Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-08

Kept

Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama

The following discussion is closed:

kept

The above has not been removed yet. I put it up some time ago. I expect its only a matter of time before its removed so what is the copyright position...can it stay up? Formosa (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would mention for this one that the Statement is referred to approvingly in the Japan - China Joint Declaration On Building a Partnership of Friendship and Cooperation for Peace and Development of 26 November 1998 - and it would be regrettable if an aspect of the Communique could not be read (even thought the Communique could...). But I don't know what the copyright law is on this. Formosa (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I could see an argument of {{PD-EdictGov}} for that... it seems vaguely analogous to a U.S. presidential proclamation, being directed at other countries and seemingly in the line of official diplomatic policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Travels of Ludovico di Varthema

The following discussion is closed:

kept — billinghurst sDrewth 03:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The section on Burma was blanked (restored) with the commentary "this has been lifted, including editorial changes from the SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/9993/1/Varthema.pdf" Not investigated further at this point, starting the process of adding for review only. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Beyond doubt this is a verbatim copy and it is unlikely that the source is PD. However, the problem page is The Travels of Ludovico di Varthema/Burma.--Longfellow (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hm. The description at the linked PDF says the translation was originally done in the 1800s, and they mention adding paragraph breaks and section headers to the more modern publishing. Not sure if they edited any of the actual text. It would be best to find the original translation of course. The UK does have a 25-year "publication right", which may apply to that particular formatting, although that would likely not be recognized in the United States. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A Google books copy with what looks like the original text is here, published in 1863. Maybe we could compare what we have to that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Keep That Google books copy is from 1863, so I have transcoded it to DjVu and uploaded. The index is here. The content seems more or less (other than headings) identical to the content in that book, so it is PD (see, for example, page 210, which is 370 in the DjVu.) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence produced would indicate that it is public domain.

First Bennett Radio Address

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as Canadian Crown Copyright expired in 1986, thus before 1996.--Jusjih (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Speech of Canadian PM in 1935, that was broadcast through Canada, and presumably not through the US. Author died in 1947, so it would not seem to pass US copyright law to be public domain by 1996, and otherwise not in the PD and would not seem to be hosted on WS. It may be able to be moved to Wikilivre. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is Crown Copyright as well. Copyright expired in 1986 in Canada I think, and that may be considered to apply (as the author placing it in the public domain) in the U.S. as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-Afghan — its currency and use

The following discussion is closed:

template is current, no further action

The template says Template:PD-Afghan and 1) that doesn't sound current and we probably need a review of the current status of works created in Afghanistan; 2) the use of the tag has been misused. Works by the Afghani president, especially where he speaks internationally do not seem appropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest version (September 2010) of Circular 38A still lists Afghanistan as having no copyright relations with the USA. Commons has a similar template to ours, commons:Template:PD-Afghanistan, which says that Afghanistan has "no existing copyright law or intellectual property relations". WIPO also indicates that it has no copyright law. It does seem that the Afghan government is in the process of drawing up a copyright law (eg [1]) so we should probably revisit this regularly.

As to your point (2), we definitely need to review in particular the works listed at Author:Hamid Karzai, since none of them were delivered in Afghanistan, so they all might be subject to copyright. - Htonl (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Afghanistan has still not implemented a copyright law (ever). That may well change, but until it does, not much reason to change anything. But yes, works by Afghan authors first published in Berne Convention countries will have protection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird Tales

The following discussion is closed:

kept — billinghurst sDrewth 08:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We have several works that are published in Weird Tales, if the publisher renewed the copyright of one of the magazines (i.e. The Empire of the Necromancers, Weird Tales/1932#September above) We should probably assume they renewed more, and will need to validate the copyright status of all the related works. Does anyone one have a least painful approach on how to do this? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird Tales were very inconsistent about renewals; I think the owners kept going bankrupt and missed/forgot the renewal windows, except for a few periods (such as the issues from the very early 1930s). I tried searching for every copyright renewal for all of the works in Weird Tales when I created the Weird Tales page and subpages; everything I found to be renewed is marked on those pages. There isn't a notably painless way to validate this (which is why I haven't done the same for Amazing Stories yet). Checking issue renewals is fairly easy, just check in the scanned periodicals sections of the Catalog of Copyright Entries available per year in the University of Pennsylvania records (there are usually two sets per year, both in alphabetical order). For the individual works, the easiest way is either searching in the "Project Gutenberg transcriptions" linked under "Contributions to Periodicals" on the same pages (such as this one for Jan-Jun 1956), or searching Google Books for the title along with "intitle:Catalog intitle:Copyright intitle:Entries". Neither is foolproof, as typos and scanos will impair simple word searching, but it seems to work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you did a great job Adam, I withdraw my concerns. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also there's the fact that WT sold the rights to Lovecraft's stories to Arkham House before they renewed the copyrights to the issues they were first published in. Not being a copyright attorney, I can't be sure, but it would seem to me that WT couldn't renew copyrights they no longer owned. Miraculouschaos (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. They also could not renew the copyright on works where the author died before the renewal was filed; those rights automatically revert to the estate/heirs regardless of what the author promised in their lifetime. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted

Nahj al-Balagha

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as copyright, no evidence to the contrary — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Contributor has brought this work to WS, and at the base attributes the translator. No evidence that the work is in the public domain. Some work to be done as ISBN did not bring immediate results. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The only published translation I can find is this one on Amazon UK, which seems to be a different one (translated by S. A. Reza, not Askari Jafri). The alleged publisher is Islamic Seminary Publications, but I cnnot find this book on their web site.--Longfellow (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an accurate 1983 reprint from the publisher it lists and possibly contains non-copyrighted material. Here's why: There's a searchable version of this edition at Amazon, but through the programming they use, it defaults to a different publisher. But what we learn through a random page in the preview is that the sayings our contributor added are a pretty accurate alternate paraphrase of sayings listed in the Amazon copy.

But there is simply no way of affirming or denying a copyright of the contributor's version short of buying the book. GoogleBooks has an edition, but there is no preview. WorldCat has it, but only as far as 1978 (5th edition) are there libraries listed with the book published by the listed publisher (Islamic Seminary); there is no guarantee we won't need the 11th edition—perhaps copyright was applied to the revisions in a foreign country (Islamic Seminary publishes in Bombay, India) and is URAA eligible. The least expensive copy of the book costs only US$22.98, so if our contributor can add images to, say, a book discussion webhost of the front pages where the copyright would ordinarily be as well as a sample page of the sayings, that would probably be adequate evidence for our purposes. How about it Ali? ResScholar (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that is in the public domain, though no evidence produced to allow us to keep the work.

Commonwealth of Britain Bill

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as copyrighted. By the disscussion below this document seems to fall short of qualifying as inelligable for copyright in the US and is otherwise clearly copyrighted. --BirgitteSB 21:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Similar circumstance as previous nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Would also be excluded by Evolving works, a bill is not final product until if/when it is passed. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Boy... not sure. It is proposed legislation, so it may fall under PD-EdictGov. Arguable... the "public policy" reason for PD-EdictGov is so that people are aware of the laws which affect them; it seems unlikely that copyright would be upheld for laws under discussion, which is a law which could certainly affect them -- that would seem to be the same public policy goal, trying to encourage dissemination so that people are aware and can debate the measures before they are passed (and possibly alter them). For example, a state law up for a referendum would not actually be passed yet, but would most certainly be PD-EdictGov -- people have to read it to vote on it. Then there is the recent Open Government License in the UK (and the NZGOAL stuff in New Zealand), which may at some point (or already) have made those implicitly licensed under a CC-ish license. I'd lean towards  Keep actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is not a law so it does not affect public policy, making the use of Edict questionable at best. From what I can gather, the proposal was little more than the American equivalent of being introduced, entered into the record, and never taken up in the committee(s) it was refered to (This Bill never became law, or even achieved a second reading). No equivalnet to a committee report, no mark-up, no debate, no consideration, no recommendation; not much in the way to "leap" for securing Edict IMO.

It's a failed proposal and still in flux (introduced then withdrawn), much like the American proposals to return Hawaii to the Hawaiian royalty of old or to make Puerto Rico the 51st state introduced in every new session of Congress. Of course quirkiness has no bearing on WS exclusion/inclusion but I'm not so sure it carries the needed weight to qualify for Edict (public policy and the laws that govern them/it in other words). — George Orwell III (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'll beg to differ with that :-) The more I think about it, the public is allowed to know about bills before they are passed; they should absolutely be disseminated to the public beforehand as well, with no restrictions. If bills are being proposed, in no way should those be prevented via copyright from being distributed. I do think PD-EdictGov applies. And anyways, the UK is now instituting their Open Government License, which is basically CC-BY, and they include "legislation" under works which are automatically included (per here). Keep either way, for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Know about would clearly seem different to the ability to reproduce in our unlimited fashion, plus it is not legislation they are solely bills before parliament with proposals to change legislation, and notably a bill would be seen to change multiple pieces of proposed legislation. Legislation, in the Westminster tradition, would generally be referred to as an Act of Parliament after passing through the required houses and then getting Royal assent and a date whereupon it comes into fruition. The Act will describe any secondary legislation that can be produced by way of Regulation (by the Minister and Royal assent) and would generally be able to be later declined by the parliament. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Such proposals are still in "flux", and do not affect the public at that stage in the lawmaking process. Proposals at this stage of the U.S. legislative process do not mimic the Edict of Government reasoning for public domain use either but are public domain nevertheless because they are simply works of the Federal Government or by an employee thereof acting in his or her official capacity. This "benefit" is lost when it comes to proposed State legislation, as we have gone through many times before, BUT once passed by a State Legislature and made into standing law, the rationale returns to one 'affecting public policy and welfare', removing any copyright protections from the State and allowing for Edict in most cases. Since it is a work in "flux" and never affected public policy nor prescribed regulations every citizen should freely have access to - it fails the 'hostable on WS' test more so than designating it PD-Edict or not (needs some form of license eaual to CC 3.0 for hosting in short) — George Orwell III (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Copyright Office does mention in a study (page 36): The common law rulings before 1895 denying copyright in the text of statutes, court decisions, official rulings and pronouncements, governmental proceedings, etc., are still deemed applicable to such materials emanating from the States and their political subdivisions. But no bar has been imposed on copyright in other publications of the State or local governments. Seems like this type of thing would be a "governmental proceeding". Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

.... and your pre-superseeded by current law, 1961 study of all-things-copyright point is what exactly??? That states once enjoyed Common law protections that have since been absorbed by one overriding Federal copyright statute? The study itself states that 'States' do not enjoy the means and facilities as the Federal government does (i.e. GPO = Government Printing Office) and rely on private or subsidized methods of publication, typically requiring them to enact local statute that generally, or specifically, forces the registration and subsequent protection of such State works. Are we trying to take the fact that this State protection has not been fully tested in today's modern courts under post-1976 Federal copyright revised law, consider such State works as falling under an Edict of Government that citizens of the State should have access to & must abide by, transfer such an Edict to works of a foreign government that does not affect anybody's citizenship let alone their own (and was never part of any "proceedure"), and then justify hosting such foreign poorly-Edict-deemed works as hostable here on en.WS? Even if I gave you the first three points, I cannot in good conscience agree to the the last - hosting such works here on WS. I'm under the impression the "introduction" of such a proposal (a bill?) in UK parliamentary proceedure is not the U.S. equivalent of introduction, scheduling & consideration - resulting in the U.S. bill being entered into the Congressional Record (a GPO publication). Maybe I'm confused about the specifics involved - where exactly is Mr. Benn's proposal published in an equivalent record of government again? — George Orwell III (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the common-law "public policy" rulings PD-EdictGov is based on have never been superseded, by either the 1909 or the 1976 acts. Those laws refined PD-USGov, but did not affect PD-EdictGov (per that paper, there was some language proposed in the 1909 Act which would have codified it, but they decided to let the common-law rulings stand on their own). I take some issue with the opinion that the "public policy" reasoning starts only when laws are actually passed -- the people have just as much right to know about potential laws on the way, and to involve themselves in the process if they see fit. The discussion and process of passing those laws should not be restricted either, in my opinion. This sounds like it was read before Parliament (though didn't make it to a second reading, which is when real debate starts); I find it hard to imagine it wasn't published in some parliamentary record. Per w:Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#First reading, the bill does get recorded in the parliamentary proceedings. The Open Government License is probably a safer mechanism to keep this if you wish, but it was officially proposed legislation in my view. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. That's all I needed to read... which State & local speeches that concern themselves with the process rather than substantative promulgation or proclamation of some percieved public policy or cumlative welfare thereof can I start undeleting using that same logic to support doing so? Was not Sarah Palin's resignation speech part of a process in government rather than personal drivel?? What about Lord Fauntenberry's or whoever's resignation speech - do the people need his statement to make informed decisions about the process of replacement of officials in their government?

You may be asking for too much now when too little was accepted earlier (favoring a legislative body over any executive one) along this same line of proceedural-based-reasoning earlier I'm affraid. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. This is the text of actual proposed legislation, which made it a ways into legislative proceedings, not something personal or even one person's commentary or opinion of it -- it is the text of the proposed law itself. From reading w:Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Consultation, drafting and pre-legislative scrutiny, it has already been discussed, drafted, and sent to government lawyers to write the actual text, and it made it past that point. According to that, even legislation in draft status is often widely disseminated and published, and this got beyond that step by the sounds of it. Of course Palin's resignation speech has nothing to do with the legislative process. This is not a personal text; it is the result of legislative proceedings, and per the original study, it sounds like this kind of thing can certainly be inside of PD-EdictGov. Is it Crown (or Parliamentary) Copyright in the UK? Yes, like any other legislative text there, but that is not necessarily recognized in the U.S. If it gets passed without modification, the exact same expression then becomes copyright-free in the U.S., without changing a word, but you're saying before the moment it is signed, it is fully copyrightable? I really don't get that. It seems to me that group-authored governmental text *might* fall under it, depending on its nature, and group-authored proposed laws would almost certainly fall under that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you - Legislator-types always write or speak for a legislative body as civil servants, never as an individual, regardless if such speech or text affects the manner or process in which citizens ultimately decide to govern themselves by or not while Executive-types always speak only for themselves as individual politicians, never as civil servants, regardless if such speech or text has any bearing on his or her overseen citizenship's manner or process uttimately determing how they govern themselves at the same time.

Sorry - open the WS door for one body then all other equal bodies should enjoy the same protections, or lack thereof, using the same rationale by default. We can continue to split hairs between "bodies" of government, what construes a well-informed citizenry, when does a speech or interview become part of a tangible public policy idea, are floor statements part of true lawmaking or are they at times just political grandstanding, etc. etc. if you like but these things are subjective determinations for the most part and cannot be answered here. I'm all in favor of continuing to stay away from hosting such stuff as long as its fairly applied for every type, branch or level of government; Federal, foreign or none of the above (or do you really believe attempting to 'kick the Queen down the street' permanently etc. was a serious civil-service, non-political proposal? ...as serious as Sarah Palin was in shaping public policy while she was still in office?) :| — George Orwell III (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We follow the law; we can not equate what they do not, and we must equate what they do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside if there is some new license specifically covering such proposals as this one in particular in the UK now, are you saying this notion that the public not only has the right to freely access the laws they are prescribed to abide by but also have rights to the "process" involved prior to actual enactment of such a proposal, even in the cases where proposals never actual do become enacted law, under Edict of Government or not? How does one define "process" - offical publications slash government records? policy speeches? addresses made... and similar? — George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically, I think "proposed legislation" is still "legislation". The actual text of the proposed bill, no, I don't think should have copyright. I'm not talking about materials other than that. The fact that the UK publishes even draft-status bills indicates a "public purpose" for doing that, even there. This one went one stage beyond draft status too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┘
I'm sorry - being unfamilar with UK practices I might be getting stuck on semantics here.

In the U.S. there are no proposed bills - either they are introduced and read into the [Congressional] record or they are "hearsay" for lack of a better term. Once formally 'introduced', a proposal may or may not be taken up somewhere down the legislative-process line. Irregardless of the ultimate legislative death or life of the proposal, a bill number is dutifully assigned to it and the content of the proposal is made available soon after (online via THOMAS) or eventual made available (printed Congressional Record/Serial Set/Journal). For anyone (the public-at-large) who wishes to inspect such proposals, one is able to do so freely & without too much trouble in my expierence.

Frequently, a political party or recognized caucus proposes [counter-]legislation via some medium other than the official Congressional introduction in hopes of gaining, at the minimum, the same effect in public awareness & circulation (press release, specialized forums, think-tanks, etc.). Many times these proposals find their way into already officially introduced bills in the form of amendments, substitutions or even full blown stand alone bills themselves with their own offical numbered designation superseding a prior proposal. Many other times, Congressional Committees themselves come up with their own specific [counter-] proposals rather than "mark-up" an officially introduced bill and report that favorably/unfavorably instead of the actual proposal first read into the record.

The point here being, one set of officially introduced proposals & sub-sets thereof auto-majically are exempt from copyright because they are "works" ultimately published in a well-recognized official format or medium. This type usually slso follow the principle of the Copyright Office generated definition of Edict of Government (the rules and regulations prescribed for good governance that every citizen should have free and unrestricted access to). The other set of proposals are Not officially introduced, Do Not recieve a numbered designation and yet most also enjoy the same copyright free restriction because they are still works of a U.S. Federal employee created during the course of their sworn duties and/or official capacities. They are still, part of the so called process - political warts, fudged-facts, and all.

Now is it that we are expanding Edicts of Government to somehow rationalize the inclusion of works contributing to the legislative process, though no regulations or laws affecting the citizenship has actually transpired or will transpire nor has it been deemed valid (being withdrawn, undesignated or unforwarded, etc.) to begin with and make a move to include all works created by national government employees during the course of their official duties or not??? If so - show me where this proposal is part of the U.K.'s official record of government akin to our Congressional Record, & not some internal [counter-]proposal or political hacktivism being put in play here for whatever reason. It the latter is the case, hopefully such works can be hosted here under X license because it would fall short of being an Edict of Government the way I see it. Additionally, we don't exclude works from their rightful copyright protections by those individuals who just happen to be employed in a [foriegn or State] government, only U.S. Federal employees under a defined caveat. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Per w:Commonwealth of Britain Bill, this made it to a first reading but not a second. According to the UK legislative process description at w:Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Stages of a bill, that means the bill made it through the pre-legislative process, was drafted as legislation by government lawyers, was officially introduced at Parliament, and made it into their equivalent of the Congressional Record. The page here mentions some of the bill numbers of subsequent attempts, which made it to exactly the same stage. Your definition above is more-or-less where I would draw the line; your earlier replies seemed to indicate that a U.S. law would not qualify for PD-EdictGov until it was actually signed into law by the President, which I was disagreeing with. Once drafted as actual legislation and introduced, I think PD-EdictGov should apply -- and by all indications that is the situation with this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see - you have no official means or publication other than trusting what WP had/has - who's single reference cites Mr's Benn's own book btw - (Benn, Tony; Hood, Andrew (1993), Winstone, Ruth, ed., Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain, Hutchinson, ISBN 0-09-177308-3) - to go by.

Of course, the WP bullet-points rely on the WS article's existence rather citing any journal page, serial date & no. or some other verifiable citation as well. My searches for the House of Lords bill 11 & the other House of Commons bills mentioned aren't going so well. Mr. Been is probably familar with the old Reagan motto 'Trust but verify' and that is all that I'm looking for here too & I don't believe the 1991 "version" hosted here is in fact what we'll find in the records eventually either.

Getting back to the point on proposals not enacted into law — here in America (& I think Canada, the U.K., Au. etc.) we have a representative goverment where folks are sent to Washington D.C. to act on the behalf of the citizenship of the State, each State being the counterpoint to the overall U.S. Federal government. It is easy to assume that all Governments are so "well designed" and "honorable" in their proceedings but this is naive. To make the process of lawmaking of other nations inclusive under Edict of Government is problematic for just this reason - not all governments are based in such represntation as one man one vote gives. We would be including many a phoney process or, at the minimum, processes that betray the principles behind Edicts, legitimizing them inadvertently.

A passed law is a passed law & that is what the Copyright Office was primarily thinking of when they whittled down all those court decisions and their opinions over the decades into 4 or 5 sentences for use as an inter-office guidline. Expanding Edict of Government to cover any all works involved in the lawmaking process without fruition of actual regulation or law is beyond the scope of WS and should be avoided IMO.

Did you look at the talk page? Someone got a paper copy printed by the UK government (HMSO). That also indicates you can get it here (House of Commons bills 1990-91 161), which somebody here did, per the talk page. A basic Google search comes up with this, indicating it did get a first reading, multiple times (but was blocked from a second). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at the talk page.... I was looking at the official site, http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/ for the bill but I can't find the pre-2001 section. Yes, I can find several bookstore listings. Yes I can find a bunch of 3rd party sites who I can't vouch for their copyright/PD practices. What is your point? It still seems like it was not formally introduced either - or I should say I can't find where it was formally introduced (assigned its own 'HC' or 'HL' number in 1991). — George Orwell III (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That link says published by the HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationery Office), the official holder of Crown Copyright, and the official printer (equivalent of the U.S. Government Publication Office). They have a different website, and do provide draft legislation online (also under that Open Government License now it looks like), but it looks like that section (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi) only goes back to 1998. Per that first link, the HC number is 1990-91 161. It even has an ISBN number (though that is not likely to be found in libraries). There is even a contributor (User:Kaihsu, who is also commenting here) stating they obtained the paper copy HMSO publication version; that would appear to be the primary source so we are not likely to find it online (any details from that paper copy would be appreciated). I fail to see any reason to doubt any of this. It was definitely formally introduced. For a bit more, here is a PDF from parliament.uk which (page 41) says "Tony Benn MP introduced a Bill on 20th May 1991" and describes it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No the 1991 version was definately published as a draft version, be it by HMSO or not, but in 1991 it never made it to formally introduced (i.e. at least read into the record put on the schedule & referred to Congressional sub-committee for formal debate/mark-up in the U.S.). It wasn't (re)proposed (formally introduced?? I have no clue) in Parliament until, apparently, sometime in 2004 &/or 2005 under/with some other legislation with differing title(s) containing, what I assume, is also differing content - I can't say for sure because I can't FIND such online versions (assume that is due to the legislation still being draft bills (not formally introduced) themselves OR due to the fact they were 'withdrawn', 'retired' and whatever other adjective may be used for 'not finalized by enactment' in the U.K. legislative system.

Plus; I don't see how being published by the U.K.'s GPO-equivalent equates to anything having to with being an Edict-of-Government banner. So far, I do not see any other agreement to the notion put forward that process also falls under it; no really community consensus on that as far as I can tell, no? I'd be happy to accept "who" publishes "what" for part of the Edict-of-Goverment litmus test rather than than just the expectation that citizens are able to freely access the rules and regulations they must abide by as part of fostering good public policy.

If there is some other new or existing license beside Edict-of-Government that happens to cover what was published by HMSO in 1991, irregardless of it's status being a draft bill, formally introduced legislation in Parliament or the Prime Minister's official comic-strip toilet-paper, while also conforming to "'Free content' definition..." and "What Wikisource includes..." at the same time, then please apply it to the work and let us be done with this justification scavenger-hunt already. — George Orwell III (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete per the reasons debated above. — George Orwell III (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep: It is an important historical document which is unlikely to evolve as such. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  historical importance is unfortunately not relevant to the copyright status — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question: would it be possible to contact Mr Benn and ask for permission? Would he in fact be considered to hold the copyright, or would introduction into Parliament bring it under Crown Copyright? - Htonl (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  I think you might mean “parliamentary copyright”. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks; I didn't know that existed. - Htonl (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Benn would presumably hold a copy for which he maintains copyright, and would expect that it would have replica text to the bill that he introduced into parliament. I have seen no evidence under parliamentary copyright that individual's work is subsumed for something that would not have been a direct work of parliamentary business, eg. Hansard, committee reports, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  I would say it's parliamentary copyright. It is done in the course of his government duties. If it's not parliamentary copyright, it's crown copyright, if you don't think it is done under the direction of the House of Commons/Lords. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  As noted above, don't we need to separate parliamentary copyright from government copyright. My reading of the OGL licence is that it is about the government of the day, not the parliament which is a different institution, and according to the Parliamentary website has a different license application. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  The "click-use" license has been replaced pretty much with the Open Government License. Follow some of the "click-use" links on the page you reference, and you'll now see references to the OGL. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment we would seem to need {{OGL-UK}} or equivalent, and I have now uploaded the relevant text to Open Government Licence for public sector information to which we can link. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  There is an example at Commons:Template:OGL. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I think PD-Edict-Gov should be read narrowly. There are many things it would be nice to have, but I don't think it gives us, including proposed legislation. If Tony Benn still holds the copyright--I don't know UK law here--he quite likely might release it to us under a free license. If someone thinks the OGL applies, then I make no objections to it being kept under those grounds.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I meant to get back to this, but never did. Here is a long paper on the U.S. history of the "edict" court cases; it would seem this particular issue (proposed but unenacted legislation) has never come up. There was one case where a state claimed protection in unpublished statues under the grounds they were not yet law (they had been passed, but were a year away from their effective date), and the court denied that. A couple of court cases apparently (Banks vs. West in 1886, and the BOCA case in 1980) did seem to argue that "citizens" were the "authors" of law as parts of their decisions... going by that reasoning, it would apply to drafted legislation as well. But, I can understand your position, as the "due process" argument (i.e. people are expected to know the law, the public policy reason behind many of those decisions) may only apply to enacted legislation. I still think there is a public policy reason for proposed legislation -- I don't think states should use copyright to prevent dissemination of laws under discussion; that is central to the role of government and they would be subject to FOIA type requests anyways. Also, knowing which laws were not passed is part of knowing the law to me; that could demonstrate what was legal by showing the government declined to pass a law preventing a particular action. But, it is at least a bit arguable either way. Anyways though, for this one, I think the OGL is the appropriate license to use. The text of the laws at that stage of the process is written by government lawyers and not legislators, and would be crown/parliamentary copyright. The government is now explicitly releasing proposed legislation like this under the OGL, though this one predates the website date range. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• delete It is not a work of government (effect of vote of parliament), as it is a proposal by a member of parliament and which did not reach a second reading. Effectively will have been published in Hansard, and thence under Parliamentary copyright or personal copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Author:Michael Ignatieff

The following discussion is closed.

The author page does not provide license information.

• Journalist as Public Intellectual (23 September 2005)
• Address to the Saskatchewan Liberal Party (4 November 2006)
• Liberal Values in the 21st century (30 March 2006)
• Canada in the World (30 March 2006)

P. S. Burton (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

comment there seems to be a number of early contributions and others at Special:Contributions/Zanimum wouldn't be accepted here without seeking for further information. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of copyright release. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

America is Not Broke

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as a copyright violation--BirgitteSB 21:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Work of Michael Moore to which has been tagged with {{PD-Manifesto}}. No source provided. Billinghurst (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I should add that there is a little preliminary conversation at User:John Vandenberg#Latest on PD-Manifesto? Billinghurst (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For someone considered to be such a "mainstream-progressive" he sure could use a lesson or two on basic Creative Commons/Share-Alike licensing if this and his other works are to be hosted here without any of the usual concerns. Without one, it is the same old game of presuming creation was intended for Public Domain re-use despite any definitive evidence of such intent being present as almost always is the case with this kind of contribution. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete; I think that most manifesto writers would be bigger fans of CC-BY-ND or the like.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - note that established changes to {{PD-Manifesto}} were reverted by the editor who posted the work under consideration. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I reverted back to deprecated status. I'm fairly sure that U.S. copyright law does not protect extemporaneous speech (though state laws sometimes do), but if it was a prepared speech (i.e. written down beforehand) then it is without question copyrighted, and we need a license which permits distribution (the request to distribute it "far and wide" does that, pretty much), derivative works (no indication of that), and copyright-wise commercial use (no indication of that). Given some past experiences with misunderstandings of what "free" really means, Wikimedia projects tend to require some very explicit permissions. The easiest thing would be for Moore to allow it under a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license (CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-ND is not enough). It's entirely possible that Moore would be open to that, but until we have some indication... delete from me as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I second that thanks & the subsequent reversion. I protected the template to prevent any further changes. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• I sent an email to Michael Moore asking for a clear license. I will let you know if he replies and with what result. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On the Jews and their lies

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as copyrighted translation.--BirgitteSB 21:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC) This document appears to match one at humanitas-international.org, which leads with, "copyright © 1971 Fortress Press & Augsburg Fortress - On the Jews and Their Lies is from Luther’s Works Volume 47. ..." —unsigned comment by Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2011.

The copyright was renewed: (Renewal: RE333322). However, I find it hard to believe that a well-known work by Martin Luther managed to go untranslated until 1958. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really shows Google search Billinghurst (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That most likely has to do with the fact that the "title" describing a single section (the Jews in this case) in his 1543 diatribe also covers everything from the Pope to women in general as well. This sectionalizing of the work and subsequent titles "recognized" today only come into existence after that 1971 translation & analysis that first "popularized" it -- what the actual title, if any, that Luther may have penned is also not easy to find btw.

IL makes a good point about the odd-timeline and think we are looking at the wrong title/body of work or something too but absent that; Cy has this one right based on the 1971 translation being the "only" source used in this case. Leaning delete. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'delete in lieu of any counter-argument, nothing presented indicates that it is in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Iraq Speech

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as a copyright violation--BirgitteSB 21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) This speech was given in 2002, before he was President, and therefore Obama probably retains the copyright; at the very least, it has no licence and no source. I haven't tagged it with {{copyvio}} because the page is protected and I'm not sure of the etiquette in this situation. On top of being protected (as a high-traffic page), it is probably the most cited work on Wikisource and is rated at 100% completion. I think Obama releases other speeches or material under a Creative Commons licence but I don't know if it applies to this work. If not, I suspect he may be too busy to reply to an e-mail requesting it to be released under such a licence. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Added {{copyvio}} tag to article. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• delete in its current state without someone seeking its release to the public domain. To be retained I would recommend that someone email the Whitehouse, and get it run through an Commons:OTRS-like permission. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Obama's work as president as a President and senator are PD US Government his presidential campaign is under CC-by, but everything else I believe is copyrighted. zginder (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Epistle of the World Gathering of Young Friends 2005

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as a copyright violation--BirgitteSB 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC) A piece that is not identified with an author, though from a 2005 event. Labelled no licence and no evidence of specific source. Cannot see any evidence that the work is in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a Quaker and someone who was at the World Gathering of Young Friends in 2005, Quakers write their epistles with the expectation that they be distributed widely. The gathering that wrote the epistle cannot regather, but I hope that you would consider the long tradition of Friends and restore the epistle and consider it to be in the public domain. Shadowfax37 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Onward Singapore

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as the official English translation is not in the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules, thus ineligible as PD-EdictGov. If proven otherwise, feel free to appeal. The Malay text, if acceptable, would belong to Old Wikisource as Malay Wikisource is not yet open.--Jusjih (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Singaporean copyright extends for author's life +70 years, which would be through the end of 2057. (Disclaimer: I may be missing some nuance here.) LtPowers (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Keep Nope, it's {{PD-EdictGov}}, as apparently the lyrics and score are part of the law. It would be a governmental copyright anyways in Singapore, given the looks of their law at first blush. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Governmental copyright is publication +70 years, which would be 2029. I don't know anything about PD-EdictGov. Did I miss an obvious reference to the lyrics and score being enshrined in law? LtPowers (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The last page of http://app.www.sg/data/usermedia/documents/Singapore_Arms_And_Flag_And_National_Anthem_Rules.pdf has the Malay lyrics enshrined into law, along with a musical score. Zscout370 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the incorporation of a copyrighted work into (what is essentially) an appendix of a law ought to invalidate the copyright, or somehow cause it to be assigned to the government. That could be fair use. LtPowers (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is in a schedule, that is not an appendix per se and would still form an integral part of the legislation. A schedule is part of a legislative tool to how to present and prescribe specific information, they should not considered adjunct to the legislation. By your reasoning the flag and the official coats of arms are also copyright and cannot be used. Taking your reasoning further that would mean that we are going to have big problems across all WMF. Our default position has been that if it is declared (presumably by parliamentary legislation or decree by head of state) a national anthem then it is usually through a government edict and that label is applicable. If it is a scan, and cannot be hosted on Commons due to the US and home country rule, then we would have it here (US only rule to apply). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The arms is under copyright, the flag was called PD-Simple. With the anthem, I do know that it is being debated at the Commons. Also at the Commons, we have legal experts from that country guiding us to figure out what is going on. Zscout370 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• keep not copyright under US law as PD-GovEdict. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • With due respect, I find it very hard to believe that the law referenced in PD-GovEdict was intended to apply to creative works of art. The wording of it implies that it applies to the text of legislation, not to creative works that happen to be included with that legislation. Is that really saying that a government can invalidate someone's copyright simply be including a work in a piece of legislation? LtPowers (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

    Of course they can not allow copyright, as the American government does it with works from Iran, so by setting the mechanism to do so by other means for works to become public domain is possible. Whether that is the intent of the law to invalidate, or whether it actually does would be the decision of a court of law. From the looking that has been done, there is no case law to assist in this regard. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• • It's not a law, it is a common-law policy. Basically, works which legally affect citizens should not be protected by copyright, under the basic public policy that people should know the law, and there should be no restrictions on distributions of the law. In this case, if there is an official score and lyrics people are supposed to follow, to the point they are specified in law, they should not be restricted via copyright from knowing them. The situation is probably different in Singapore (the government could claim a governmental copyright there still most likely), but en-wikisource follows U.S. law where that basic policy has been set in place since the 1800s. It has mostly only come up with state laws (and judicial decisions), but the U.S. Copyright Office would not allow registration of this, I don't think, which would take a court case to change. It applies to all works... literary works are also "creative works of art" just as much as drawings or songs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Appeal and reopen. I have thought long and hard about this one, and the principle around national anthems affects all of these works. This decision has set a precedent and I do not believe that there is sufficiently suitable discussion and evidence for that decision. Common law application is equally applicable as all other determinations, when it is simply the accepted way things are enforced by the government it is the law until a court overturns the administrative application. An official translation of a legislative work of government is akin to a government edict of what are the words. National anthems for their nature of being pushed by nations are to my opinion an exception, and not to be captured by blackletter law, intent is also relevant — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If credible evidence proves the official English translation to be eligible for {{PD-EdictGov}}, the page can be undeleted or re-started. The last deleted version before being tagged copyvio did not mention where exactly the translation was from. I have seen not only official translation, but also private ones without evident copyright licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Official translation as per Sg govt

• http://app.www.sg/who/National-Anthem-in-English-124.aspx

Background info

• http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_815_2004-12-23.html

Yeah, given that a) Singapore was writing this after getting independence from the UK, and b) English is one of their official languages, I would have to guess there were official English translations from the beginning. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

IOC resolutions concerning Chinese participation 1979

The following discussion is closed:

deleted copyvio — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this work, though enough concerns to bring it here. Currently labelled {{no licence}}. Work of an NGO that affects a nation. No indication that it was published by the originating body, just the reputed reproduction in a work of historical context. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as it does not look like an edict of government when no license is known.--Jusjih (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Pigeons from Hell Screenplay

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This has no source documented and the short story it is based on has been moved to Wikilivres as it is still copyright. (See Pigeons from Hell.) I think I should be deleting this as G6, but I'm not clear on the rules on derivative works so thought I would check first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

G6, no author, ... There are a range to choose from, so go with your gut instinct of most relevant. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Empire of the Necromancers

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvio Aug 2010, not seeing it listed here for discussion. Original publish date is listed as "1932. Weird Tales, September 1932 LW1", Author:Clark Ashton Smith died 1961. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Smith did not renew the copyright himself but the publisher renewed the magazine as a whole (Weird Tales/1932#September). As far as I am aware, this probably means the story is still under copyright (unless it can be shown that Smith retained his own rights). The renewal was in 1960 and Smith died in 1961, so that shouldn't be an issue. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• delete evidence above would indicate that copyright was maintained. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)