Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2013-03

Kept

Template Review

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as they do not seem to inhibit commercial or derivative uses.--Jusjih (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In light of the Open Government License , the following template should ideally be reviewed, and the works tagged with them migrated.

• Template:UK-Crown-waiver
• Template:PD-UK-EdictGov

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Migrated to where, and why? Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Migrated to {{OGL}} because that's what appears to now cover material that was under the OPSI/FOIA waiver on public sector information. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Wikisource:Scriptorium, Jeepday (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

These aren't Copyright violations :) OGL is compatible with Creative Commons style licenses. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think that we would be more likely to review the licensing that we have for each work, check it against the original, and updating as necessary. When the templates are unused, then we look at the process to manage. UK's licensing is not absolute from my understanding and we would still need to licence appropriately. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A number of works are automatically now under the OGL -- that would include material under the two above licenses, I think. It's not a blanket permission for all government work -- several departments have the right to control their own works -- but a fair bit is now automatically under that license. I don't like the wording of the PD-UK-EdictGov, since such works are not necessarily PD there (has to wait for Crown Copyright to expire), but those are now basically mentioned as automatically being under the OGL license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• So it sounds like everything in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-UK-EdictGov and in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:UK-Crown-waiver (about 50 works total) needs to be individually considered for licensing with {{OGL}}. When the everything has been re-licensed (or not), come back here for consideration on what is left, and disposition of {{PD-UK-EdictGov}} & {{UK-Crown-waiver}}. Jeepday (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated the legislation items Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The residue seems to be Cabinet papers relating to Malaya, and extracts from Hansard (which would be under Open Parliamentary Livense I think.)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don’t see anything claimimg PD with only this license, so there are no possible licensing (copyright status) issues for works related solely to this license. See below seeking community consensus on the fate of the license. Jeepday (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep or delete

Should this license by kept or deleted?

Works of Norwegian government

The following discussion is closed:

Keep both works licensed with {{PD-NorwayGov}}, which was existing on Wikisource. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The two works of the Marketing Control Act & Use of environmental claims in the marketing of vehicles appear to be officially translated and produced by the w:Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman on their English website. I am not finding copyright information for general government works. I did find NLOD, but not sure it is automatic or has to be granted. The Marketing Control Act might qualify for {{PD-EdictGov}}, but the second one looks like a report by a government office, so would need some other licensing. These are the only two works in Category:Law of Norway. Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Following suggestion above, two actions performed. One work pending deletion discussion.

Licensed Marketing Control Act with {{PD-EdictGov}}

tagged Use of environmental claims in the marketing of vehicles with {{copyvio}}

Jeepday (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

An alternate is look at these from the perspective of Norwegian laws on copyright, and it maybe that we are just short a licence. Have a look at {{PD-NorwayGov}}. At first blush, both would be seen to fit within that licence as they are reports/instructions of government, and provided for the specific purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good find; At the very least PD-NorwayGov should be moved over from commons for the first work, it looks like a clear fit. The License would also seem to apply to the second work. It appears that Norwegian government open licensing is more generalized then US government. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Index:Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 - Exposure Draft.pdf‎

The following discussion is closed:

Keep and license {{cc-by-3.0-au}}, all work of The Attorney-General's Department meets this license with 3 exceptions, or unless otherwise indicated. All indications are in support of being CC. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is draft federal legislation for Australia. From my reading of Help:Official texts and w:Crown copyright the Australian Government retains copyright in all its works including legislation for 50 years. While there is a provision for making single copies of legislation available at cost, I'm not sure that this would cover us. Additionally, this is draft legislation and inevitably will not be passed word for word as it currently stands. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that, in America, government documents from other countries are in the public domain. The works on Wikisource only need to be in the public domain in America, do they not? Mclay1 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Australian Crown copyright only applies to Australia. This tag (Template:PD-EdictGov) seems like it can be applied to draft legislation. Mclay1 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft legislation is not an edict of a government—only passed legislation is an edict. Be that as it may, files on Commons must be copyright free in their home country as well as the US. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The terms of the www.ag.gov.au material seem to be cc-by-3.0-au. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Work of the Attorney-General's Dept and licensed as cc-by-3.0-au which fits within our scope. To note that it is not an edict of government (from an Oz perspective) as the work itself would have no legal standing. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  I have created {{cc-by-3.0-au}} for its use, when it gets there. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  All that said, I am not sure why we are looking to host it. It is a draft for public comment and is unlikely to be put forward to parliament in this form and even it is, then it is likely to face amendment in the house or senate, so won't reflect that law. I can see why we may wish to host legislation, and to track it through time, but not drafts, unless of course we are looking at the effects of public comment on a drafting process. Don't get me wrong in that I am not criticising, just not understanding. I can think of numerous pieces of existing legislation that could be hosted. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  The purpose was to preserve it for historical information, which people read for whatever reason they please, such as comparing the draft with the final legislation. I'm new to Wikisource so I'm not aware of any reason not to include something (other than the few things briefly mentioned in the basic policy pages). Mclay1 (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Fair call, sounds reasonable. We don't have a policy on it, I was more exploring the why, as/when/if the legislation is passed it would be a new work, and we wouldn't update this version to match, it would be a version. Always worthwhile being upfront. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Forgive my ignorance but does the AU Attorney General normally compose draft legislation for Parliament? That doesn't seem right to me at face value. If "Parliament" wrote it then they would be a third party in relation to the AG & not covered by it's CC. Its kind of like when copyrighted material is published in the U.S. Congressional Record without attribution, etc. -- it doesn't mean the existing copyright protections somehow no longer apply or are superseded (in this case, the circumvention of AU Crown Copyright with the republishing of legislation by the AG). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Each department will draft the legislation to be put forward by their minister, who will introduce it to the respective state of federal house, there may be reference to parties when it gets to be a Bill, that is undertaken by the Parliamentary drafters as a Bill can effect multiple pieces of legislation, and often that can be more than one govt deptarment. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note & Question: The logic of the licensing argument for this work has been challenged without rebuttal. Are there other comments desired before closure? Jeepday (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Delete - CC-by-3.0 cannot extinguish the Crown copyright (re-organizing legislation originally penned by members subject to the Crown Copyright laws does not transform it into a new & unique work [imo). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    Copyright is the right to make a copy, and it rights can be attributed by the crown as well as anybody, and here it is by a creative commons licence. The Copyright Council of Australia has a information sheet (PDF) and the rights are unrevocable, and it does not exclude government from that condition. I will go and dig through the legislation, however, you are now arguing the blackest of blackletter law however NOBODY authoritative is going to be saying to us to take it down. The Federal Govt. has very clearly put the draft out for distribution and comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    Guesses as to the likelihood of if anyone is going to complains about the presence of a work on Wikisource have not historical been considered valid rationale in copyright discussions. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

    Withdrawn. Laws should be followed not circumvented when convienent, however... and I wasn't the one to paint it in such a stark black & white contrast to contradict itself - the lawmakers have. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted

A Tryst with Destiny

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted and protected from non-administrator's edit through 2024-12-31T23:59-05:00 after being deleted earlier and re-created without convincing licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Our Help:Public domain page lists India as Life+60 or Publication+60. I'm not sure which applies to a printed copy of a speech given in 1947. Nehru died in 1964, so if this is a "literary work" then it's still copyright. The source for this copy is a reprint in 1992. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• delete still under copyright. Having sat and read through the legislation with someone from guWS, it is under copyright unless released by some other mechanism. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Delete as a copyrighted work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation of Seventh of March Speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The work is a 1971 speech of a Bangli nationalist figure who died in 1975. The work has been translated into English, though there is no indication of either the English or Bangli language copyrights. No indication of source. Nothing evident that it has been released to the public domain and that we can host the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment, per w:Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not in elected office on this date. There is a Wikipedia article w:This time the struggle is for our freedom about this speech which contains the full text. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed the speech on Wikipedia and provided direction here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 Delete: I can't see any reason it would be out of copyright. I doubt Rahman intended it as intellectual property to be protected by law but legally, without any evidence of release or open licensing, I don't think it is hostable on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird Tales stories

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, no compatible en.Wikisource License. A few days will be allowed for interested individuals to transfer to Wikilivres if desired, prior to delete here, soft redirects (if identified) can be added after delete. Jeepday (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In the last 48 hours the following copyright stories that have individual renewals have been added by various IPs. I am listing them here in case any that are appropriate for such have not yet been transferred to Wikilivres.

• Weird Tales/Volume 30/Issue 4/Which Will Scarcely Be Understood
• The Soul-Eater
• Desert Dawn
• The King and the Oak
• Mr. Lupescu

Also, the following stories have been added from Issues that have renewals for the whole issue. These I'm not sure about as to whether the renewal for the whole issue applies to all the contents.

• The Mandrakes
• Revelations in Black
• The Ice-Demon
• Moonlight on a Skull
• Ubbo-Sathla
• The Man on the Ground
• A Vintage from Atlantis
• The Seed of the Sepulcher
• The Holiness of Azédarac
• The Woman of the Wood
• The Weaver in the Vault
• The Tale of Satampra Zeiros
• The End of the Story
• The Last Incantation
• Sadastor
• The Phantoms of the Fire
• The Last Day
• Lukundoo
• The Beast of Averoigne
• Genius Loci (Smith)
• The Vaults of Yoh-Vombis
• The Horror From the Mound
• The Monster of the Prophecy
• The Thing on the Roof
• The Resurrection of the Rattlesnake
• The Immeasurable Horror
• A Voyage to Sfanomoë
• The Venus of Azombeii
• A Rendezvous in Averoigne
• The Necromantic Tale
• The Uncharted Isle
• Recapture

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Delete. Also, the copyright renewal of the issue does extend down to all of the works published within it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually (as I've come to understand it), the "blanket" copyright or subsequent renewal(s) for any given work or works found within an issue considered to be first published as part of a periodical only extends down to such works in the absence of a separate copyright notice being attached to that work at the time of submission to the copyright office for registration. Even as late as 1973, no work without a separate copyright notice could ever be independently registered apart from the "blanket" copyright and, because of that, no right of reversion can come to exist that usurps the "blanket" copyright's original claim. Again, this only applies to certain works first published in periodicals prior to falling under the effects of the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Law revisions. The caveat here (and nearly impossible to ascertain) is when the author somehow becomes an assignee of the copyright owners (typically the periodical's publisher) at some point & I'm not sure what in blazes happens then!!

Leaning delete (or move) but much rather seek further investigation for separate copyright notices if any. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, a few of these are already on Wikilivres and we might be able to move a few more across. The Clark Ashton Smith works should be OK as he died in 1961 and Canadian copyright law is pma+50. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Presidential campaign works

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, unlicensed, unlikely to be licensed. Jeepday (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• 2012 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 3
• 2012 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 16
• 2012 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 22
• Mitt Romney's 2012 concession speech
• 2012 U.S. Vice Presidential Debate
• 2012 Republican National Convention/Nomination Acceptance Speech

As regularly as we have presidential campaigns we have this copyright battle. These works are problematic

• They are not works of government, they are personal, though the argument has been made that whomever is President is always on the work of the US Gov
• Not all of these people are government employees, one may have wanted to be but isn't, however, the journalist is clearly not.
• There is no source of the works
• There is no licensing provided for the works
• We cannot host works where they are not clearly released to the public domain or with a creative commons licence that allows their hosting; public interest, public statements is not sufficient
• Political people know full well about licensing their work.

Previous works of this nature have been deleted, and unless there is a CC licence for these, they should follow the same route. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Delete as unlicensed, copyrighted works. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Delete - until President Obama has left office and the National Archives starts to work with him on creating his Presidential Library, works of this type technically won't be free from one degree of copyright protection or another. Once officially archived, works like these theoretically become property of the Federal government and will be made available for public re-use as the laws on Presidential records dictate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Comment really? then we should review the Bush era works to see if they are now released. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bush would be the exception - for the time being that is. He opted to deviate from the "norm" in setting up his Liebrary to have more control over what items are made available and when (if ever). We do much better in this area with the dead presidents to be blunt about it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth on so many levels. I was more thinking about what we had deleted in recent years, not thinking that I had a particular interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Other

Works by Clark Ashton Smith

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to Wikilivres. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Some works that were published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales during a period that later had its copyrights renewed:

• The Planet of the Dead (1932)
• The Isle of the Torturers (1933)

A lot of these were recently deleted as part of the Weird Tales stories set of deletions but these have been around for a while and didn't get picked up along with the others. Like those, these can be copied to Wikilivres. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying the two issues of Weird Tales where these two stories first appeared are known to have had their "blanket" copyrights renewed, then I'm in support of moving them to Wikilivres as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not being clear. I have found no evidence that the individual works themselves were copyrighted. However, in moving the other works to Wikilivres, I noticed that we also had these two from the same range of issues. These issues of Weird Tales had their copyrights renewed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Move to Wikilivres where these works are allowed to be hosted per Adam. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)