated into Latin from an English original at Internet Classics Archive. This English original was written by Thomas Bushnell with the following notice:

Copyright 1998, Thomas Bushnell, BSG. This translation may be freely distributed, provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are retained on all copies.

This seems to be a kind of GFDL written before they were invented (requiring notice of authorship, but the derivative-work permission seems a bit sticky).

You may be wanting to ask me, why are you posting this here if it was on Latin Wikisource?

Because our tri-lingual Wikisourcean translated the (unbeknownst to him) Latin translation back into English again and posted it at the bottom!

I don't know much about free licenses, so can someone please advise me, like the knowledgeable Prosfilaes or Carl Lindberg: is the notice above acceptable as a GFDL or does it say that derivitive works can't be done because Mr. Bushnell is retaining copyright and permission is only granted for its original form? ResScholar (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem sufficient, but given that w:Thomas Bushnell is a long-time GNU developer and an active Debian developer, it seems trivial to ask him. I've sent an email.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a GFDL because it seems to forbid derived versions.--Longfellow (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the situation is. I'm the afore-mentioned Thomas Bushnell. I don't recall there being any "footnotes" in my translation of the Res Gestae, so I can't say what's going on there. Obviously, the Latin Wikisource should have Augustus's own words, not some translation of something... But I'm not sure I exactly understand the situation, and I can't find the exact page being referred to to help understand what's going on or clarify my own licensing intentions. Tb (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

At [1] we have the Latin original, composed about two thousand years ago, and certainly not under copyright in any country. The four "footnotes" are not footnotes, but part of the actual ancient monument. They are not back-translations from anything. Likewise for the preface, marked in italics on that page. The English translation at [2] is obviously not mine (none of it is mine), and I can't offer any advice on its provenance. If there is a desire to use my translation, and its licensing is unsuitable, I am willing to consider re-licensing it in a suitable fashion. However, it would be idiotic for anyone to translate my text into another language. Translators should work from the original, and not from other translations. Tb (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. Pardon my mistake about the appendix. I found and inspected your translation acting in the role of copyright bureaucrat rather than admirer of Classical Latin works and their translation. Over the past months I have been paring down a backlog of what was 120 translations at Wikisource of unknown provenance.

I think I speak for all of us when we say we'd be honored to have your translation. But now that you've brought it up, I feel I'm obliged to address something towards my fellow Wikisourceans about the Latin Wikisource original that was in the back of my mind, namely that the conflation and interpretation of absent letters in the work in the text seems liable to copyright. And to be clear, I am not saying this applies to Thomas, whom I imagine is qualified to do his own conflation and interpretation. This preciseness of the original is also what makes me doubt that the appendix is a retranslation of Thomas's work, a status which really only suggested itself to me when I thought they were footnotes to the work.

At our sister site, the Commons, there is a summary of licenses used frequently here. We also have a thing called an Open Resource Ticket System, where we preserve permissions by e-mail. We don't make fair educational use of texts like at the Commons project, and the permissions required at Wikisource are rather broad; texts must be licensed for permission to be used commercially and in derivitive works. Our full copyright policy can be found at Wikisource:Copyright policy

I have to add having you visit Wikisource:Possible copyright violations is sort of like having a double celebrity here, because we frequently use Internet Classics Archive material as well as direct contributors through the ins and outs of free licensing. So above all: Welcome! and thanks again for your past contribution. ResScholar (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia regular, so I'm familiar with the general rules. The "absent letters" are not actually in doubt. We don't have the usual case here where an editor is filling in on the basis of partial manuscripts; rather, the "filling in" is on the basis of the ancient Greek translation, and the multiple copies of the same text. There is no doubt that the words there are original; the main body from Augustus, and the preface and appendix (including the letters in brackets) from whoever promulgated it in Turkey. As for my translation, if you'd like to reproduce it in Wikisource in place of the current one, you may do so. My suggestion about the best way to proceed is to upload it; then send me an email (tb@becket.net) and I'll fill in permissions providing for use in derivative works providing: This translation may be freely distributed or exceprted, provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are retained on all copies. Modified versions as well may be freely distributed under the same terms provided all modifications are clearly identified and distinguished from the original. I believe that should be sufficient, no? Tb (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For me, that is as clearly expressed and similar enough to the license boilerplate I've seen for those types of permissions to be more than adequate for Wikisource purposes. I suppose I'm qualified to decide on my own, but I welcome a second opinion from our gurus or anyone who had involvement writing our policy, because I'm in a position where I feel like I'm the one who should be asking Thomas whether it's suitable.

The only other thing is that we generally don't replace texts. We could originate a disambiguation page, where both works are listed: Yours would have a 75% text quality rating next to it (as M.I.T. has validated your scholastic credentials), while the other one would have a 50% or less text quality rating next to it. See Wikisource:Text quality. The same tags would go on the Author:Augustus Caesar page.

And thanks for your advice on the provenance of the Latin text. ResScholar (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ResScholar, are you going to fix this work? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I am a little worried about the "identification of modifications" part. Do you think that is covered by CC 3.0? ResScholar (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That condition is fine (and is normally required by moral rights laws in most countries anyways). You would have to do that anyways with CC/GFDL/etc. licenses to properly identify copyright owners; the copyright on (non-trivial) modifications would be owned by someone else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Carl. I felt confident to send Thomas the releases yesterday with the strength of your approval. ResScholar (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Amiens

The following discussion is closed:

speedy keep — billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyvio, which is disputed by the creator here. cygnis insignis 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the note I attached on creating the page:

This the text of the 1802 Treaty of Amiens, one of several treaties ending the War of the Second Coalition. The signatories were France (Napoleon's French Republic), Spain, the Batavian Republic (a French client republic), and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This text of the English version was copied from Napoleon-series.org; it was originally published in 1802 (see for example here).

I did not verify that the text copied from Napoleon-series.org (which has a "all rights reserved" and copyright statement on all of its pages) was identical to that in the linked Google Book (the "here" link). I did visually scan it to make sure it was in significant amount the same text. Now it turns out that the edited-down Google Book link I placed does not work, due to the way pages are numbered in this book. This link should work; if not, searching the book for "amiens azara" (without the quotations) should yield the first page of the treaty.

The only reason I did not use the Google Book text is that in my experience extracting text from GB sucks. I also seriously doubt that Napoleon-series is responsible for, or would credibly claim authorship, of this text. I do not know what copyright laws apply to international treaties; they would arguably apply to this text. English was, to the best of my knowledge, one of the treaty's official versions, given that UK was a principal signatory. Magicpiano (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep -- the treaty (in English) appears in several Annual Registers, Almanacs, etc. of the day [3] - most, if not all, over 2 hundred years old making any copyright questions kind of moot the way I see it. George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is clearly a keep, I thought that it was noted as a translation, and I don't see how I even got to that point. Brain failure somewhere.<shrug>. As a note, I am having a DJVU version prepared of the above linked Annual Register of 1803 (1803), and hope to have it uploaded to Commons within a day or so. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To note file is http://www.archive.org/details/TheAnnualRegisterOrAViewOfTheHistoryPoliticsAndLiteratureForThe_1432 and probably will take a day to derive.

Queen Elizabeth II's Remarks to the people of the United States

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by me as the nominator when PD-US-no-notice per consensus appears fine for now.--Jusjih (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This speech of British Queen in 1976 is nowhere believed to be copyright-okay in the USA or the United Kingdom, while taken from File:Queen speech Bicentennial Bell.JPG at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.--Jusjih (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is certainly UK Crown Copyright, which should be recognized internationally.--Longfellow (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough one - a speech made by the Queen etched into bronze and put on display on what I think is property officially part of the National Park system. I'd think there would be some sort of agreement prior to at least the casting (it does have her likeness on there too) for something like that but I wouldn't know even where to start looking for that if it does indeed exist. George Orwell III (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

British Queen Elizabeth II delivered the speech in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA in 1976, so the USA would be the source country, while I do not consider it an "edict of government". As the contributing user also posts a self translation at Chinese Wikisource, I need your help to determine if this speech should be deleted or else, then I plan to act accordingly at Chinese Wikisource.--Jusjih (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, would this speech qualify for British Crown Copyright Waiver? If yes as a copyright permission but not compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GFDL, I propose to send this speech and its Chinese translation to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe this is another example under the old edict of government catch-22 either. The issue here has more to do with a very narrow & rare instance where elements of eminent domain, Federal(ly) reserved lands (i.e. a National Park) and officially designated historical sites (within such a park) all intersect.

Granted I'm going by limited and unverified information from my sketchy memory here primarily but I as I understand it, even such placement of something as small as this bronze memorial comes with some form of agreement akin to a binding contract stipulating the transfer of any right, claim, ownership etc. of the particular "person, place or thing" for lack of a better term made a part of such National Park or Federal Reserve solely to the U.S. Government with the understanding that any "person, place or thing" giving up such right, claim, etc. always has the first and exclusive option to recover "ownership" of the item(s) in question if ever excluded from such reserve or park at somepoint in the future. I vaguely remember this had come about through a few court cases where items or property of historical significance were in effect seized at discount prices by the Government and eventually led to the enactment of legislation by Congress mandating such clause or contract be secured to avoid these "rights" issues from that point on.

I know I'm probably leaving something out or over-simplified the key points involved but basically that is what I believe the copyright question revolves around - a contract of some sort & not the edict of government thing. Where or how to support my "theory" above - I have no real good idea where to start and hope somebody else can jump in here to pick up where I left off. George Orwell III (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So much for sketchy memory or hard to find - see PDF - nothing really about the Queen's standing though it's harder to imagine she retains much of a claim, if any, after reading all that (toward the end). George Orwell III (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete by moving to Wikilivres -- Though it may be interesting to fully run this one to ground, I believe using such an un-common example to possibly initiate some sort of precedence for future discussions here would be more problematic than helpful in the long run. George Orwell III (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be moved to Wikilivres. As the Queen is also Queen of Canada, she must enjoy Crown Copyright there.--Longfellow (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment as it stands I would think that it would be DELETE and NO move to Wikilivres. At this stage we have a living person and their right to their intellectual property, and no evidence presented on why that copyright should be extinguished. That someone else has a copy of the words in bronze does not seem to have value as an argument in itself, as there is no statement to any permissions they may have to reproduce, and how that would validate copyright.
  I would have thought that there would be some scope to ask the copyright status of the Queen's public statements, though would not have thought that the recent approach by the UK government about release of statements would automatically apply to the Queen's statements. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to billinghurst, your legal concern about automatic copyright in the US would be a valid one if the Queen had delivered her speech later than 1978. Please note that the work published prior to the time of 1978 in the US has to fulfill some legal requirement to retain copyright and avoid the work being inject to the public domain. Thus I believe that I have a strong case to maintain that because the speech is delivered in public in 1976 without fulfilling the legal requirement of the US copyright law at that time, it is already injected into the public domain according to the current US copyright law, unless of course proved the otherwise. Hanteng (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

By all means, if the Canadian thing is not a valid option - then Delete it. George Orwell III (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As the original submitter of the piece, I have some objections to the original framing of this issue by Jusjih (talk) earlier with these words "This speech of British Queen in 1976 is nowhere believed to be copyright-okay in the USA". I think a fairer starting point is that this speech is "publicly" delivered and itched in 1976. The time is crucial here. It is publicly expressed before 1978 where no clear indication of the word "Copyright" or a (c) (a "c" in a circle) and the name of the copyright owner. Thus, by the US current practice detailed by [here], this work "would be injected into the public domain" because of "Lack of Copyright Notice". Unless of course it is proved the otherwise (that the Queen had succeeded in fulfilling the US law to retain copyright at that time), the work is in the US public domain and thus be retained here as such. Hanteng (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But when was it published? And where? And by whom? w:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. says that a speech is not a general publication; I'm not entirely sure the Supreme Court would have upheld it, but it was never taken there. Did the makers of the brass engraving ask for permission first; there are actions are moot if they didn't? Are we sure she didn't publish it first or at the same time in a British publication, perhaps a general record of state or something? I don't think this is cut and dried at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Her comments were most likely drafted and forwarded well in advance of the Bell's installation in June 1976 (see PDF above). The ceremony, where in effect ownership of the Bell was transfered, took place on July 6, 1976 [4] [5]. The dediction was aired live at least by CBS News [6].

The plaque, with the excerpt of her full remarks and her bust (both also in bronze), was installed on July 16, 1976 (See same PDF above). I don't think they whipped that up in just 10 days so it's reasonable to believe her draft was known prior to the public remarks being made in order to facilate the construction & installation of the accompanying plaque within such a short amount of time.

The "fair use" point here on WS is moot - we don't host those types of works in spite of any legal justifications to do so. See Help:Licensing_compatibility#fair_use George Orwell III (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to revert the decision to delete In other words, it is already injected in to the public domain, at least in the US context. So I maintain that it should be retained to the fullest. In order to further push the issue, I submit another article tilted "Part of Queen Elizabeth II's Remarks to the people of the United States extracted from US government document" by citing US public domain clause only.Hanteng (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So far there is no decision, there are opinions, though leaning towards delete. That it is a public speech does not override someone's right to their intellectual property unless the law says so. If you want to have it hosted, I would suggest approaching the Press Office of the British Crown via http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Mediaguidelines/ContactthePressOffice.aspx and see if they are willing to release the statement under one of the allowable creative commons statements. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is absolutely necessary to gain the release statement since it is more of a copyright issue than intellectual property right issue. It was delivered and carved in stone in 1976, without copyright statement, and according to the US copyright law it is injected into public domain. Or do you find any legal risk in such an argument? I would love to hear that. Please understand that I am not making a fair use argument here, but rather a notice requirement that is required for any work prior to 1978 in the US. Hanteng (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment is about getting clarity and certainty. Also, I hardly think that the production of words onto a statue, rock, etc. can be classified as publication as per the Copyright Act of 1976. I think that your argument is specious. Copyright is part of intellectual property. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the act of 1976 had come into play yet; I know that previously, public fixture of statues was publication, but I believe the 1976 act ended that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern, Prosfilaes. However, could you be more specific about which act of 1976 you were talking about? The engraving? The delivering of the speech? Or some legal act? My understanding and the basis of my argument is that the copyright law change in 1978 means the notice of copyright is no longer required to retain copyright. Hanteng (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the act of 1976 you presented was only enacted on October 19, 1976, before the speech was delivered. Hanteng (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If the "medium of first publication" was the spoken words (non-dramatic, address) rather than the subsequent engraving of those spoken words, where exactly would one place that "c" with a circle around it? It makes no difference that hundreds, if not thousands of people, happen to witness it or if just one person witnessed her dedication, as the author/creator she would still retain the exclusive protection of copyright (as well as any subsequent transcriptions of it). It seems to me you are combining the irrelevant fact that the speech was made before a bunch of people (the medium of first publication/performance) with the subsequent engraving of just an excerpt of the same speech (not the medium of first publication/performance) that lacked a copyright notice. That latter point relating to "injection" does not trump the former fact that the address itself was the first performed/published work the way I see it. Nor would it matter if one person or one thousand happen to witness the dedication; neither instance would have any weight in establishing public domain status. George Orwell III (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, case law seems to say that the speech was not a publication. If it is solely an American work, whether or not the engraving is first is irrelevant; it matters whether it's a general publication without a copyright notice authorized by the copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

True. I doubt any of this was an unauthorized reproduction or improper usage on the part of the U.S. Government either while we're at it. George Orwell III (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, at least we can agree that speech, especially public speech, is not a publication. The contenting point here then is the requirement to retain copyright have changed throughout history. Thus the time is crucial here in determining whether an author can retain copyright "automatically". Remember that in the past, for most copyright regimes, one have to register to gain copyright. Then later it was relaxed in the US that one only have to declare copyright when publishing it. Then later it was even relaxed to the idea that copyright is automatically given. Hanteng (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Understanding this historical shift, it is then still a academic and policy debate whether copyright is a form of intellectual property rights or not. It is a debate at the heart of the copyright as "temporary exclusive privilege" granted by states versus the copyright as "natural property right". You can check the laws and legal literature, this debate is not settled yet. However, we do not have to debate on this to solve the issue at hand here. Hanteng (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is regional and national. Period. Unless you can specifically point to some treaty or WIPO agreement signed by both states, then if your work is going to be used in some other place, then you have to go through the process to gain copyright in one place again as creators. Again, time is crucial here. In 1976 when Queen delivered the speech, the copyright regime is very regional. Crown's copyright was not automatically honored. Right now the WIPO tries to harmonize or standardize the copyright regimes in different countries so as to expand their idea of protection. However, it would be a mistake to presume that it was the norm when copyright was invented, or that it was the practice when Queen Elizabeth delivered the speech. Hanteng (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to remind your that please do not be retroactive in applying the current common wisdom about copyright/intellectual property right to the historical materials. Right now the way to get copyright is automatic and has the potential to go beyond national/regional boundaries. I am aware of that. However, it is different argument that it was the case in 1976. It was before 1978 when the US changes the law but that law was not effective on the speech given by anyone (including the Queen of UK) to retain her copyright without the legal requirement of that time. 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For example, what Longfellow has stated that "UK Crown Copyright" "should be recognized internationally" is not historically and universally true. In the early years of the United States of America, it was common practice to copy British publication. The British copyright at that time may not travel to the US, for some cultural political or economic reasons. Thus, I urge you to consider this point I am raising here. Hanteng (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with George Orwell III that it is at worst "an unauthorized reproduction or improper usage on the part of the U.S. Government". But my larger argument is about the legal requirement in the US to retain copyright in 1976 and the obvious lack of notice by the Queen of UK. Even if we try to play it safe by considering the legal liabilities here, you as Wikipedians should balance my desire to put it to realize the Wikisource's mission in my eyes here versus the liabilities I will bring to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Then the decision is clearer. We do not have to think for the US government but we have to follow appropriate legal requirement in a given time/space to make sure it is in public domain. Then it is a work injected to public domain according to US law of the time (with or without the US government action, even more so because of the government action in the brass engraving of her speech). The later US law can not and does not revert that. We should make it clear as such. We are not the US government and we do not have to address the low-risk liabilities that is not on the side of Wikipedia community. Hanteng (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm kind of tired of feigning the acedemic argument when it comes to these so I'll just put it out there for next time. Just as if the "I have a dream" case had continued up the legal ladder and all the facts about what the press got in advance, what the local newsletters got ahead of time and whatever anybody else got PRIOR to the actual speech being given and it's subsequent media coverage; so too would be the case with the Queen's speech as drafted, revised then CC'd up and down both nation's foreign relations teams/PR people -- as well as the company contracted to produce the damn plaque. Only academics can ignore she is reading from prepared text and not creating it on the spot off the top of her head! The first fixed medium are those advance drafts and the final copy in her purse that morning & not the performance by spoken word and some after the fact litmus test on what publication "means" exactly. She's automatically covered at creation by common law (also not codified and superseded by the 1978 effective date of the Copyright Act of 1976 yet either).

If you live by the case law, especially ones with partial concurrences and partial dissents; nearly all built on foundations of differing points or on the lower courts ruling, you die by the same case law. Drilling deeper into the analysis and opinions of Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., we get all the other cited cases allowing for "spotty ommission" of the copyright notice regardless of the general-meets-limited publication definition(s) holding any sway at the end of the day or not or we get the (re)extension of common law protections again -- making creation (the final draft) the automatic and deciding factor supreme instead. I can see both sides being valid here based on the case law in an academic-only setting and that's primarily the reason it's hard to host something like this; too many pitfalls just to cover a handful of works at best. George Orwell III (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is a fight between academic opinion versus law practitioner's experience. The issue at hand is whether Wikisource should host this fulltext or not. We may have disagreement whether it is worth the efforts and risks to do so, but I believe this case is not absolute violation of the copyright of the Queen in US as discussed by some earlier in absolute terms. We can go on discussing the hypotheticals when and where the Queen had drafted the speech (What if she drafted the speech in the UK but first published in the US? What were the treaties between the US and UK then? etc.). The discussion seems to me would be only speculative and can go both ways.

As a Wikipedian, I understand you guys are giving honest opinions to avoid unnecessary legal risks that Wikimedia Foundation may face, which I appreciate with my heart. It is also because of the good will on my side that I maintain my position that we should follow the simple Help:Public domain guidelines by treating it as public domain work while making a note that we have this discussion here. I am not oblivious to the case of "I have a dream speech" but please take into account that the most concrete evidence we have now (not speculative ones) are the US government's document and properties, which is clearly different from the Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. case. Thus, if your doubt is based on speculation (albeit a reasonable one) and my conviction is based on some concrete medium (pdf file and digital photo for anyone to see), I guess it might be a better idea just follow the basic Help:Public domain guidelines, instead of second guessing what Queen had done. At least we can agree what the US government has done. If there is no clear evidence that Queen had published it in the UK earlier (and UK-US treaties at that time) or in the US (and with clear copyright notice), please consider the concrete evidence that I have provided and follow the basic Help:Public domain guidelines accordingly. Hanteng (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Come off it. Our opinions are based on the protection of a person's right to their intellectual property and also what Wikisource says that it is allowed to host. The help page that you point to is solely a quick and dirty guide, and generally related to printed books, so it is indicative only, not the basis for making a determination. You were given direction on how you could clearly resolve this issue by asking for a clearance from the Queen's Press Office, and for the amount of time that you argue here, you could have completed such a request. At this point in time the evidence and opinion is that it would be protected from copyright, and pleas to follow an indicative guideline, seemingly, to make it more convenient for you aren't persuasive to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I can at least thank you for recognizing the fact that short of obtaining the power of subpoena somehow, there is no way I can "prove" that copy was indeed drafted and read at the dedication rather than the Queen winging-it all on her own unscripted. At the risk of offending some of the good folks from "across the pond", the Queen can shove her replacement bell up her bum and go about ringing it --- all this transpired at the Federal level on a reserved National Park site. The chances of anyone, let alone a non-citizen, easily laying some sort of claim to person, place or thing on such a well-loved site is a bit far fetched to put it mildly. As I think I mention somewhere above in passing -- even generations-old Americans have gotten "thrown" off their land in order to honour or further the overall public good by establishing these connections to our collective history... but that is just me and my slanted POV. Unfortunately, cooler heads and precedent usually prevails.

Back on topic -- there is no wiggle room on the excerpt angle here on WS as mentioned before. The PDF(s) as well as as the picture of the plaque only contain the excerpt so that option is safe to say won't achieve consensus for hosting. I'm curious if you can provide a well recognized and easy-to-verify source containing the entire dedication as given.

Next, the CBS case only applies, narrowly based on the law in effect on July 1976, in relation to the position where presentation does not automatically equate to PD injection by meeting the general publication standard(s). I think anybody who has followed all this understands the relevant portion of the CBS opinion is the ruling (re)affirming that presentation or performance does not equate 'general distribution' as a means of publication where the work ends up in the public domain automatically and the author loses claim altogether.

That leaves us either 'limited distribution', resulting in limited rights and limited liabilities with the introduction of a third party (the media in our case) or no publication at all; just a performance. Well WS can't host something 'limited' with what amounts to a lein on the work by the ones lucky enough to be the 'first fixed medium' back in 1976 and' its clear that the Queen forgot to run down to the Copyright Office with her processing fee and 2 properly © noticed copies in hand --- but she really didn't have to. She was automatically covered by the yet to be superseded common law(s) still in effect at the time at the point of creation. Additionally, she wasn't selling miniatures of the plaque or audio cassettes of the event in the Liberty Park gift shop afterwards was she? Of course not. There is no incentive that furthered the work so her possible non-compliance by the notice lacking non-registration is easily overlooked if tested. The "dream" speech WAS registered eventually and the King family still gets their "cut" by prevailing (well settling actually) when being late or lacking was tested.

So we are back to you need to show the entire speech legitimately sourced from somebody because the Copyright Office & the Queen sure didn't create then register the content and NBC, CBS, NY Times, etc. only have limited distribution at best by broadcasting/re-printing her dedication. Without that piece of this puzzle we are in effect still chasing our tail on this one the way I see it (i.e. can't host it on WS under its guidelines --- I'm sure blogspot or wordpress can and will get away with hosting an unauthorized version of it though). That advice about the UK Press Office is looking better n' better of an option for you here too George Orwell III (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

delete -- for now. George Orwell III (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) See below

Hanteng is trying to claim {{PD-US-no-notice}}, but was it published in the United Kingdom within 30 days, or was there a copy already prepared in the UK before the Queen delivered the speech? Hanteng, the burden of proof rests upon you to prove that your contribution is acceptable here regarding copyright, not upon those who question your contribution. Please go ask the British Government suggested by billinghurst at 05:17 on 16 October 2010 (UTC) what copyright permission will ever been granted, and forward the result to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org then three scenario will happen to the speech here and your Chinese translation:

1. If the copyright permission is compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, this speech and your Chinese translation will stay and be restored, but I doubt that British Government will allow it.
2. If ANY the copyright permission is received but not compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, I will send this speech and your Chinese translation to Canadian Wikilivres:.
3. If neither of the above applies, this speech and your Chinese translation will be deleted.

Thank you for your suggestions, again. I am aware that it is safest way to go but I still think it is not really necessary for a speech delivered in U.S. in 1976. Again I am aware of the controversial case of "I have a dream" speech which is even earlier than 1976. However the concrete evidence here is that the plaque has the full speech in 1976, which is a property of US government on a street of Philly where any pedestrians can read that speech. Even we consider the potential liability of such a claim {{PD-US-no-notice}} that I make. It rests neither on me as a contributor to the Wikisource nor on Wikisource as organization here, but rather on U.S. government. This case the role of U.S. government is very crucial. Hanteng (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not waste our time to keep one speech. You could spend your time much better by adding more United Nations Security Council Resolutions in English and Chinese.--Jusjih (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I prefer a passionate speech made by an interesting historical figure/politician rather than a legal document filed by faceless organizations. Wikipedians love to do (or waste their time) on whatever interests them the most, right? Hanteng (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This one is pretty convoluted. First, speech is not necessarily protected at all under U.S. copyright law -- fixation was required. I would presume though that this was a prepared statement written down (and thus fixed) beforehand. The 1976 Copyright Act did not go into effect until 1978, so if this plaque was first put up in 1976, that changed definition of publication is also irrelevant (but I think this would probably be considered as "published" now as well). Simultaneous publication in other countries is an interesting question, but is a moot point here as well. That could be an interesting question for determining Berne Convention "country of origin" and status in countries outside the U.S., but en-wikisource goes by U.S. law only, so since it was at least simultaneously published in the U.S., the URAA does not apply and only U.S. copyright law applies. The question here though is when did this plaque get put up, and was it done with permission. According to the above, it was put up in 1976, and I think that would constitute general publication, if it was done with permission -- that to me is the only question. If we do presume that since this was put up only 10 days after the speech was given that permission was likely there, then it does seem to me to be PD-US-no_notice. If there is evidence of other publications, those could also show PD status, but as far as I can see we are basing the decision on this plaque alone. That would also mean we can only use the excerpt shown on the plaque. So, tentative  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the point about the URAA, the U.S. law, etc. to precisely describe the moment of 1976. May I remind you that in fact the full speech, not only the first one-third of it, is shown on the plague right now. Please refer to the following photos that I have taken here (see whole, part I part II part III. Hanteng (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You may have done the same thing that I did with this early on and assume the entire speech was put on the plaque... sadly it's only 3 or 4 lines from the dedication (see p. 16 of 18 in PDF for the excerpt & install info). I could easily agree with your above had the entire speech been put on there for the benefit of future generations but that's clearly not the case here.

Sorry that I may have confused you by accident earlier. In fact the "entire speech" was put on the plaque. Please refer to the photos that I have taken here (see whole, part I part II part III. So to make it absolutely clear: the full speech is indeed engraved and displayed on the plague, but from the US government documents that we can gather from current search engines, only the first part is documented. So, what is your personal verdict now if the full text of the speech is indeed there on the plague? Hanteng (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having hard time biting my tongue about all this and continuing to not mentioning the obvious alternative -- a 3 or 4 line excerpt can surely pass as acceptable over on Wikipedia (even if the reasoning is plain old fair use) couldn't it?. The photo(s) of the damn thing could make for a nice touch over there too. George Orwell III (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did consider to divide them into a few excerpts and move them to either Wikipedia and Wikiquote, along with photos, but it would be a better idea if I can make the case for a clearer claim on {{PD-US-no-notice}} for this speech text with the evidence we have here. Hanteng (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Keep -- Concur with Clindberg's comments. Can't prove drafts existed prior to publication in a fixed medium (or first fixation). Any and all valid points made prior to the full-speech revelation are probably secondary to that point if at all. George Orwell III (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies in confusing anyone into believing that the contributed text is not fully transcribed from the plague. The plague contains the full text that I am contributing here, not just the first part. Hanteng (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

Open Letter from a Writer to the Military Junta

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a translation I did from the original Spanish. The translation has a possible copyright infringement notice but I don't know why (the original doesn't). Can someone please explain? Thanks, MockDuck (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

From our recent review, PD-Manifesto has no basis in law. So there has been an amendment to the tag used. There has been a process in place to review the documents, and where possible move them to WikiLivre. Just because it is an open letter, does not remove the right to copyright on the work. So we would need a demonstration that the original is in the public domain, something more than it was an open letter. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response billinghurst. Should the original also be tagged as needing review? (This is just my translation from the original Spanish). Do the same rules apply to a translation? I'm not a legal person so I'm not sure what evidence would need to be presented to demonstrate that the work is in the public domain. The historical context is that Rodolfo Walsh sent this letter about the military junta which was then occupying Argentina to all the major newspapers in the country, which published it, and the next day the junta killed him. This was in 1977. MockDuck (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not legal person either. The copyright of the original is owned by Walsh, and following his death, his heirs. You would own the copyright of the translation itself, though not the original thoughts and words behind it, so the restriction being that only where the original artistic work is in the public domain, or through inherited rights. If the original is on esWS, then it is my understanding that it may be problematic with regard to copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe his daughter is now a politician. If I were to get in contact with her and ask permission, would an email granting permission be good enough legally? Is there any special language that would need to be included in the email? Thanks again for your help. MockDuck (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be excellent. It would need a statement that states ownership to the work, and that puts it into the public domain, generally by assigning to one of the tags at Help:Copyright tags. We would ask for the permission to be sent mailto:permissions@wikimedia.org as per mw:OTRS. It would be useful to identify the works here by url, which makes it easier for the OTRS permission to be applied (and that would be the same for esWS and enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete It has been several months without release on this work that seems to be copyrighted. The user does not appear to still be active on any wikis http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=MockDuck Jeepday (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy and Society/Bureaucracy

The following discussion is closed:

deleted copyvio — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills) is protected by copyright. Here is the link to Stanford. Ingram (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded; open and shut case.--Longfellow (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment left a note on contributors page. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bukola Saraki's Inaugural Address

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, no OTRS received — billinghurst sDrewth

I am not clear on the copyright status of Nigerian government works, however, from my quick scan, I do not see any exemption from copyright that makes such works public domain. I have added a query to the contributor's talk page asking the question, and will park this notification here in the interim. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Contributor has said that they will organise for permission. {{OTRS pending}} applied — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stated that we need the OTRS within the next week or we will be unable to host the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No OTRS received, and no further discussion was provided by the contributor. Deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Author:Robert_Ervin_Howard/Letters

The following discussion is closed:

delete

I'm open to good sourcing, but the copyright on the letters run from first general publication. I don't know when they were first published exactly, but it had to be after Howard achieved his fame; if it was after 1963, they wouldn't have needed a renewal. In the unlikely case they were first published after 2002, they'll be under life+70 and hence out of copyright since 2006. In any case, we need sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that I don't contest those letters that were published near the time of writing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oof, that is a mess. As you note, anything first published prior to 1989 would have needed a copyright notice, and anything published before 1964 would have needed a renewal. Stuff published 2002 or before may well be copyrighted. One complicating matter is if the publications were done with permission -- if permission was not sought from rightsholders, that would not count as true publication, and they could still be "unpublished" (and thus PD by 70pma) today. I did come across this book, which actually lists the works publishing each of his individual letters (or at least a tone of them). There was a 1989 volume of Selected Letters, though there are definitely some which first came out in some 2007 books (not sure if we have any of those here though). The preface of that book also gives some details on who the rightsholders were -- kinda messy. But, that book (not all of which is viewable on Google Books) does give the provenance of a great many letters, so the status of many could be much better determined (and sources given). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have that book. I'll try to add more information when I can. Note that the author of the book, Paul Herman, wrote this article, listing all of Howard's public domain works, which is what I used to add the red links to this page. It doesn't actually say why idividual works are public domain but most of the letters appear to have been "previously unpublished" as of 2007. I'll try to work out the details from both book and article. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this took a while; my home computer has been having problems. I've added publication dates based on the book The Neverending Hunt and the website HowardWorks. I've deleted some of the unreferenced red links and added copyvio templates to some of the already existing works which I think may not be public domain. These are listed here to keep everything in one place. There may be a few more to add to these. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Howard Collector #5 & #7 have been explicitly renewed (even if it wasn't a legal requirement), and baring other evidence, we have to assume the later ones were at least copyrighted. Everything first published in that Swedish publication is fair game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The other 2002 and earlier letters are out, but the rest of the 21st century stuff should be fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed some more links, including those to the letters listed below. Is this OK now? What is the policy for the letters that were partially published before 2006 and fully published afterwards? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When we're talking about "partially published", how much are we talking about? If it's a couple sentences, I'd be tempted to mumble something about fair use and subcopyrightable and let it pass; if it's like a page, that's not going to fly. We could keep the parts not previously published, I guess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted all those following, as seemingly not under dispute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

June 1, 1934, to R. H. Barlow

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #18 (Fall 1973) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

June 14, 1934, to R. H. Barlow

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #18 (Fall 1973) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

July 1933, to August Derleth

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #15 (Fall 1971) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

May 9, 1936 to August Derleth

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #5 (Summer 1964) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

July 1933, to H. P. Lovecraft

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #15 (Fall 1971) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

July 23, 1935, to Clark Ashton Smith

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #11 (Spring 1969) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

March 15, 1933, to Clark Ashton Smith

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #5 (Summer 1964) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

May 6, 1935, to Farnsworth Wright

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #9 (Spring 1967) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

December 17, 1934, to Emil Petaja

This letter was first published in The Howard Collector #7 (Winter 1965) and it is not listed in Paul Herman's list of public domain letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gnostic's Creed

The following discussion is closed:

delete copyright — billinghurst sDrewth 06:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no license, no context here, and a search at Google Books for "I acknowledge one great invisible God, unrevealable" reveals only 21st century publications. I'm assuming this is pretty darn modern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Appears to come from this website, and has been there since at least 1999 (predating the copies on Google Books). It has a credit, but I can't figure what work the credit is referring to. The website seems to be quite aware that its texts are being copied, and have no issue with it (a number are probably PD), but there is no explicit copyright statement on the texts (there is one for the website design, but copyright on anything else is conspicuously absent). This work though is in a "modern works" section, so it's not PD by age for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• delete on evidence provided. Import from WP, poor provenance — billinghurst sDrewth 05:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Josephine the Singer, or the Mouse Folk

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This translation of a German-language story by Author:Franz Kafka was translated by Willa and Edwin Muir and was presumably first published in 1948 in the short story collection: The Penal Colony: Stories and Short Pieces. Renewal R622896. The original was probably out of copyright as of 1994. ResScholar (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• delete no evidence that we can keep it. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tangent

The following discussion is closed:

Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Tangent and Wikilivres:Talk:Tangent with sources noted there and deleted here due to not fully derivative copyright permission.--Jusjih (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Released in the public domain by its author, only on the condition "that reproduction is of the complete work and not excerpts from it" (see here). This doesn't fit our criteria of free licences, since (at least) it is incompatible with CC-BY-SA, which gives the right to remix. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete Clearly incompatible with WMF requirements on licensing.--Longfellow (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: marked with Template:Copyvio on the work — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Where was the work and it copyright permission obtained from? If the copyright permission is sufficiently proved, I would like to send it to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Comics Journal (web archive) published it, and the specific page where he disclaims copyright is here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve Jobs's Commencement address at Stanford University

The following discussion is closed:

delete, — billinghurst sDrewth 15:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's another modern speech that we have no reason to assume is out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it's in copyright unless the author has disclaimed copyright, which is unlikely.--Longfellow (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete -- I miss albums George Orwell III (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete -- Seems pretty obvious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete unless is produced taht it s released to PD. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

decision is to delete

Muhammad

The following discussion is closed:

speedy delete

Muhammad and User:Sayedahmed are direct copies from http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/181/. Jafeluv (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's probably out of scope anyway, since it wasn't taken from a published book.--Longfellow (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted clear copyright statement and would seem to be compiled at that site. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: to the user's page I have blanked and hid the particular revisions — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Letter to lawyer Dennis Edney

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, copyrighted work, no free license. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This was duplicated under a similar title, now merged, but there is no source information. The last line prompts me to bring it here,

"P.S. Please keep this letter as private as can be, and as you see appropriate."

Without evidence of a source, there is no reason to suppose the author wanted it any other way. cygnis insignis 06:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A source has been supplied, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/OmarKhadrletter_word.pdf, from which I could glean nothing relevant to copyright. Anyone familiar with the author's works? cygnis insignis 09:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Without a license, it's clearly copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be anything relevant to copyright -- blatantly still copyrighted. It may well be a public record by this point, which does mean that people have right to access copies, so copying and some distribution may be implicitly allowed, but not necessarily derivative works and certainly not commercial use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• delete no reason to host, no evidence that not covered by copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Adil Profile.png

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unused photo without a free license; all images of the Flickr user are marked "All rights reserved". Jafeluv (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. The image itself had a statement that it was seeking OTRS permission and should be deleted if not received, and that was 2008. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Other

List of Countries Where Politicians' Speeches are Copyright-Free

The following discussion is closed.

Given the discussions above. I would like us to prepare a simple list like the above. It should be concerned only with the speeches of politicians (as if it tries to cover too many matters, it will become, inevitably, a very complicated list and hard to decipher and we will be back in the original position - there is already huge amounts of information about what is and what is not copyright free for each country...It is hard to decipher the copyright position. For example, I interpret the gudiance on WikiSource concerning Taiwan copyright rules to mean that a speech by a Taiwan politician is not copyright protected and can be hosted on this Website. User Billinghurst appears to disagree. What is the position? Any help with this list would be appreciated. These are the frist few countries that require urgent clarification. Feel free to chip in other countries where you know the position. Thanks Formosa (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC):

The List

List of Countries Where Politicians' Speeches are Copyright-Free:

• Iran
• USA (Federal politicians only);

[Suggestion to Reader: Add other countries where you know the position]

Position requires clarification:

• France?
• Ireland? -"The [2000 Copyright and Related Rights] Act also clarifies provisions relating to Government copyright, which will apply to works made under the direction or control of the Government, and which will subsist for 50 years following the creation of the work concerned." [7]] 2000 Copyright and Related Rights Act Information Note. Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Copyright and Related Rights Section, Intellectual Property Unit, Ireland. (March 2001).
• United Kingdom: Controlled by Crown copyright ResScholar (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Taiwan?

The List & Taiwan

I think Taiwan should be listed with the USA and Iran because the WikiSource Guidance says: "Works ineligible for copyright in Taiwan The constitution, acts, regulations, official documents (including proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties), and their translations and compilations by central or local government agencies. ". What do others think? Formosa (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should take place at multilingual Wikisource, where the expertise of other Wikisources can be drawn together. ResScholar (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If by "politician" you mean "government employee" I think I understand what you are trying to do. But why don't you dispense with the levels of abstraction you have adopted in your disagreement with Billinghurst, and say what problems you are having licensing the works you would like to present? For instance, what Wikisource guide are you talking about, and what does it have to do with your license requirements? ResScholar (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support reviewing the approach to copyright issues surrounding Taiwan, as the words used in the template could do with clarification, especially as this page has a difference and may be better wording. Having better documentation and clarification to support these matters would be useful to all. I would prefer such an approach rather than trying to clump it with anything. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "But why don't you dispense with the levels of abstraction you have adopted in your disagreement with Billinghurst, and say what problems you are having licensing the works you would like to present?" I do not think i could have been any clearer. I would like to put a list together of the countries where politicians' (elected politicians to be even clearer) are copyright free. If the expertise does not exist here (or the will-power), that is a pity but there is nothing abstract or unclear about the idea. Formosa (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst - Could I nominate you to do the review of the Taiwan copyright position. Given that I wanted to put up President Ma's speech, if I opined on the Taiwan copyright position, I might be accused of bias. You could then let us know if speeches by Taiwan elected politicians can be hosted on this website. In hope of a positive response - Thanks! Formosa (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User ResScholar - Thank you for adding that elected politicians speeches in the UK are protected by Crown Copyright. I take it that means we cannot host them on this website. Can you confirm if I am correct? (I wasn't too sure what the implications of the words "Crown Copyright" are).Formosa (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst - Assuming ResScholar confirms that elected politicans speeches (made within the usual timeframes etc) are not copyright free and cannot generally, be hosted on this website, could I ask you to delete Margaret Thatcher's speech (discussed above). I would but I am not an Admin and I think you are. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ResScholar - I would add that for me the List I am talking about would be very useful. I like politics so I lean towards politicans speeches etc as things to put up here on WikiSource...So this is all a very practical matter for me. When I say politicians, I am happy for that to exclude any one who is not elected. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree including Taiwan in a "List of Countries Where Politicians' Speeches are Copyright-Free" after critically reading Article 9 of the Copyright Act (Republic of China). Make sure that civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties have made them. If you have any doubt, ask me as your only Chinese-speaking administrator here.--Jusjih (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jusjih - Many thanks for your assistance. I appreciate it. Given your conclusion that you think Taiwan can be included on the List, please could you have a look at: The Quest for Modernity. That is an article containing a speech by ROC President Ma Ying-Jeou. User: Billinghurst (Administrator) deleted it. If you think it is in order, please Billinghurst, could you restore the speech. Or please could you discuss this with Administrator Jusjih. Thanks. I hope this speech can be restored. I believe its being stored here would not infringe ROC copyright. Formosa (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot undelete it when it was made at Harvard University in the USA where this website is located, without evidence of USA copyright permission. As {{PD-in-USGov}} says that 17 U.S.C. 105 does not automatically apply outside the USA, neither does Article 9 of the ROC Copyright Act automatically apply outside Taiwan. Please explain which ROC website you saw the text, or I uphold Billinghurst's deletion as valid.--Jusjih (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The speech has been published on the official website of the Office of the President of the Republic of China. You can read it by going to [8] and then clicking on press releases and opening the link entitled "President Ma's remarks at the video conference with the Fairbank Center, Harvard University". Thanks for looking into this. It is appreciated. Formosa (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also User:Jusjih, you are mistaken when you say "I cannot undelete it when it was made at Harvard University in the USA". President Ma Ying-jeou made the speech in the Republic of China at his Presidential Office in Taipei. It was merely broadcast live to the Fairbank Centre, Harvard University, USA. User:Jusjih - Do these facts now change the position? Formosa (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On who is the onus to establish the copyright position?

The following discussion is closed.

I would draw the discussion on this page to the attention of Administrators. I believe that an Administrator on this site(Administrator Sherurcij) may be in breach of the rules. Each time I have "tagged and hidden" the Talk: Vive le Québec libre speech, he has reverted the change. He insists that the burden is on me to list this page on this project page. I have told him that as publisher, the onus is on him to list it here and defend its copyright status if he so chooses. Who is correct - Me or him? Formosa (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for only myself and as generally a passive observer here, my understanding is if you place a banner such as the Copyright Violation on any page, it is up to you to explain why you believe the banner and/or action is warranted in the appropriate forum(s) for starters (in the case of a possible CopyVio → this page) George Orwell III (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George - It was a yes or no question and you gave the answer "Yes - The burden is on me to establish the copyright position. It seems incredible to me that as a contributor I can put up what I like and leave it to others to do the work of establishing the copyright position but thats what you are clearly saying. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly - if you nominate a work for deletion for copyright violation, then you should give your reasons why you believe the work is in violation - making note the creator neglected to provide licensing info. It seems pretty pointless to hide something created 4 years ago, not "touched" for at least 2 years other than minor tweaking of headers or it's CATs, by an originating WS member who hasn't made a contribution, in most cases, for over a year now of any type and wait around for a quick resolution.

Without checking the archives for the specifics, it appears that similar 2006 works did not have any licensing info either, at some point were cited as a copyright violation, nobody stepped up to a.) provide any licensing info and/or b.) made a case for keeping the work in spite of not being the original creator. I don't see why, other than certain works being locked, the same nomination procedure doesn't apply for most of your listed works on this page. If the creator re-appears at some point later and finds his watchlist peppered with deletions, I'm sure the works can be restored and the argument of who can prove what could resume at that point. it's his or her fault for not providing the proper license to begin with. George Orwell III (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You start your interjection with the words "Not exactly" but then continue "if you nominate a work for deletion [I referred to tagging and hiding-not deletion] for copyright violation, then you should give your reasons why you believe the work is in violation". There is no "Not exactly" about it. You are clearly saying that the burden is on me to deal with copyright issues. Your reply could end there as after that it adds nothing more. I repeat that I find this quite incredible and in direct contradiction of the statement that it is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, if I follow your behavior, you wish to have the ability to tag possible copyright (policy) violations, and wait for the alleged (policy) violator to present his/her case before saying why you think it's a policy violation. As I said, we have a large backlog, and Billinghurst presumably felt the need to quickly dispose of the matter in your cases. I am assured he or his substitutes can respond to objections by contributors of works that are hidden promptly, so I am willing to yield to his administrative discretion. But I wouldn't go as far as to say the burden of proof is on the contributor, I would say the burden to "follow any relevant licensing requirements" is on the contributor. Once a nominator can be shown to have helped to guide contributors through that process, I would be more willing to allow that nominator more discretion in nominating works. ResScholar (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ResScholar - I cannot really understand your response above. Its not a complicated question so it should get a simple answer.

Re. "I think, if I follow your behavior, you wish to have the ability to tag possible copyright (policy) violations, and wait for the alleged (policy) violator to present his/her case before saying why you think it's a policy violation." You are entirely correct there.

Re. "As I said, we have a large backlog, and Billinghurst presumably felt the need to quickly dispose of the matter in your cases. I am assured he or his substitutes can respond to objections by contributors of works that are hidden promptly, so I am willing to yield to his administrative discretion. " The backlog or Billinghurst have nothing to do with what I am asking.

Re. "But I wouldn't go as far as to say the burden of proof is on the contributor, I would say the burden to "follow any relevant licensing requirements" is on the contributor." What does that mean? If I publish an article on WikiSource without providing any copyright information, how have I followed "relevant licensing requirements"?

Re. "Once a nominator can be shown to have helped to guide contributors through that process, I would be more willing to allow that nominator more discretion in nominating works." This appears to clearly be that the burden is on me to establish that a piece is in violation of copyright. Lets be clear. Is that the position? Thanks. Formosa (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license JeepdaySock (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JeepdaySock - That is exactly how I have understood the position to be. Formosa (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reflect it this whole matter in this way.

Works added today

• Onus is on contributor to assert compatibility
• Patroller should be tagging for deletion (or where patrolled by administrator then deleting) clear copyright violations as works that do not comply with our licensing.

• There is a clear process to request undeletion, and we need to be seen to be managing these works

• Works that are uncertain are tagged and brought to this page

Works added in past

• Onus is contributor to assert compatibility (though now through a different forum)

Work has been patrolled so at that point all works need to be brought to this page

• A work brought here should have a reasoning on why the work is not in the public domain, and that should be either a consideration of the publishing or a discussion about how we have applied the wrong law / case law to the work

The reason for the difference is that there has been a level of acceptance of the work (implicit or explicit), and if that is to be contested then there it needs to be more than a labelling of a work, it needs to be brought here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(As a note to Formosa, with the works that I nominated from some of your contributions, they were going to be brought here collectively. That has not been possible in the morass of discussion here and I am awaiting clarity of the discussion around the base principle before addressing specific works) — billinghurst sDrewth

Formosa interjects here to respond to Billinghurst:

Billinghurst – I think your explanations above do not stand up to scrutiny. Here is why:

• You start off by saying that the “onus is [on] contributor to assert compatibility”. Afterwards, everything you add with respect to existing works on the website is in direct contradiction of that.
• You turn a very basic WikiSource principle on its head. That basic principle is that "a contributor has the primary responsibility for establishing that a work may be legally included in Wikisource under the terms of its Copyright policy."
• You draw a totally arbitrary distinction between works that have been published on this website for some time and recent additions. You go on to provide some sort of justification for this arbitrary distinction but, as we will see, the logic does not stand up. The logic you give for this arbitrary distinction is that:
  • by way of justification you say an existing work is different to a new work because it “has been patrolled”. Just how do you know it has been patrolled? In recent days I alone have listed a number of works on this discussion page that have been on WikiSource for lengthy periods (even years) and yet are very clearly in copyright breach. Given this, how can you justify asserting that works that have been on this website for some time have been “patrolled”? and
  • by way of further justification you say an existing work is different to a new work because "there has been a level of acceptance of the work (implicit or explicit) [on the Website]”. Just what do you mean by acceptance? Do you mean 'turning a blind eye to copyright breach'? Alternatively, if you mean that it is accepted that the work is ‘copyright-ok’, on what do you base that? Is it a requirement that the work must have been discussed before, perhaps on its own discussion page? You certainly do not say that, You suggest that the mere fact that the work has been on this website for some time means that it is accepted that it has not been published in breach of copyright. Also, more fundamentally, what has the notion of “accecptance” to do with anything. Copyright law is copyright law regardless of whether editors have turned a ‘blind eye’ (i.e. ‘accepted’ copyright breaches in the in the past).
• You provide no good justification for applying a double standard - one standard for new works, another standard for existing works.

Note to other Editors: If you agree with me that we should stick to basic WikiSource principles and not draw a totally arbitrary distinction between works that have been on this Website for some time and new ones, please chip in! Thanks. Formosa (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to listen or do you just want to pick out the eyes out of ants?

• Help:Patrolling

Works that are considered copyright violations are evaluated.

• No, it is not contradictory. It is talking about an approach to what is seen on patrolling and what previously exists. Hence an approach that addresses works that were added in an earlier culture of WS. The only thing that is arbitrary is whether they are deleted during patrolling or not, and that is not contradictory. Sherurcij has addressed that below.

Further note, we work collegiately and cooperatively here, your argument style is getting to be belligerent, and I consider your approach getting to be divisive, not exploratory. They don't need chest-beating comments to encourage them to agree or disagree with either you or me. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Formosa interjects in response to Billinghurst again.

First point - Please do not make personalised attacks on me - suggessting that I do not listen, am being belligerent or am un-cooperative etc. I would appreciate if you refrained from that even if you do not like that I pick large holes in your arguments. Can you point to even one instance where I have been less than polite?

Second point - As to other editors not needing encouragement to contribute - I disagree. We definitely need more participation here on this "Copyright Violations" page. In my view there is a failure to apply basic WikiSource principles here.

Second point - Re. "No, it is not contradictory". Of course it is contradictory. The basic principle is that a contributor must establish the copyright position. You reverse that position.

Third point - Re. your reference to "patrolling" etc. You have ignored my question. On what basis do you assert that existing articles have ever been "patrolled"? Do you apply any criteria? Do you require that there must have been a prior discussion of their copyright? No. You apply none of thes objective criteria. You simply make an arbitrary distinction to permit the application of a double standard: one standard for new works; a lower standard for older works.

Thanks. Formosa (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think so? Interesting. You will excuse me if I disagree, and leave you to it. It would seem that you will choose to disagree with anything that I state, find fault or try to rally people to a point of view. I will leave you to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Other editors - Billinghurst, it appears, is not even prepared to defend the double standard approach to copyright he is advocating....Is that it? Is his word the final one? Formosa (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Double Standard ? - Here and across most of the wiki's it is not unusual for a double standard to apply in practice based length of history. It is something of a cultural artifact/custom (there maybe a better word for this). The assumption that early work was good falls back to w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Many of the templates, rules, and customs did not exist when the first works were published. It is rather complex for a short entry in the time I have available, but there is good reason, and it is appropriate, to raise a higher level of burden on those questioning older works. Think about it like this if today we made a new rule that everything on Wikisource must have an Image on commons, we would not delete everything that does not, we would work to add them to existing works. JeepdaySock (talk)

When a new user adds something, it's most practical to ask them to explain why it is legal for us to host. But after time goes on, its mere existence is implied consent to its legality, and it has become an established member of our collection. Also, it's not improbable that if its contributor is a long-term contributor, that they will no longer be around. Demanding the original contributor justify their work is no longer feasible at that point; if the goal is to make a collection, then we can't just delete a work because all the t's weren't crossed or all the i's weren't dotted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeepday and Prosfilaes – The question we are talking about is whether two standards for the application of copyright rules should be applied on this website. To talk of things like “a cultural artefact”, “assuming good faith” (JeepdaySock), “implied consent” or “established member[s] of our collection” (Prosfilaes) is, to me, simply ‘mumbo-jumbo’. By that I mean, what on earth have any of those notions to do with copyright? If you can explain that, I would be happy to listen. The question is simple. Is the work (regardless of when it was posted here) ‘copyright-ok’? If there is a doubt that it is not, it should be immediately ‘tagged and dragged’. After that, it should be for the contributor or others who wish to get involved, to explain how it is copyright-ok. If it is not ‘copyright-ok’ it should be deleted. This is plain common sense. No woolly reasoning. But, alas, I am out-numbered here. Formosa (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeepday – I will go back to you here (so I share it with other) on your message to me on my talk page which was:

” See my edit. Leave me a note if you need clarification or references. I think you are doing good to question the copyright of anything this not clear, and you are correct to ask for clarification when it is needed on policy. We can't always give you the answers because we don't always have them, if no one can give you an answer then the next step is to bring it to the community to see if consensus can be reached to update the policy. Keep in mind we are all (you, me and everyone here) volunteers sitting in front of our computers during our free time and trying to add the project. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Formosa response: Thank you for your encouragement. I have, I think, been doing exactly what you have suggested. I also appreciate that this is volunteer based. I have been pretty shocked to find that the consensus on this project is for a double standard whereby if a work is on this website for a while, the burden is not on the contributor to establish the copyright position. Instead, that work is left to others. I canvassed the opinions of others. You and others have all expressed the view that you are happy with this double standard. The justification you and other have given has been, weak, to say the least, in my view. But alas, that is the consensus. I will work within it as always. Formosa (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're shocked to find that you won't come back someday and find that due to a subtle change in the way we tag licenses, all your work has been deleted? Personally, I like to think that someone put a good-faith effort to fix things up instead of just deleting my work because I stepped out for a minute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As billinghurst suggests, the answer is two-fold, the onus is on the contributor to ensure the work is compatible - and we encourage/ask contributors to add a license template to the work...although our template collection is small and many hundreds, even thousands, of works are hosted here without such a template yet are still in the public domain. Meanwhile, if somebody wishes to tag an existing work as a CopyVio, they/you have the burden to bring it to this page and explain why you believe it is a copyright violation. Now in this instance, it is a moot point because I have already defended the work's copyright status on its talk page, where I told you not to blank a work unless you bring it to this page for discussion, and you have stubbornly continued to blank the work, without voicing your actual concerns on either this page or the talk page, even though I have clearly "asserted the compatability of the work on Wikisource" and offered you links and quotes of copyright law to buttress the argument. So the onus is now on you to prove that I am wrong in my claim, if you wish it removed. As BH says though, often a common sense guideline skips this formality if we see somebody has added Harry Potter or Catcher in the Rye, where it is immediately obvious to the patrolling administrator why it was tagged. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 12:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst - If you have time - you might also come back to me on the important questions I have asked you about the meaning of an "Edict of Government" further above. The answers could have broad application. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed it repeatedly, and George Orwell III specifically addressed and links to it. Otherwise I am not sure which question to which bit you refer. Maybe if there was less text put here by you, or suitable summary to your edits, then one would be able to see where one had questions to which to attend. You do make it hard without edit summaries, I have more to consider than to sit and read every word added here. Some of us do like to contribute on projects and non-controversial works.

You have not addressed my questions above in the section of this discussion called "Meaning of the term "Edict of Governmenet". Nor has any one else. I asked you whether your understanding of an "Edict" of Government was such that:

• the statement must be made by a Government (a minister speaking, say, on the Government's behalf won't do); and
• the statement must be one that has legal effects.

Please could you respond above? Thanks. Formosa (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been clearly addressed at #Meaning of the term "Edict of Government" — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the full response given to my questions at #Meaning of the term "Edict of Government":

• Comment − Just to be clear, there is no Federal Law that uses or defines the term Edict of Government as far as I know. The term and any application of that definition comes from the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01 Hosted Online. My understanding is that it is intended to be used primarily by the Copyright Office staff internally, as a general guide to the Copyright Office policies and procedures. Wikipedia does not cite any instances where this internal manual or the definitions found within it has been given any legal standing in court or specifically used as anything other than the guide it was intended to be used by Copyright Office staffers. George Orwell III (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How does this answer my clear and concise questions? If you do not know how to answer them, you could simply say as much. Otherwise, you might kindly provide an answer. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)