Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-04

Kept

The Roubayyat bi Omar Khayyam

The following discussion is closed:

kept Billinghurst (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the translator, he's working from a 1978 French edition called "Les Rubaïyat" (here). Unless we can verifiably show that it's a reprint of an public domain edition, I don't think we can keep a derivative work of the French translation here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

With reluctance, I have to agree. The translator seems to take the point too.--Longfellow (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume I have not proved any fact on this case, as I am as ignorant as you are about the free character of this translation, and more than you because I do not know very well the laws on reproduction, edition, translation, etc. all about the copyrights. I have taken the responsibility to share something a little bit special, and thus taken the decision to assume that if it was against the law, I agree that it should be canceled from here. I have recently found here that the French translation, made by J.B. Nicolas (I believe he is the one I have because he is the only French translator of the Rubaiyat and I have found that he surely was the translator of my book), was done on 464 quatrains, and referring to the date he worked in the embassy, he is probably dead and gone long time ago, and the work he did was maybe published before 1923 (I think it is the date before which all works are open sourced in the US). This is all what I know, and maybe you can help me saying if the translation I done was in fact unlawful or wasn't.

Thank you for your answer and your attention,--El Translatore (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

He is not the only translator of the Rubaiyat; Franz Toussaint was another translator, and the English Wikipedia article implies there were several others. Could you tell us exactly which edition you're translating from and possibly give us some sample text?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I translate it from the edition "Les Rubaïyat"-Miniatures persanes (subtitle) and the editor's name is Liber (printed in Italy in 1987 first in 1978). The translator's name is, strangely, not present anywhere. I give you some of the quatrains that could be recognized:

1

Un matin, j'entendis venir de notre taverne une voix

qui disait: à moi, joyeux buveurs! levez-vous, et venez

remplir encor une coupe de vin, avant que le destin

vienne remplir celle de notre existence.

3

Qui t'as conduite cette nuit vers nous, ainsi prise de vin?

Qui donc, enlevant le voile qui te couvrait, a pu te conduire

jusqu'ici? Qui enfin t'amène aussi rapide que le vent pour

attiser encor le feu de celui qui brûlait déjà en ton absence?

5

Ô khadjè, rends-nous licite un seul de nos souhaits,

retiens ton haleine et conduis-nous sur la voie de Dieu.

Certes, nous marchons droit, nous; c'est toi qui vois de

travers; va donc guérir tes yeux, et laisse nous en paix.

Another thing that makes me think it is J.B. Nicolas who wrote that translation is that the number of quatrains I have (464) is the same as the total amount given by Wikipedia in its article.

Thank you again, --El Translatore (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If what you have matches this, then we should be fine. We just need to note that on the translation page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And we need a license from you for your translation, whether it be {{PD-Self}} or {{CC-BY-SA 3.0}} or whatever.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 25 November 2008

The following discussion is closed:

Kept with cc-by-3.0 per source site.--Jusjih (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

appeared on Change.gov George Orwell III (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As Mr. Gilbert correctly points out - the articles appear to go beyond what I've linked (my bad - I didn't scroll all the way down) but the Q & A parts are in the video portions from what I can tell ( I don't have the free time right now to check them all ) if it matters any

• Keep: full video George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Directions concerning treatment of Jewish property 13 October 1941

The following discussion is closed:

kept ResScholar (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• PD-EdictGov, possibly? (PD-NaziScum? That would enable so many interesting things, here and on Commons...)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  It looks like an official work to order which kinds of Jewish property to be confiscated and covered by commons:Template:PD-GermanGov.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Without opposition so far, I am tagging it {{PD-DEGov}} so hopefully it will be kept here.--Jusjih (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Same reason as #Comprehensive report of Einsatzgruppe A up to 15 October 1941 above. ResScholar (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Employment of prisoners in the aviation industry (survey)

The following discussion is closed:

kept ResScholar (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Same reason as #Comprehensive report of Einsatzgruppe A up to 15 October 1941 above. ResScholar (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hacktivismo Declaration

The following discussion is closed:

Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Hacktivismo Declaration where non-commercial license is accepted.--Jusjih (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, there is a circularity problem here: this text cites the Wikipedia article, and the Wikipedia article in turn cites this. But anyway... A primary source is easily found at the Cult of the Dead Cow website, and that website carries the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA-3.0 license. Unless someone wants to approach them about releasing the text under a non-NC license, the NC clause apparently makes it incompatible with Wikisource policy. I don't know about Wikilivres policy. --LarryGilbert (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kharkow speech

The following discussion is closed:

kept ResScholar (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Same reason as #Comprehensive report of Einsatzgruppe A up to 15 October 1941 above. ResScholar (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle East Policy (Chomsky)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, Permission to host granted. Jeepday (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky wrote to Wikisource telling us we could host it...I'm inclined to believe him. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 12:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It may not be as definitive as I would like, as I would have preferred that it was OTRS'd, that said, I am not about to endorse its removal. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My Private Will and Testament

The following discussion is closed:

kept ResScholar (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Same reason as #Comprehensive report of Einsatzgruppe A up to 15 October 1941 above. ResScholar (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Overhauling of gas vans

The following discussion is closed:

kept ResScholar (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) So who holds the copyright now for works created under the Nazi regime circa. 1942? German Government? George Orwell III (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Same reason as #Comprehensive report of Einsatzgruppe A up to 15 October 1941 above. ResScholar (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Posen speech

The following discussion is closed:

kept ResScholar (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Same reason as #Comprehensive report of Einsatzgruppe A up to 15 October 1941 above. ResScholar (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

China Ireland mark 30 years of ties

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am now realising that there are probably lots of contributions that I made that Billinghurst has removed for discussion. I will add them here for discussion as I come across them. This one I think is not copyright protected. It is the text of messages to and from the Chinese and Irish presidents if I recall correctly. If the text of the Chinese message to the Irish president is ok and the text of the Irish message to the Chinese pres. is not ok etc. we can discuss that too. Formosa (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Coffee Cantata

The following discussion is closed:

deleted Billinghurst (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing deletion for this translation, but I the subject of why I am doing so bears some explanation.

Firstly, I traced this translation of a J. S. Bach piece to an ancient web page (Nov. 1997) which was the ultimate source for the Wikipedia version that was transwikied to Wikisource. My intuition tells me, like the St. Patrick cases, that this is not a translation original to the website owner.

So it's not the copyright page linked to in the corner of that page that makes me have doubts about the copyright status. I think the website owner doesn't know the copyright status, and, without explicitly admitting that it's not original to him, is making sure that in at least some manner, obscure as his copyright description is, he is saying that he is displaying the work as fair use, if it happens to retain its copyright, and must be treated by website visitors in that way.

So what rather makes me propose deletion is the results of my subsequent searches. There is practically no sheet music of any kind (where the lyrics might expected to be found) on Google books, while there are a number of publishers who have published sheet music for the Coffee Cantata itself.

This basic fact about sheet music makes the provenance of most any published music either difficult or costly to trace. Combine that with unorganized title listings in music copyright registrations and renewals at the Pennsylvania copyright records website (along with multiple possible first words in the title in this particular work) and a rather plain conclusion arises in those who consider those facts that this kind of research is too onerous to undertake for the value of the possible benefits that might accrue in determining the work's status. So until such time as sheet music appears on Google books, I would vote for deletion in these kinds of cases. ResScholar (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment; contributor of work notified of nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

closed, deleted

Nkulunkulu Mnikati wetibusiso temaSwati

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted for no license template and uncertain translation license. It may be undeleted if very good reasons exist.--Jusjih (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The national anthem of Swaziland was written before 1968 by Andrease Enoke Fanyana Simelane (b. 1934). However, since Swaziland is a life + 50 country, unless Simelane wrote it and died before the age of 12, it still would have been eligible to have been copyrighted in 1996, and thus eligible for URAA restoration. It's a national anthem, but as recent as it is, there's still a good chance it's not a PD work. ResScholar (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Were the lyrics published as part of their law? :-) As came up in another situation here recently, copyright in national anthems is pretty weird topic I would think. This one sounds like it was created to be the national anthem, not a existing song which was co-opted, which makes it a rather more difficult case I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• keep I am with Clindberg on this matter, to be a national anthem that would be a codified matter, and to me that gives {{PD-GovEdict}}. To be a national anthem it would seem to have an official process to have been undertaken, and one would expect that to be with the words. One of the cases where I would be loath to delete for a point of uncertain purity. Is there any example where a national anthem has used, intimated, mentioned copyright applies. One of the few cases where I would advise that we wait for a takedown notice and host with good faith until that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-Deism?

The following discussion is closed:

copyvio deleted Billinghurst (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Stated that article was from a reprint from 1964 journal, though at this time no evidence produced to original source, though has been requested by Prosfilaes. At this stage pending though needs to monitored for earlier publishing. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor says: "this article which he wrote in the 1950s and which was reprinted in Christianity Today in 1964, was never copywritten, and so is today free knowledge." Thus there is no question that it cannot have been published before 1923. Can the editor demonstrate that it was never copyrighted?--Longfellow (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article says "On August 6, 1964, Paul VI published his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam". Wikipedia agees with that date, and there was no Pope Paul VI at all until June 21, 1963 (another point that the article also mentions). It is impossible to square this with the proposition that the article was written in the 1950s, unless this is a revision of an earlier work. Either way, the contributor's information is incorrect. BD2412 T 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense

The following discussion is closed:

deleted Billinghurst (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On the article's talk page a contributor leaves the comment

“

This looks like the 1979 Daniel Breazeale translation, in "Philosophy and Truth: Selections from Nietzsche's Notebooks of the Early 1870s"

”

— billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is correct. The passage appears in The Nietzsche Reader edited by Keith Ansell Pearson and Duncan Large, Blackwell Publishing, 2006 (available on Google Books) and they acknowledge Daniel Breazeale as their source on page xiv.--Longfellow (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whiskey in the Jar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Competing versions of an almost, maybe, one-time, could have been an opera, Thin Lizzy or Irish-folksong (recently re-done by Metallica too) song lyrics. If it has been around since the dinosaurs roamed the Earth & their curiously delightful creation called 'whisky' today, you'd think there was a scan that we could attribute/attach to it by now.

As it stands, it is nothing more than an infringement of Thin Lizzy's 1969~1973 copyright(s).

• Delete -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Needs more research. It's not an infringement of Thin Lizzy's copyright; the start is the start from the Dubliner's version, according to the Wikipedia page. Google Books offers this snippet of a 1957 book American balladry from British broadsides, George Laws, which predates both the Dubliner's and Thin Lizzy's versions. That book is PD, but that doesn't mean that the ballad is; but I suspect, given the word broadside, that the book will date it back old enough for us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a student guide - not one of the annual volumes. Still pretty sketchy imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

2008 Republican National Convention/Mitt Romney's Republican National Convention speech

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, aligns with Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address Billinghurst (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

see below

I wonder what copyright license or permission applies to this speech while this is nowhere fitting PD-USGov or PD-EdictGov.--Jusjih (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we must discuss all of the speeches from 2008 Republican National Convention. --Eliyak T·C 02:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would presume they were all written down beforehand... in which case, an easy  Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• delete we have discussed this general topic matter before, and it will be in the archives. I will dig — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment similar previous discussions (Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2009-08 Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2010-09). I believe that they enable a quicker determination through previous discussion. In all these cases, and they will occur into the future, that we should have clear statements that it is the preferred position of WS that speeches by political figures there should be a request to republish and guidance to the OTRS. [Note, that we need to do the OTRS documentation, rather than just keep pointing to Commons:Commons:OTRS — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. speeches made as part of federal government work would be OK (these however are part of Republican party function, not part of their federal duties). And I think that starting just recently, speeches by UK government officials may also be OK, per their new CC-like license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not PD. BD2412 T 04:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete all of 2008 Republican National Convention; even those speeches given by sitting federal officials are not covered by {{PD-USGov}}, as they were not given "as part of that person's official duties". - Htonl (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Last time we had the discussion, two points were brought up. For one the w:Speech or Debate Clause has been called upon to protect them in such speeches, which implies they're acting as part of their official duties. w:Speech or Debate Clause#John Murtha Haditha defamation case goes against that, but it was asserted, and never appealed. Not only that, even if the clause doesn't cover them, the job of a senator or the like is not a narrow one; when they hold forth publically on the US Government as "Senator" So-and-So, it's doing what their job calls them to do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Interesting, but would that extend to convention speeches? From what I've seen of those speeches—I haven't read all of them—they're mostly about how great the (Democratic|Republican) Party is and how great (Barack Obama|John McCain) would be as President, which to my mind is well outside of "official duties" territory. But I'm open to correction; is there any case law on the topic? - Htonl (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Campaign speeches are not "any Speech or Debate in either House", are not part of a Senator's duties as a Senator, and in any case have nothing to do with copyright.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete, see #2007 Democratic Debates--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Buchanan's Speech to 1992 GOP Convention

Slipping in another work of the same ilk. No licence provided, speech would not be {{PD-USGov}} and no other licences seem applicable nor indications that the speech is in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of doing this piecemeal, perhaps we should consider a mass nomination of everything in Category:Democratic Convention speeches and Category:Republican Convention speeches? Nothing in either of them is old enough to be PD by virtue of age, and I don't think any of them could be covered by PD-USGov by their very nature as party-political speeches. - Htonl (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete, see #2007 Democratic Debates--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A Time for Choosing

Seems to fall under this banner too. We need to resolve the issue. Billinghurst (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment -- What's left to resolve? It's a gray area as far as the pro or con legal arguments & interpretations, strict or otherwise, go. WS should not risk "infringement" until a more definitive court opinion or legal guidance is given on the matter. Every fiber of my being says a political speech such as this one is intended for the Public Domain and deserve to be hosted somewhere -- but at the same time I fully accept that hosting such works here on WS is just too problematic to be worthwhile or prudent while this "gray area" exists. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed Many of these speeches may be allowable under fair use or a CC licence that does not allow derivatives or non-commercial use, as it stands these are not restrictions that WS can uphold, especially as being a wiki they are not static by nature. Works deleted. 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted both.--Jusjih (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

… and then works by state governors in reply to federal matters are not works by federal employees, so would have normal copyright to apply. One would think that if someone went through the OTRS process that these works would have permission granted, though previously we have seen a reluctance for such works to have the process undertaken. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would expect most speakers to object to the fact that Wikisource requires permission to make derivative works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not PD. BD2412 T 04:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete, state officers are not covered by {{PD-USGov}}. Also delete Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Seventh State of the Union Address, which was given by a Senator but also not as part of his official duties. - Htonl (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete see #2007 Democratic Debates--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Journey to Centauri

The following discussion is closed:

deleted copyvio

Text begins and ends with a copyright notice with "all rights reserved". Zhaladshar requested a different license in 2006, but nothing more seems to be documented. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

delete - Apparently part of the background documentation of a late 90's DOS4G based video game. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• delete on basis of evidence presented — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Copyright is claimed JeepdaySock (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

2007 Democratic Debates

The following discussion is closed:

copyvio deleted

• 2007 Democratic Debate - 30 October

• 2007 Democratic Debate - 15 November

These (including the discussion above about the Republican and other debates) are complex copyright problems and to some extent are the gray border of copyright law because the speech was a performance and at least to some extent an impromptu one, so the impromptu portions of the performance are not themselves copyrightable (Estate of Martin Luther King does not apply as the "I have a Dream" speech was not impromptu and written copies were even distributed in advance, it also involved registration and other issues no longer relevant to new works); however, the debate performance were recorded and presumably the various networks had agreements with each other, the participants, and the Democratic Party, regarding rights to broadcast. The recording and any resulting transcript were therefore copyrightable (A debate in a public forum where anyone could record it would be another matter entirely). So, although we may have difficulty determining exactly who owns the copyright because there may be multiple licensees (I'm willing to bet the party owns the rights and has licensed these to the several networks for a considerable fee), we can presume that the works are copyrighted. Some may be interested in this commentary on the topic. In summary, these works should be deleted, forthwith.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a harder issue. I'm not sure I agree with all your reasoning, but these maybe should still be deleted. U.S. copyright requires fixation... yes, the recordings themselves are fixed, so they are copyrightable, but copying a transcript does not copy the recording, just the words. And I'm not sure there is a copyright on the words. Just like a photographer does not gain a copyright on an object just because they photographed it, and a court reporter does not gain copyright on a transcript just because they typed it, I don't think the TV networks can be considered the author (and copyright owner) of the *words* just because they recorded it. It shouldn't matter if there were other people recording it or not; this is about the copyright ownership of the text and the text alone. If the person doing the recording is the same author, it may get a bit more interesting. However, there are a couple of other arguments. Even if the answers are not copyrightable, the *questions* might be. And, there is also such a thing as a separate "collective work" copyright, such that the selection and arrangement of the questions and answers themselves may hold a copyright, owned by the organizers of the event or maybe the person asking the questions, even if the component parts are not copyrightable. If so, that may preclude redistribution without a license. I'm on the fence on this one, leaning towards delete, given all the uncertainty. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted for no translation license. I never got any answer from the People's Daily after asking on 2011-02-12. I occasionally send emails to Red China, but I never get any reply.--Jusjih (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a Chinese newspaper article from 1953; even if the author died shortly after, it was in copyright under China's life+50 laws in 1996 and hence it's in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Delete - The People's Daily? Pretty hard to expect a long-time wing of the Communist Party in China to allow PD re-distribution of any of their articles without their explicit authorization coming first. — George Orwell III (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete here: After checking the original Chinese newspaper article from 1953 [1], I cannot find any individual authorship. If the original is not really eligible for {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, it would be copyrighted in China through 2003 like an organizational work, thus under URAA copyright restoration through 2048 in the USA. Before ever sending the English translation to Canadia Wikilivres, I have to know what the translation license is, as I see no copyright license from the Japanese Communist Party.--Jusjih (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • According to Wikisource:Scriptorium#Controversial_translation, the first sentence of the translation is copied from a translation by the Japanese Communist Party verbatim without permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

These are non-issues -- theoretically interesting, but tangential. One paragraph alone does not engender copyright threshold questions. This rigamarole began because I had the temerity to ask questions in a venue presumably open for questions. It was a trap, not a question-and-answer exchange. Not good. Unhelpful.

A revised text eliminates the need for this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Your "work" was noticed and would have been proposed for deletion irregardless of you asking for help now or not. The fact some inhabitants of some islands are in a struggle is not relevant to the question of copyright. The fact illegitimate reproductions of the original work are "freely" available online does not equate to the work being in the public domain either. Bringing the work to this forum rather than pointing to it's talk page is not the accepted practice and was therefore removed. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not select this forum, nor do I understand its conventions; but I have tried to be more than a bystander.

My question today is this: Are the issues which began this thread resolved or addressed by eliminating all but the first paragraph? If so, good. Please confirm it with a simple sentence so that I can move on to other things. If not, please identify any perceived problems. Collaborative editing is capable of handling this small addition to Wikisource. --Tenmei (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper article is not in the public domain in the United States. That's the problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• CopyVio tag restored; page protected from further editing for at least 2 weeks — George Orwell III (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• If you alter it to get past the copyright issue, then it is no longer the orginal work, and would be out of scope of WS, if you don't change it then it is not in the public domain and is also out of scope. There is nothing personal against you or the topic. We can't have it when it's copyrighted, and if you make an original or collaborative work then it would not be appropriate for WS. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The diff of JeepdaySock clarifies what I did not understand in the diff of Jusjih above. This explanation parses distinctions between relevant and irrelevant issues in this thread. Please allow me to confirm that I did not construe anything personal against me or the topic; rather, I simply did not understand, and I did know how to invite the kind of analysis that JeepdaySock has helpfully provided. --Tenmei (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei are you withdrawing your objections to deletion? JeepdaySock (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

JeepdaySock -- Thank you for asking. No, I am trying to figure out how to comply with the necessary criteria. I'm still trying to work through the necessary follow-up steps.

The first paragraph of this article is in the public domain because it is exempted by Article 5 of Chinese copyright law. One purpose of this thread is fulfilled by simply asserting this exempted status; but I can find no appropriate place to post {{PD-PRC-exempt}}.

Are there additional implied questions I need to answer or assertions I need to make in this venue? For example,

• In terms of WS:WIW, the Chinese text is both (a) a translation of original texts, and (b) an historical document of national or international interest
• In terms of WS:SCOPE, the Chinese text is a documentary source characterized by two criteria: (a) the paragraph is part of an official document of the body producing it, and (b) the paragraph is evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.

What to do about the translation is still unclear.

I understand that Wikisource also allows user-created wiki-translations; and I am able to provide it. However, an official translation is preferred. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) provides a "provisional translation" of the one paragraph excerpt here.

If I understand correctly, explicit permission is needed from MOFA in order to substitute this "provisional translation" for a wiki-translation. Is this an unstated part of this thread? --Tenmei (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is in the public domain in China. Since the US does not have the rule of the shorter term, it is not in the public domain in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• delete still within copyright in 1996, and hence still in copyright in 2003 and now in 2011, out of copyright 2048. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  I am emailing The People's Daily to ask if longer US copyright term would be sought even with expired Chinese copyright, while I am not convinced that the newspaper article would qualify for PD-PRC-exempt. If The People's Daily says giving up longer US copyright term, then we can have the English translation with proper copyright permission. If The People's Daily says claiming longer US copyright term, then no English can stay here, and even any user-made translation better belongs to Wikilivres in Canada with rule of the shorter term for Chinese works. Any translations must always be sourced. However, I cannot guarantee getting a reply.--Jusjih (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jabber-Weeks

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Posthumous publication in 1973 makes it copyrighted in Canada through 2023, thus no transfer to Wikilivres without evidence of any permission.--Jusjih (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the arcana around copyright on this type of work. The publication date of 1973 is OUP - i.e. UK. However, author died 1950 and therefore 60+ might apply. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• delete cannot see any other option Billinghurst (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Letter to the People from Fahizah

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as no one commented.--Jusjih (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Adams and Eves

The following discussion is closed:

Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Adams and Eves and deleted here. 1957 British distribution would make it still copyrighted there in 1996, thus copyrighted in the USA through 2052, but already PD in Canada since 2008.--Jusjih (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

An Appeal To All Chinese Spiritual Brothers And Sisters

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as no one commented.--Jusjih (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote below : "I was told that there are no copyright concerning the speeches of the Dalai Lama (both on Tibet issue and 10th of March). I therefore wrote to the webmaster of the site www.dalailama.com to request the permission to copy on wikisources these speeches, and I was responded “We are happy to give you the permission to use His Holiness's speech on the wikisources”. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)". Could you please restore the text? Many thanks in advance. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not until we're comfortable with the permission. "Permission to use His Holiness's speech on the wikisources" is wholly insufficient for us; we need a free license for everyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, can you please indicate me where to find the form of the best free license (in the interest of the Dalai Lama website) so that I can forward the form and ask the webmaster to approve? Many thanks in advance. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you get copyright license or permission compatible with Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL, this work will be undeleted. If you get ANY copyright license or permission, but not compatible with Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 or the GFDL, such as with non-commercial, non-derivative restrictions, I will temporarily undelete this work and send it to Canadian Wikilivres: where works with ANY copyright license or permission to post there is fine. Works acceptable here are not to be cross-posted there.--Jusjih (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of 22 June

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, in a related but separate discussion Jeepday (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Appeal of June 18

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, in a related but separate discussion Jeepday (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama press conference regarding Jeremiah Wright - 29 April 2008

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, in a related but separate discussion Jeepday (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not covered by any Creative Commons license that I can find George Orwell III (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence of claim of copyright that I can find. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Carta Abierta de un Escritor a la Junta Militar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, in a related but separate discussion Jeepday (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Governor Romney's "Faith In America" Address

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as Massachusetts Governor's work is neither PD-USGov nor PD-EdictGov.--Jusjih (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

John McCain's election concession speech in Phoenix, Arizona

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This falls under the category of campaign speeches, I believe. Campaign speeches are not part of a U.S. official's duties. Thus this would still be copyrighted and ineligible for Wikisource or Wikilivres, absent a free-use license of some kind. --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

John McCain's press conference - 26 November 2008

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted without source or acceptable license.--Jusjih (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Open Letter to President Ma Ying-jeou(2009.11.9)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.Jusjih (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have asked contributor why they believe they believe that is is in the public domain, and not covered by copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Open letter to the people of the Republic of China from the cadets, faculty, staff and administration of the Virginia Military Institute

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Military Institute is a US military school, so this article could use a {{:::PD-USGov-military}} template?Arilang1234 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a military school in the U.S., but I don't think it's a federal institution. Otherwise there would be no point in them claiming copyright over the contents of their website (which they do). --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Protest of Zofia Kossak-Szczucka

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, in a related but separate discussion Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement of the Dalai Lama on the 38th Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted for no permission evidenced.--Jusjih (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I was told that there are no copyright concerning the speeches of the Dalai Lama (both on Tibet issue and 10th of March). I therefore wrote to the webmaster of the site www.dalailama.com to request the permission to copy on wikisources these speeches, and I was responded “We are happy to give you the permission to use His Holiness's speech on the wikisources”. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What we require is for there to be a definitive copy of that communication put within the Meta:OTRS and then we can label appropriately. What would be best is if they could identify the sort of release that they would like from Help:Copyright tags — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Received email, will forward it to OTRS and seek their opinion on sufficiency. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the result? Please explain if the copyright permission is fine here, or the text will be deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I explained, the permission was granted by the webmaster of the website of the Dalai Lama. I will request the webmaster to send an email to OTRS. I ll keep you informed in the discussion pages of these statements. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

T. Boone Pickens letter in response to Senator John Kerry

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to ascertain this letter's license or eligibility for inclusion without at least knowing its source. --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• delete. From my experience the contributor has previously been unhelpful in ascertaining copyright, and has taken a more liberal approach than the administrators at WS. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A Liberal Democrat Foreign Policy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted,

Untagged work that is a poltical election speech. Would not seem to fall within our ability to redistribute. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete billinghurst (talk)
• Question: Do UK politicians suffer the same exact restrictions as US politicians do re: copyright? George Orwell III (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ummm... what about the redirects?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/A_Liberal_Democrat_Foreign_Policy

George Orwell III (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Works along a similar line

1. Ken Clarke's Conference Leadership Speech 2005

Speech on the Norway debate

The following discussion is closed:

Transwikied to Canadian Wikilivres as clear copyvio in the USA through 2035.--Jusjih (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to fit into the criteria, presented in 1940, author died in 1945. Move to Wikilivres. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher on Britain and Europe

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as no license.--Jusjih (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I nominate the above for deletion on copyright grounds. Formosa (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys - Is any one going to look at this one? Thanks. Formosa (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Times/1929/Letter to the Editor/Obituary: George William Thomson Omond

The following discussion is closed:

Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:The Times/1929/Letter to the Editor/Obituary: George William Thomson Omond and deleted here as the author died in 1953 and the work may still be copyright-restricted in the USA.--Jusjih (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Other

WS:COPYVIO: Long-time unresolved copyright problems from Project Sourceberg days

I have compiled a list of five copyright-questionable works that were introduced to Project Sourceberg, but are still here with their problems unresolved. I am hoping by "repackaging" the problems as ordinary nominations we can get their status resolved.

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 09:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of June 18

This radio speech by Charles de Gaulle marked the beginning of the French Resistance. Does this make it the work of the French Government in exile? Or does it belong to Charles de Gaulle himself who probably published it in his memoirs, Mémoires de guerre : Tome 1, L'appel : 1940-1942 (1954)? ResScholar (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Delete I think it's copyrighted either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Delete I'd say copyright belongs to de Gaulle as he wasn't hea dof any legal government at that point. if so, it's clearly in copyright.--Longfellow (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• delete and the next what they said ^^^ — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of 22 June

I am linking this work to the one above; this appeal made by de Gaulle was made only four days after that one. They were both first added by Jusjih on the page /Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto. ResScholar (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle East Policy (Chomsky)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, Permission to host granted. Jeepday (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The permission for this talk on the Middle East made by Noam Chomsky at Columbia University was evidently granted through a letter by Noam Chomsky himself. In the age of the internet, he is probably letting his secretary write letters for these routine permissions now. So it might be a good time to write Chomsky again for a more specific OTRS-permission again now that Wikimedia copyright policy has solidified since 2003. Unless you happen to think that writing Chomsky two times in seven years is "too much, too soon." ResScholar (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto#Middle East Policy (Chomsky) also for prior discussion. ResScholar (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the official website, which contains what appears to be an identical version of the talk. There is a copyright inquiry page at http://www.chomsky.info/copyright.htm ResScholar (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That inquiry page recites a presumptive claim of copyright, and contains contact information for a person to communicate with for usage inquiries. Why don't we just ask that person? BD2412 T 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

;-) cygnis insignis 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• keep If someone wishes to go through the OTRS process, so be it. I am comfortable that they did enough at the time and it should be grandfathered. If Chomsky has a complaint, then it won't be sufficient and we take it down at that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Protest of Zofia Kossak-Szczucka

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This internationally-known writer and leader of the Polish resistance contemporaneously describes her harrowing wartime experiences in 1942 Warsaw, where as many as three hundred thousand Jews and other Warsaw inhabitants were put to death by the German invaders.

She has a posthumously-formed foundation with a website, and although anyone is of course welcome to write to ask for permission to use this work, we may have to let this one go. The aims of the foundation include:

protecting the integrity and inviolability of Zofia Kossak’s output, as well as upholding an accurate portrayal of Zofia Kossak in all publications, taking care that the name of Zofia Kossak does not serve causes in contradiction to the spirit of her literary work.

Hence, they are likely to be wary to extend their license to repositories which might lead to commercial use of this literary account by their founder. Maybe a judicious use of more quotations from the work in her Wikipedia entry would be a better route. ResScholar (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Was PD-Manifesto the only rationale for a license to begin with? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. Since there's a lot of expired, non-copyrighted or released stuff from World War II, I think everybody assumed it was one of those. The Manifesto label wasn't added until 2008. ResScholar (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• delete from the evidence provided. No evidence that it is in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Deleted on plwikisource due to copyright violation. --Teukros (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

deleted elsewhere, no argument made to keep. — billinghurst sDrewth

Ryan White's Testimony before the President's Commission on AIDS

The following discussion is closed:

keep — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Courtroom testimony and Congressional testimony is a public record in the United States, so I understand. But is testimony before an Executive Commission? It's published by the Government Printing Office, and the testimony doesn't seem accidental to the counseling of government conduct like those particular groups' promotional activities investigated in the "Potential Disruptions to the Peaceful Observance of the Bicentennial" were, as they weren't asked for their opinion. So, starting out, I'm leaning towards keep. ResScholar (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Certainly public record, though that has little relation to copyright status. Testimony in general would not be copyrightable (no fixation), but prepared statements like this may be. But since this was before March 1, 1989, it would have needed a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Keep The testimony before any Executive Commission or Committee has been given additional 'weight' (and assume the same protection and/or pitfalls as if given before any Congressional Committee) by FACA (Section 10) so I think we're OK on that point. Carl covered the other possible problem and answer above. George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would it need a copyright notice by the witness? The writer is not publishing their document, so that seems a false argument. Would the publication after the fact by another party overwrite one's intellectual property? In that regard it would seem similar to a previous discussion where published works were part of the Appendix, and that they would still retain their own copyright, while the report of the commission would be a work of the federal government. I don't mind which way we go though not convinced by the argument that it is a keep. I feel that some of the reasoning could set precedent, so didn't want those aspects unexplored. Plus the comments of "additional weight", "fixation" and the like have elements of jargon and sit unattached so we could probably better express those aspects. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It was presumably published with the consent of the author -- they were obviously aware it would be printed by the GPO. And that would easily constitute general publication, I would think. It would need a copyright notice no matter who published it, as long as it was done with permission. If the GPO takes an existing work and prints it without the knowledge of the original author, that would not count as "with permission". The nature of this is completely different though. [As for fixation, that is a requirement of U.S. copyright law -- it applies only to works "fixed in any tangible medium of expression". The status of speeches can be kinda vague on this... but when written down beforehand (such as in these types of prepared statements), that would qualify as fixation. Pretty sure that extemporaneous speech, like Q&A sessions, would not have a copyright by the person being interviewed though. Some info on this here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The point was correctly raised that testimony given before a judicial matter or a Congressional matter, by Federal law, is in the Public Domain --- but what about before an Executive Committees or as part of a working group? Well in 1972, FACA insured the same for any such advisory group petitioned or tasked by the President (or any branch or agency of government for that matter) as well - this is the additional weight. The law goes on to insure, unless a matter of national security, that any & all records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents produced be made available to the public. In addition, GPO is tasked with making copies available to the public. Finally, testimony, as well as any "opening statement" and similar made, is explicitly understood to be entered into the record and is believed, if not hoped, to ultimately go toward serving the public interest - which is the rationale used to exempt Federal works from copyright privileges. George Orwell III (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

neither evidence nor argument that it shouldn't be kept