Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2020

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region documents

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn / kept.

The copyright concerns have been addressed: these documents are originally issued in English, and while in copyright in Hong Kong, they fall under {{PD-EdictGov}} in the US.

For the source concerns, I have downloaded the original (Word-format) documents, converted them to DjVu, and uploaded them locally; set up indexes and proofread them from scratch; transcluded them at consistent page names, and redirected the old titles to them. All three texts are thus now both sourced and scan-backed.

[Note: the last two texts were added in separate nominations on January 5, and merged to this discussion. --Xover (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)]

• High Court of HKSAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2010
• HIGH COURT OF HKSAR OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 90 OF 2010
• Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Wun Shu Fai

No source, no license; tagged since 2017. The original would presumably be covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}, but we have no provenance for the translation (which would not be covered by EdictGov). --Xover (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Keep Source. It appears to have been originally issued in English, which seems to be normal in Hong Kong. Could definitely use a cleanup though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• The text is a court document of a Hong Kong court, in which it is copyrighted by the Hong Kong government. Also, given that it is published in 2010, it will also not likely in Hong Kong public domain per Template:PD-HK. The text is therefore likely to be copyrighted and unfree.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  @廣九直通車: One of these texts was already the subject of discussion here, so I have merged your new nominations into that discussion. Please have a look at our copyright policy and contribute to the discussion here. --Xover (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Xover:Yes, PD established in the US per Template:PD-EdictGov, but as these works are still copyrighted in Hong Kong, I believe that they are still not free, at least from the extent of Hong Kong.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  The English Wikisource concerns itself solely with the copyright status in the US; whether this work is copyrighted in Hong Kong or not is not important to us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• So English Wikisource has another definition of "free work" (in Commons and Chinese Wikisource, free work=public domain in source country and the U.S.)? But these texts do not have a source, how to deal with them?廣九直通車 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  The same one as the English Wikipedia and the Multilingual Wikisource. And Commons does not in practice care about PD in the US. I don't know if the German Wikisource even makes a pretence of caring about PD in the US, only worrying about life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for your advice! I'll then withdraw this deletion request here.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  @廣九直通車: Since it's merged with a third nomination I think we'll just let the discussion run all the way to Kowloon. :)

  There are still remaining issues outside the question of Hong Kong copyright that need to be addressed one way or another. --Xover (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Turandot

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: still in copyright until 2022.

The libretto here Turandot ends with the line "END libretto by William Weaver." William Weaver is a well-known translator of Italian, and searching on the web provides a copyright of the libretto in 1981 from. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Delete Since the original Italian by Puccini (d. 1924) was only published in 1926 and was completed by Franco Alfano, who died in 1954, probably even the original isn't PD until 2024, let alone translations. Weaver died in 2013, so his version is going to be copyright for a good long while yet! This, of course, is wrong if the translation is 1958, not 1981.

There is a version of the story as a play, not an opera, by Karl Vollmoller (tr. Jethro Bithell, pub. 1913), that would be OK. Nice scan, too: https://archive.org/details/turandotprincess00volluoft. This is based on a story from 'One Thousand and One Days' (not nights, that's different): https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.532553/page/n195.

So, if we want Turandot, we likely can't have the opera, but we can have translations of the original and a play. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete This is covered by registration A343050 on 6 January 1958 by "Electric & Musical Industries (U. S.) Ltd.", the American arm of EMI. Copyrights registered in 1958 were due for renewal in 1985 (the 28th year), but I am unable to find any renewal for "Turandot" mentioning Weaver or EMI, so this copyright expired in 1985.
  The Italian original libretto was a collective work between Giuseppe Adami (1878–1946) and Renato Simoni (1875–1952), and prior to 1994 Italy was pma. 50, meaning the original had an Italian copyright until 2002. It was thus in copyright in Italy on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and thus its US copyright was restored. Meaning the original's US copyright is 1926 (first publication) + 95 years = until the end of 2021.
  Meaning we're in the weird situation where the original work in the translation is public domain in the US, but the derivative part (that is, the Italian original) is still in copyright in the US until 2022.
  @Prosfilaes: We're into way more complicated territory than my "bear of very little brain" brain can handle comfortably. Any chance I could get you to check my reasoning here? --Xover (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The copyright on the original would cover any translation, though I believe that if the translation wasn't renewed, it would leave copyright in 2022 along with the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Christiane Taubira Speech on the Same-Sex Marriage Bill

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. Contributing user was pinged here and on their enwp talk page with no response for two weeks despite being active on enwp.

Tagged for more than 5 years as failing to identify the translator, and therefore the copyright status of the translation. No source is linked, so identifying the translator is not an easy task. A web search on the exact text reveals only this Wikisource page. -Pete (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I suspect it might be a user translation (which I think is also true of Caracas Commitment added by the same uploader), but without confirmation from the uploader I'm inclined to  Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  The user is still active at enWP. So, @RayneVanDunem:, was this your own translation? If so, could you confirm it? I guess if so, it goes to the Translation namespace. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete along with Caracas Commitment. --Xover (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, yesterday I pinged Rayne on their enwp talk page too, probably a good idea to give them a few days to respond before closing this. -Pete (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Peteforsyth: Policy is two weeks minimum (one week for WS:PD) before closing, though we do tend (for better or worse) to bend that a bit when the issue seems cut&dried. --Xover (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sino-Afghan boundary treaty

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as PD under EdictGov.

Hello all, I'm wondering if the PD-USGov license applies to the version of the Sino-Afghan boundary treaty that I added recently. The user @EncycloPetey: is not sure whether or not the license applies. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Was the text authored by an employee of the US Government as part of their official duties? It appears to me that it was not, but was only copied by one. However, as an international treaty, it would be covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• [edit conflict] @Geographyinitiative: If the translation was made by the CIA then {{PD-USGov}} probably applies to the translation as such; but the US government is not the author of the original treaty. The US (now) has copyright treaties with both Afghanistan and China, so we'd need to examine their copyright law, and the treaty status with the US, to determine the copyright status of the originals. However, without looking too closely, we probably have a get out of jail card here: as an international treaty it may very well be covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}, which would mean that it is not protected by copyright in the US regardless of those other factors. Combined with a PD-USGov translation, the net result would then be that we can keep it (but scan-backed, please: the PDF could be uploaded locally). --Xover (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl, @EncycloPetey, @Xover: I was not previously aware of PD-EdictGov, but it does seem to apply here IMO. I have added it to the page. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The page says "Done in duplicate in Peking on 22 November 1963 in the Chinese, Persian, and English languages, all three texts being equally authentic.", so this is presumably an official treaty text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep within scope, and fits with our licensing of official, published geopolitical documents. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I'd like to ask what you were proposing about potentially locally uploading the PDF version. This is only my 21st edit on Wikisource, so I don't really know the ins and outs of what can be uploaded under what circumstances. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Bother away, any time! :)

See Help:Adding texts for details. Wikisource aims not just to host any old text, but to host scan-backed and proofread works. The short version is that we upload a PDF or DjVu format scan of the original; create an index in the Index: namespace (contains bibliographic data and maps physical to logical page numbers); transcribe the work page by page in the Page: namespace; and then transclude those pages into mainspace. It enables strong verification that out text matches the original published text (think Wikisource's analogue to enwp's WP:V). This is a little more complex, but it enables various things such as the workflow with Proofreading (initial transcription and formatting) and Validation (independent quality control so at least two sets of eyes have checked the transcription).

Usually we upload the scans to Commons, but Commons' copyright policy requires works to be public domain both in the US and in the source country. English Wikisource's copyright policy only requires a work to be public domain in the US. So this work, which is {{PD-EdictGov}} in the US, but probably in copyright in Afghanistan and China (I haven't looked into that in any detail yet), must be uploaded locally here at English Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I uploaded the file (File:CIA-RDP08C01297R000100120005-5.pdf) and made the Index page- Index:CIA-RDP08C01297R000100120005-5.pdf. But I've run into a snag though, which is that the pdf is not OCR'd. Help:Adding texts doesn't discuss a preferred methodology for adding an OCR layer, and I haven't done OCR in a long time. Do you all have any suggestions on how I should go about adding OCR to this pdf? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Since you already have the text at Sino-Afghan boundary treaty you can just copy from there. OCR is never going to be good enough to just use directly, it's just a time- and work-saving starting point to avoid having to retype all the text from scratch.

It is possible to add OCR text to existing files, but I don't think we have anyone that has the tools for that for PDF files just now. If you need it, I can extract the page images from the PDF, run OCR on them, and generate a DjVu file; but this is probably going to be more work than it's worth. --Xover (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WOW what an incredible process this has been. There's one last thing I would like to ask: is there any way to transcribe the words off the map on Page:CIA-RDP08C01297R000100120005-5.pdf/6?? My hope is that the terms on the map can become searchable and will show up when someone searches for them on Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I can think of no good way to do it.

You could crop out the legend etc. and then recreate that using wiki markup, but it would be quite a bit of work and may or may not end up in a way you're pleased with. But the legend on the left can be a table with an image for the symbols in the first (left) column and the associated text in the second (right). The minimap/border map thingy would be an image, and the legend on the right can be replicated reasonably well as a table (if you can decipher the partly obscured text).

For the text labels on the map proper (i.e. place names etc.) this would have to be through an HTML image map or some other form of annotation, and I am uncertain whether that would work and be indexed by search engines (including the WMF's internal one).

If you want to try any of this I would be happy to help where I can, but we'd be in uncharted waters so no guarantees. Anybody else have any ideas? @Inductiveload: You're pretty good with this kind of stuff. Anything strike you on this? --Xover (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have created a partial list of the location names shown in the map (Page talk:CIA-RDP08C01297R000100120005-5.pdf/6). I plan (over the long-term) to compare the names, mountain heights, etc on my list with the names found on the more clear maps like [1] and modern sources, in GEOnet etc. I was recently involved in the creation of a similar list of minor geographical terms in this region (List of locations in Aksai Chin) and have a little bit of experience with this. I don't know how to make the HTML image map you are discussing, but it sounds like it would be a useful tool. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of a really good way to do this that will come out "neatly". You might be able to get away with reconstructing the legends with tables, but the main map itself is something Wikitext just isn't really capable of.

You could make an SVG map, but that will be a pretty major undertaking to vectorise the contours and everything else on the map to get a meaningfully faithful reproduction. It's not impossible to get a really pretty result out of this, but it'll take hours and hours of time, and you'll probably have to reconstruct a lot of the lines from other maps (eg. in the far top-left). It would be a lot easier if the maps were the hi-res ones like the AMS ones from w:List of locations in Aksai Chin.

I have tried a way to get the text into search results by wrapping in a "hidden" HTML structure. Which seems to work for the Wikisource search: [2]. If that's the outcome of interest, perhaps that's enough (Google results might or might not pick it up, though, we'll have to wait and see if they index that content). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Manifest of Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

This work was contributed in 2009, and is stated as being an English language translation of manifest of the organisation, and with a url as a reference. The url is dead. w:Manifest of Réseau de Résistance du Québécois says it is a 2007 document.

I do not believe the work can be held for its original in French, or the translation into English as neither the source nor the translation are clearly in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete I see no indication that this work is either public domain or freely licensed. It is also of poor quality and the translation is of unknown provenance. --Xover (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

La Frailocracia Filipina

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

This translation by Leonor Agrava is listed as {{PD-1923}} but was actually published in 1979. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete Everything I find suggests 1979 is the correct year of publication (so pub. + 95 = 2074). I can find no certain vitals for the translator, but there's one 1940 census record that suggests she was born in 1925 which sort of fits. If so, pma. 70 is also highly unlikely even if the translation was published posthumously. --Xover (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Pub. + 95 was over in 1978, so it's the later of 2047 or life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete per Xover --DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Magic Mountain

Concerning File:The Magic Mountain.djvu and Index:The Magic Mountain.djvu, it seems that the publication dates printed are incorrect. (See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bad_works_on_the_Digital_Library_of_India? for more on the general case.) w:The Magic Mountain says a 1924 original publication date (confirmed by Cliffnotes, , etc.) and a 1927 original English translation date (the earliest date I can find in HathiTrust). I can't imagine the 1919 date is correct, and given that, I see no reason to doubt the 1927 date for the translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

“	Messrs. Martin Secker have fixed June 9 for the publication of "The Magic Mountain," by Thomas Mann, The English version is by Mrs. H. T. Lowe-Porter, translator of "Buddenbrooks."	”
—The Times Literary Supplement, Thursday, May 12, 1927; pg. 329; Issue 1319.

so definitely 1927, so definitely doctored. Very disappointing. We should be looking to alert archive.org to the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This particular scan is clearly not a 1919 work, as it refers to 1943 works in the back matter.

A quick look at the dates in the front images shows the "19"s are not simple copy-pastes, but they do have similar defects, which could indicate tampering before the bitonal compression (or adjacent identical sorts have similar, innocent, printing defects, also possible). Also the second 19 on the title page is misaligned and a few pixels lower.

Volume 2 has no publication date shown (hmm), but the page after the title page says "first published June 1922". The month is right, per the above review. The second 2, however, while not a pixel perfect clone, has the same defects as its neighbour (look at the top right island of the 2s, there's a divot at the top right edge on both). Odd, indeed. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the back of the title page was scanned, over-cropped and then stretched to fit the expected page size, or if the two-up scan for the version was misprocessed, because the translator's note looks squeezed. In any case, that would mean that the doctoring predated the scanning or carefully matched it. Maybe somebody working at the program had a couple works they uploaded deleted, and is quickly doctoring the books before scanning? With care, you could apply a white sticker over the original text before scanning and given the B&W nature of the scans, nobody could tell? You could even remove many stickers afterwards, and nobody could tell. Especially with that back matter, I can't see any value in making these type of changes historically, and currently it seems only important at the scanning to IA level, since both we've found move it before the 1923 line. (Of course, if it hadn't been for the copyright issues, I wouldn't have noticed this one, so tiny biased sample.) Poirot Investigates (the other book I found with a false date) is missing the back third (cared enough to doctor the date, but not upload the whole book?!?) and Poirot Investigates (Manipuri) is a scan from the same library of a (2004? 2008) modern translation, so, it's just weird.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That one certainly looks like the date has been doctored. The last "1" in "1921" is very, very similar to the first one (almost pixel perfect), and it is misaligned vertically. So it looks like a (sloppy) clone-tool job at some point in the process prior to final compression to me.

And another one: Lord Edgware Dies. Published 1933, this scan states the original edition is 1923, and the "2" is misaligned. This is also a later reproduction, not the 19(3)3 edition, as is clear by the stylised title which is unlikely in a 30s printing. Moreover Berkeley Books was founded in 1955 - I think this is the 1984 edition. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Magic Mountain scan claims to have been published by Secker & Warburg in London in 1919. Martin Secker may indeed have published The Magic Mountain at some point (the 1927 English first edition was presumably his), but Secker & Warburg was not formed until 1935 when Secker went broke and was bought up by Fredric Warburg. They now operate as Harvill Secker. No book printed prior to 1935 should have "Secker & Warburg" (but it may occur in bibliographic databases for various reasons). --Xover (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe reaching, but this 1946 edition looks like it might be the undoctored source? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

i am finding a renewal here page 714 1955 but no second renewal, only a RE0000057751 "The Making of Magic mountain. By Thomas Mann & Helen T. Lowe-Porter." in Atlantic monthly of 1953 renewed in 1980. [3] -- Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean second renewal? Works got a 28-year starting term, then an (eventually) 67-year renewal term. They didn't get a second renewal, and this didn't need one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've previously noticed that in.ernet.dli / Digital Library of India has a fundamentally shoddy relationship with copyright, so I always check files from there extra well. However, outright forging title pages etc. is a whole other level of unreliability, not just in terms of copyright, but in terms of the integrity of the work, the associated bibliographic data, and, ultimately, literary history. This offends me. And it raises the question…
  Can we trust anything DLI has touched?
  Even if you don't care about copyright violations, the outright forgery on display here means the trustworthiness of their scans (much less the associated bibliographic data) can no longer be presumed. Commons has ~1200 files tagged with in.ernet.dli alone (not all files from there are so tagged), and these all now need checking (to varying levels of detail). I have no idea how we actually verify ~1200 files when we can no longer trust even the scan to reflect reality. --Xover (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Have you tried sending DLI a letter of concern about issues like this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  DLI was certinaly aware some issues back in 2017- (https://web.archive.org/web/20170909022047/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Index:Zofia Kossak - The Convenant.djvu, File:Zofia Kossak - The Convenant.djvu. The scan claims the book was published by Allan Wingate in 1911. Allan Wingate was founded in 1944. The author, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka was born in 1889—so 22 in 1911—and most her other works started to appear in the 1930s (she was a Polish WWII resistance fighter). Which jives well with the actual publication date for this work: 1951. Also a DLI scan. --Xover (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Ankry: You may wish to be aware of ↑. --Xover (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  There was also Roy 1951 edition of "The Convenant" (I have no access to it to check whether there was a copyright notice there), but even if there was a copyright notice in this edition, the copyright for this book was not renewed. Polish edition ("Przymierze") was published a year later (likely due to long publishing procedure in Poland that time), so the English one is the first edition. I do not think there is a copyright problem with this particular book and publishing date is not fake. However, the scans are poor and likely not complete, so I will not worry if you decide to delete this book. Ankry (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Ankry: Note that I am not so much concerned with its copyright status, as the fact that it has been doctored to appear as if it was published in 1911, 40 years before its actual publication date. Not to mention a publisher which did not exist at the time of the claimed publication.

  But on initial assessment, if this was first published in the UK in 1951, the term is pma. 70; meaning it is in copyright in the UK until 1968 + 70 years = 2038. That would make it in copyright in the source country on the UK's URAA date (1996), and so in copyright in the US until 1951 + 95 years = 2046. The situation in Poland is similar to the UK (pma. 70).

  (PS. Isn't it The Covenant, not The Convenant? I think the extra n was just a typo by the uploader at IA, but I'm not familiar with the work so I may be wrong.) --Xover (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Xover: I assume that it was published simultaneously in UK and US as the publisher declares on p. 4 (the 1911 date there is clearly fake) and on the title page. If you know, how to verify / reject this, let me know. Same info can be found in library records. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Ankry: That's sort of my point… we can't trust anything on that page because it has unquestionably been forged. We'll need external verification to determine its actual copyright status. The above assessment was based solely on your assertion that it was first published in the UK: if it was actually published simultaneously / within 30 days in the US the whole assessment changes. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  That is why I verified this in library catalogues: Polish National Library has two 1951 English editions of this book: Wingate's (London & New York) and Roy's (New York) (unsure in the links are permanent; permanent linking directly to library catalogue is not possible). And the books are definitely not PD in Poland and UK. But IMO, they do not fall under URAA due to being US publications (with or without copyright notice). @Xover: Ankry (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Ankry: The Wingate does not appear to have been published in the US (they just had offices there). The Roy edition looks to be the US publication, presumably in some kind of partnership with Wingate. UK newspapers review (and print ads for) the Wingate edition from January, but US newspapers begin reviewing the Roy edition in June. There are some mentions in rural US newspapers in March, but these appear to be talking about the UK edition. From the evidence, then, it does not appear this work was published in the US within 30 days. --Xover (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Xover: Well, so I'll delete the file on Commond due to URAA. Thanks for investigation. Please delete the index and pages. Ankry (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  This is tagged as no copyright notice, which might or might not be true. But note that The Magic Mountain has a blank space where a later edition has a copyright notice. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the copyright notices have been erased. Lots of DLI scans have no copyright notice at all, which I find somewhat convenient, since that's not an especially common oversight. For example, Presidential Agent (pub. 1944) does not have any copyright line on the reverse of the title page, but the very similarly typeset One Clear Call (pub. 1948) by the same publisher does. I doubt a publisher would neglect this line, when the previous year (1943) [Wide is the Gate] had at least an "All rights reserved". However, I can't immediately find a smoking gun of an alternative scan of a DLI book that shows a disparity. The closest I can find is this and this, where one page is totally blank, which is not quite as good as finding a page with only part of it missing. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: The editions of "The Return Of Lanny Budd" you pointed out above are UK editions and as non-US editions they likely have no copyright notice. Ankry (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishrikes: had similar problems a few years back with a P.G. Wodehouse novel (Right Ho, Jeeves) uploaded from DLI that was doctored to appear as published in 1922, but was really a 1934 publication (per hard-copy resources in my library). I speedied it on 7 June 2015 as a copyvio. (Brief conversation here.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar

The following discussion is closed:

deleted due to copyrighted translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The earliest copy I can find of this translation of the former Libyan national anthem, is from the WorldExplorer website by Florida International University. There is nothing on that site that suggests that this translation is released under any license compatible with Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per proposal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Minsk agreements

The following discussion is closed:

The Memorandum itself is kept under {{PD-EdictGov}}; the Protocol and Package of Measures do not fall under this exception and have been deleted.

This category contains two works, both of which have issues.

Both are documents of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, originally in Russian. First question: can the originals be considered {{PD-EdictGov}}? They are not by a government as such, but are by/signed by two government officials and a representative of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe intergovernmental organisation.

Additionally, the English translation of Memorandum on fulfilment of the provisions of the Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group is attributed to Interfax, which is clearly copyrighted. In fact, the version on WS is not precisely Interfax's, but is clearly based on it.

For completeness, the translation of Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group is by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, so think is {{PD-EdictGov}}. BethNaught (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The English version of the Memorandum is my combination of two different translations, both linked on the page (both had strengths and weaknesses). If the copyright is unsuitable for reproduction, then I will try again to find a government version, and barring that, I could translate it myself.--Mzajac (talk)

Okay, I have found translations of all three Minsk agreements filed at the UN by Ukraine: [4], [5], [6]. These might be better translations, too.Mzajac (talk)

I have now updated those two and added a third, with {{PD-EdictGov}}. I am confidant that is appropriate since these are submitted as attachments to UN sessions by the UN Mission of Ukraine, and so is “any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.”

1. Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group
2. Memorandum on fulfilment of the provisions of the Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group
3. Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements

 —Michael Z. 2020-01-03 19:46 z

Thank you! That fixes my concern about the translations. I'm not an expert on EdictGov though, so I'd still appreciate feedback from others about the originals. BethNaught (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for bringing this up. —Michael Z. 2020-01-03 23:03 z

•  Delete Hmm, let's see…
  The Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine is not a legal entity in its own right, much less a government body. For the purposes of EdictGov assessment it therefore cannot be considered the author of any materials. The texts in question must therefore be considered collaborative works by their signatories. The signatories are acting in their official capacities, as representatives of their governments, but some of the participants do not represent any legally recognised government and must be considered private citizens (they in effect represent special interest groups). Their contributions to the documents would be in their personal copyright. First publication for these documents must, I think, be considered to have occurred in Ukraine; and so the country of origin for copyright purposes, and thus the governing copyright law, must thus also be considered that of the Ukraine.
  The texts themselves are 1) a protocol, essentially the minutes of a meeting; 2) a memorandum of understanding; 3) a list of measures that the group thinks needs to be implemented in order to achieve a stated goal. None of these texts in themselves have any force of law: they are not in themselves a law (they merely mention the need to enact certain laws), nor do they represent the ruling or decision of any recognised legal system under an existing law, nor do they regulate or define practical application of any existing law. Note in particular the (carefully chosen, I imagine) phrasing at the start of these documents: "Upon consideration and discussion of the proposals put forward by the participants of the consultations … the Trilateral Contact Group … reached an understanding with respect to the need to implement the following steps". In other words, all the documents say are that "we talked about it in a meeting, and those present came to understand that it would be really nice if the entities that sent us here would stop shooting at each other and stuff". They do not say "We agree to stop shooting at each other" or "We will enact a law that says we shouldn't shoot at each other": only that "In order for people to stop shooting at each other, we think the following things have to happen". None of the documents obligate anybody to anything, and so they cannot really be considered an international treaty.
  The copyright law of the Ukraine does not have any {{PD-USGov}} style copyright exemptions: their "official work" exemptions are narrowed to apply only to roughly the same material as {{PD-EdictGov}} does. The lack of legal force that makes {{PD-EdictGov}} (US) inapplicable therefore also makes PD-UkraineGov (Ukraine) inapplicable.
  The net result is that these documents are collective or joint works of the persons signing them, some of whom are representatives of their governments but that only means the copyright runs for publication+70 years instead of pma. 70. Ukraine copyright law protects collective works for 70 years after the death of the last author (which means 2085 or thereabouts at the earliest).
  The translations of these documents may be official translations, but the "official translations" bit only applies to official translations of originals that were EdictGov to begin with. The cited UN database is their "Peacemaker" site; actual treaties (stuff that has force of law) are published on UNTC. The UN Peacemaker site links to the general UN copyright statement (which is pretty darn restrictive). Or in other words, documents filed with the UN are often public records but are not public domain.
  The long and short of which is, I cannot see that these texts are public domain or freely licensed under any of the theories put forth so far. --Xover (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Thanks, user:Xover.

If by “some of the participants do not represent any legally recognised government” you mean the “DNR” and “LNR” representatives, they do not belong to the Trilateral Contact Group, and it is documented that they did not write the agreements, only showed up to plant their signatures. I can probably dig up sources to support this if necessary.

According to my dictionary, an edict is “an official order or or proclamation issued by a person in authority.” While these documents are not laws, they are official proclamations by governments, stating “we said this” or “we agreed to release this.” Unfortunately, the US Copyright Office (Compendium, § 313.6(C)(2) Government Edicts) does not seem to define edict except by a short list of examples and “. . . or similar types of official legal materials,” but it does also refer to a legal precedent citing “the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties,” which in no way restricts the definition to the listed examples.

I believe all three original documents were physically signed in Minsk, Belarus. Versions were published on government websites in Ukraine, in the Russian Federation, and on OSCE.org (“This site is managed by the Communication and Media Relations Section at the OSCE Secretariat in Vienna, Austria”, copyright statement).

At least one was a PDF file on https://www.president.gov.ua/en, with a notice at the bottom of the home page “All materials featured on this site are is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (Ukrainian and Russian-language versions of this notice are also found on the site).

I think there was also at least one on http://kremlin.ru, with notice at the bottom of the home page: “All content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (also stated in Russian).

If none of that is useful, I would be willing to try to contact the Ukrainian government or the OSCE for explicit permission. Any advice? —Michael Z. 2020-01-28 03:40 z

@Mzajac: For stuff that's signed by multiple parties and whose wording is negotiated and approved by those parties, I think the only sensible view is that the works in question are collaborative works by all those parties that have signed it. There are other settings where a work is clearly authored by one party (usually an organisation of some stripe) and just signed by other parties, but I don't think that applies here. I'm also sure lawyers could fill several thousand pages arguing the precise definition, but the above seems a good enough approximation for our purposes here.

I don't think the physical location where the documents were signed is particularly relevant. Neither is what websites republished them under what (probably inaccurate) blanket copyright statements. What would matter for copyright purposes is where they were first published; and since this is inherently an Ukranian matter, that seems a reasonable choice of copyright law. If there is another jurisdiction with credible claim to competence and with material differences in copyright regime it might be worth digging into, but Ukraine does not appear to differ markedly from the norm here.

Regarding edicts… The "product of officers of the court doing their job" language goes to the heart of the PD-EdictGov exemption in the US: it is a fundamental principle that those who are bound by the law must know the law. The exemption is thus, broadly, for any work that somehow carries the force of law; either by being a law itself, or by being an ordnance or similar founded in such a law, or by being some competent guidance on interpreting the law (which covers judgements in court). This is fundamentally different from the PD-USGov exemption which is, in essence, based on the principle that work paid for by taxes should belong to the taxpayer. PD-USGov applies based on the identity of who produced a work; but PD-EdictGov applies based on the legal force of the work. A typical international treaty obligates a signatory country to act in specific ways, and as such behaves similarly to a law, and, in fact, are often incorporated into domestic law in some fashion. These documents carry no such force: they obligate nobody to nothing.

If you're going to try to get explicit license to these works you would need to use the m:OTRS process (and I would suggest you ask for advice from the OTRS volunteers before making contact: they have experience with such situations). However, so long as we're dealing with a collaborative work you would need to obtain a release from all the co-authors; including the personal ones (those signatories that did not at the time represent an internationally recognised government). I would not advice sticking your hand into that particular hornets nest, and I don't expect your chances of succeeding to be very good, but that's the only way I can see to resolve this. --Xover (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Xover, copyright is held by creators. The “D/LNR” signatories neither negotiated nor wrote these agreements. They only added their mark after the fact. They do not hold copyright. As far as I know, they did not publish these works. But let’s not waste time arguing this point, because it doesn’t matter.

The discussion about authored by “multiple parties” or “clearly authored by one party” which is actually “an organisation of some stripe” is also neither here nor there. Does the Compendium say anything about this? No. The Trilateral Contact Group names itself in its own documents. Its members are named too. So there you go.

But you are quite are right, what’s important for copyright purposes is where versions of these were published: in Ukraine, in Russia, and in Austria. If you have a claim that any of these were illegal publications and don’t represent copyright ownership, then I invite you to challenge them in court. Barring that, we have no basis to disqualify, for example, the Russian Federation’s right to publish of a version of these documents of its authorship under its copyright in its territory.

What does “inherently a Ukrainian matter” mean, and how is it relevant? Copyright is about authorship, not subject matter. US Copyright law does not recognize whatever this principle is, as far as I can tell. The Russian Federation authored it and published it is what matters (and, incidentally, this indicates it is an RF matter too).

You misquoted “officers of the court,” a phrase which does not appear in the Compendium, nor in its citation of the law that it interprets. It refers to issuances of governments, including a non-comprehensive list of examples legislative, judicial, administrative, and etcetera. (I don’t understand this: “it is a fundamental principle that those who are bound by the law must know the law.” Fundamental to what? No, they don’t have to know it, they just have to obey it. But so what?) Kuchma and Zurabov were legal officers of their respective governments, which legally published these documents.

“Edicts of government, local or foreign” are in the public domain in the USA. Wikisource refers specifically to 313.6(C)(2) of the Copyright Compendium. Admittedly the examples it gives are all examples of laws, but it refers to a legal precedent about “the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties.” And we know by precedent that edicts also include treaties, which are understandings and agreements amongst governments.

Ambassador Zurabov of Russia and Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine were legally appointed by their states to negotiate and write the official text of these documents, and ambassador Heidi Tagliavini was also official representative of an international organization of which these states are members. The documents don’t resemble the Compendium’s counterexamples of documents that are not government edicts: “a tourist magazine written and published by Arizona’s department of tourism or a map created and published by the public transit authority for the city of Detroit.” As far as I can tell the Minsk documents represent, in their own words, an “understanding,” and a “bilateral ceasefire agreement,” written and signed by legal representatives of states. It is an edict by officers of these governments, published by these governments, which makes them PD in the USA. —Michael Z. 2020-02-06 03:48 z

It is a fundamental principle of just rule that those ruled over have a chance to know the law, that someone can not be convicted (or rightfully charged with or arrested for) some secret law they could not have known of, or some law established after they committed the act. How can it be just to order someone to obey a law they could not know? Agree or not, but that's the model to think about. I'm not sure that treaties that aren't self-executing should be PD-Edict, but that seems to be established, and I wouldn't have wanted to cut that edge.

This does not resemble the counterexamples, no. But life is not always that neat and convenient.

IMO, Memorandum on fulfilment of the provisions of the Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group looks like an edict, imposing restrictions on all and sundry. Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements and Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group do not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Prosfilaes. I take you mean that the principle is more or less that public proclamations of governments need to be disseminated to serve democracy and protect the rights of the people affected. Seems fair. These three proclamation very much affect the people of Ukraine and the Donbas region, as well as foreign fighters in Ukraine. They also inform the general public and the decision-makers and participants in Kyiv, Moscow, Vienna, Donetsk, and Luhansk, and everyone under them, including members of the mentioned “illegal armed formations” that may profess some autonomy, of the expectations and obligations placed on these persons.

The Memorandum refers to and depends on the Protocol, and so if it is an edict then the Protocol must be as well. The Package of Measures elucidates and completes the mutually agreed vision of the terms of the Protocol, whose implementation cannot be completed and evaluated without it. Logically, the three Minsk Agreements must be edicts, either all or none, and they constitute the official public proclamation of the “Peace Plan of the President of Ukraine,” and the “initiatives of the President of the Russian Federation.” —Michael Z. 2020-02-11 17:05 z  cc. user:BethNaught, user:Xover.

@Mzajac: You misunderstand. The principle underlying the Edict of Government exemptions in US copyright is that the law must be available to those who are bound by it (i.e. a country's citizens). This includes, obviously, any document that is an actual law. If that law says "All hamburgers must be served with cheese and pickles", and the Department of Commerce (the goverment department with jurisdiction over trade and commerce) issues an administrative decision that says "Cheese, in the context of the Cheese & Pickles for Hamburgers Act, must be understood to include American cheese and other cheese-like artificial products", then that decision will have some force of law (it extends and explains the actual law). If the Onion Growers Association of America then sues, claiming that any pickled vegetable is a "pickle", and not just dill-pickled cucumbers, then the court decision in that case (regardless of outcome) will be case law related to the Cheese & Pickles for Hamburgers Act and necessary to correctly interpreting (and thus obeying) the law. All these (and similar cases) are covered by the Edict of Government exemptions, and all of them relate to the law and force of law. This exemption is not itself actually codified in the Copyright Act (iirc, ianal, etc.): it is an exemption derived from a Supreme Court case that the Copyright Office has incorporated into their practice by refusing to register copyrights for such materials.

In the US, there is another exemption, that is codified in law, related to works of the US federal government. The short version of this is something along the lines of: if it was funded by taxes and made by public servants, it should not get copyright protection. This affects works of the US federal government only: not any work by a non-US government. Most countries have some regulation for works by the government in their copyright laws, but most of them correspond in their definitions most with the Edict of Government exceptions (i.e. only laws and related matter is ineligible for copyright) and not with the US Government Works clauses.

Applying this to the case at hand, your argument is based more on a "Government Work"-style exemption than an "Edict of Government" exemption. I have asserted above that since these documents do not contain any language that obligates anyone to do, or refrain from doing, anything at all, they cannot be covered by Edict of Government. Prosfilaes has, partially, disagreed on one of those documents. Looking at it quickly now (a bit pressed for time, sorry) I find their argument plausible, but will have to look into it more closely to see if it also persuasive. In the mean time, look at the documents in light of the above: the one Prosfilaes mentions contains language like "[Parties] shall [do this]" and "[Type of action] shall be banned" and so forth, but the others are mere listings of facts and observations with no obligations for anyone. --Xover (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: but the Government Printing Office doesn’t exactly say that. Anyway, “edict of a government” is definitely not restricted to a narrow definition of “law.” It is clear from the GPO’s examples and counter-examples that there is a huge grey area in between them, and I have no doubt that this is on purpose, to allow a liberal interpretation. They are undoubtedly more like the examples than the counter-examples. And it is clear from browsing the members of Category:PD-EdictGov that it is much more than just “law,” including treaties, and including many other unilateral and joint announcements and statements that place no obligations or prescriptions on the parties or anyone else. Look for documentns with communique, memorandum, proclamation, protocol, or statement in their title, for example,

• The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
• China Indonesia Communique Resuming Diplomatic Relations
• Chinese statement on execution of British citizen
• City of Charleston Respiratory Care Week Proclamation
• Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State/A fraternal greeting from the free Macedonian state
• Statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway on Normalization of Bilateral Relations
• White Paper on Indian States (1950)

By the way, government treaties, proclamations, and statements are edicts upon their publication, not upon their ratification, not upon their entry into force of law, and not dependent on whether they have been ruled as legally valid or invalid by government or judicial body like a court. We can’t determine whether the Minsk agreements place any legal obligations on anyone or not, whether they carry any force of law or not, until this question is tested in a court of law. So our opinion on whether they are an edict or not cannot depend on this. —Michael Z. 2020-02-15 19:49 z

It's a Wiki; looking at the members of Category:PD-EdictGov gives you one person's opinion on the matter. I've changed White Paper on Indian States (1950) to use PD-1996, because that's obviously correct. Note that Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State is proposed for deletion below. We've generally asserted that unenacted law are not edicts; they are proposed edicts. I find Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group to be clearly not PD-EdictGov, because proposed rules or ideas about what should be rules aren't edicts in any sense. I've seen nothing implying that a submission to a court or a proposed law sent to a lawmaker becomes PD until it becomes an edict, and even that can be limited. (E.g. Action Comics #1 can be read online via attachment to a certain judicial ruling, but nobody has interpreted that judicial ruling saying that it was copyrighted by one of the parties as putting it in the public domain.) Nor do discussions in a lawmaking body automatically enter the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You misstate when you say the principle is about democracy, and that leads you to stretch the principle. The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi is not clear about it, but the principle has been understood from it. To quote a US judge (via w:Edict of government):

It is a maxim of universal application that every man is presumed to know the law, and it would seem inherent that freedom of access to the laws, or the official interpretation of those laws, should be co-extensive with the sweep of the maxim. Knowledge is the only just condition of obedience. The laws of Rome were written on tablets and posted, that all might read, and all were bound to obedience. The act of that emperor who caused his enactments to be written in small letters, on small tablets, and then posted the latter at such height that none could read the letters, and at the same time insisted upon the rule of obedience, outraging as it did the relations of governor and governed under his own system of government, has never been deemed consistent with or possible under ours. (Banks & Bros. v. West Publishing Co. (1886))

The Copyright Office takes it somewhat farther than the courts have, but that's the binding principle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Regarding "Memorandum on fulfilment …", on closer scrutiny, I not only find your argument persuasive, but must mea culpa not having seen that at the outset. Its language and arrangement clearly fall within the scope of EdictGov to the degree treaties and other international agreements generally do (I agree with you regarding the self-executing aspect, btw). --Xover (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fumifugium: or, the Inconveniencie of the Aer and Smoake of London/Note

The following discussion is closed:

Modern introduction (pp. 9–10) has been redacted from the DjVu on Commons, and the corresponding pages here deleted. The Commons change can be reverted (or the unredacted file reuploaded) and the pages here undeleted once copyright expires at the end of 2071.

The book Fumifugium: or, the Inconveniencie of the Aer and Smoake of London is a 1976 reprint of an older edition of the work. I think it should be OK to host here the reprint as such, but I am not sure about the Prefatory note. Originally I thought it was under copyright, but Chrisguise has brought my attention to University of Exeter’s waiving of copyright "in materials of a scholarly nature such as academic journal articles and conference proceedings." Although the note was not published in a journal or conference proceedings, it can be understood as a material of a scholarly nature. So I have two questions:

1. Is it OK to host such a work here?
2. What kind of license should be attributed to it? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That statement does not apply here. It's a statement primarily aimed at academic staff at the University of Exeter: since journal publishers often require copyright assignment but UK copyright law assigns such copyright to the university rather than (in addition to, strictly speaking) the researcher, every article published ends up in a dance of who owns the copyright; can I transfer the copyright; do I need a waiver from my employer; can you please give me a waiver; etc. That policy is to shortcut that dance by saying the University waives its rights so you dear academic, can go ahead and sign the copyright assignment to the publisher; and you, dear publisher, can go ahead and accept the academic's transfer, no need to contact us directly for a waiver. Most UK universities have a statement on this (not necessarily reflecting the same policy but addressing the same situation).

In any case, university presses are usually completely different beasts from normal university operations, and run on more or less commercial terms (hence why only the biggest and most prestigious universities actually have their own presses now). A monograph published thus will be subject to entirely different terms than things like journal articles. In addition, the The Rota imprint now seems to be owned by Imprint Academic which, so far as I can tell, is a small commercial publisher of academic books and journals. Without knowing the detailed history there is no particular reason to assume the University of Exeter ever owned the copyright for this (and might thus be in a position to waive it in the first place). The usual arrangement is that a commercial shop gets a deal with a university as an exclusive printer and in return gets to brag about being a university press. Case in point: James MacLehose and Sons (cf. [7]). --Xover (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the situation is clear after Xover’s explanation and the subpage can be deleted. I made a note at the work’s main page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. All the original documents were various forms of writing from non-government entities (individuals, organisations, groups, etc.) and covered by the respective creator's copyright. The translations, while possibly "official", are not exempt and are covered by a new copyright created at the time of (publication of) the translation, and will not expire for a good long while even if some of the originals may conceivably have expired before the URAA date in 1996.

In a recent discussion, it was determined that this 1985 collection of works could be hosted because all of the documents were official translations of official documents, and therefore covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}.

However, I have had a closer look at the documents themselves, and none of them appear to be edicts of government. (They are all letters, speeches, manifestos, and similar documents.) Therefore, {{PD-EdictGov}} does not apply. Similarly, the North Macedonian exemption from copyright for "official texts of a political, legislative, administrative and judicial nature and their official translations" does not apply, and therefore the documents, being copyrighted in NM in 1996, would have been subject to URAA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@GStojanov: this discussion affects your contributions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment So we are back to separately determining copyright on the original works of the authors based on when first published (not date written); and the copyright of the translations. The contained works of Author:Georgi Dimitrov may be out of copyright if publication can be demonstrated, so it comes to the translations. I am less certain about BT's comments that the translation licence applied is not relevant as they are definitely political statements, there is nothing more political than nationalism though one would need to understand the implementation of the NM copyright law a little more. Are their definitions in the legislation on what is political? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Billinghurst: North Macedonia is a Berne signatory and Berne makes protection for written speeches, letters, etc. mandatory (Article 2). These copyright exemptions in national laws are generally based on the language in Berne. Berne has an optional (national laws has latitude on implementing) exemption for political speech, but not for a (written) literary work in the form of a speech.

  Exemptions for translations are only for translations of works where the original was exempt from copyright: no work becomes public domain merely by being translated (officially or otherwise). Since that was not the case here, the translations themselves are protected by copyright.

  Since no obvious exemption applies, we must presume that the publisher used the originals for their translations under some form of licensing agreement; and that licensing agreement does not apply to us. --Xover (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders fireside chat - 14 March 2020

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. All three texts are campaign events and thus not subject to PD-USGov exemptions. All three texts are in interview format where the questions are clearly prepared in advance and thus covered by copyright. The answers are part ex tempore and part recitation of pre-prepared talking points, and thus partly covered by copyright. Whatever parts remain after copyrighted material is removed would be excerpts and thus out of scope.

The person who added this transcript tagged it {{PD-self}} but is not the author of the interview. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Delete I really can't see how a broadcast from a candidate for public office could be deemed to be PD. Certainly claiming PD-self is wrong—any transcription must have the same copyright status as the original. There are two parallel text uploads from the same contributor: Eugene DePasquale interview on PCN - 3 March 2020 and Skylar Hurwitz interview on PCN - 26 February 2020, for which they are also claiming PD-self. None of these three people hold an office that would cause their words to be covered under an automatic US-government release. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I've linked the other two uploads mentioned above into this discussion as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• The three transcripts are all of conversations, not prepared speeches. I used PD-Self because I did the transcription myself.
• I found a number of discussions in the archives of whether transcripts of conversations were copyrightable due to the lack of fixedness of the content. In each case that I could find, the items under discussion were kept. (Example 1: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2011-12#Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 24 November 2008, example 2: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2013-06#Copyright_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_oral_argument.) I concluded that transcripts of conversation were in the clear, if I am wrong where did I err?
• Bernie Sanders is a serving US Senator, the sense I got from my reading of the archives was that PD-USGOV should be interpreted very loosely in speeches by Senators (Example 1: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2011-12#Barack_Obama:_Remarks_On_Patriotism_-_30_June_2008, example 2: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2011-04#2008_Republican_National_Convention/Mitt_Romney's_Republican_National_Convention_speech). There is a lot of non-campaign related material in the content of his Fireside Chat, so if the non-fixedness exemption from copyright argument above is ruled invalid, it seems to me that PD-USGOV should apply to this transcript. Dennis the Peasant (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Adding: I know the actions of the parties involved is very important in trademark law, maybe less so in copyright law but I'll describe them anyway as possibly relevant. With one transcript I got into the Twitter mentions of both the candidate (Hurwitz) and the cable news channel (PCN) when I tweeted that I had posted a transcript of their interview and included their usernames. If a copyright violation was flagrant I would expect a complaint or a request to take it down, but instead both parties clicked 'like'.Dennis the Peasant (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  The difference with the items you've listed above is that they were published by the US Gov't or were remarks or speeches made by government officials while carrying out their duties of office. The interview you've transcribed does not fit either of these descriptions, and includes comments made by a second person, who is not a US Senator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• If the inclusion of comments made by non-government officials means PD-USGov doesn't apply, it logically follows that all interactions with the press or with voters, where questions are asked, are not part of the duties of elective office; and that only monologue speeches are PD. However members of Congress receive a substantial allowance to (among other things) "communicate with the press and others" [8]. I think this fact strongly implies that dialogues such as press conferences, appearances on talk shows, podcasts, town halls, etc., all constitute part of their duties of office when these events are public and the subject matter is what the representative is doing as a government official.

• I respectfully disagree with you on the question of whether the transcribed interview contains no remarks related to the carrying out of duties of office. For example, the Senator talks about the work his Senatorial staff is doing on an upcoming bill. However, because the interview takes place in the broader context of an ongoing campaign I agree that the transcript falls under a gray area. Perhaps excising the questions from the campaign manager, while leaving the questions from voters, would put it under PD-USGov?

• I notice I linked to the wrong example 1 in my 'fixedness' comment above. I have corrected this to the one I intended, the Barack Obama Press Conference discussion. I apologize for the mistake.

It occurs to me to ask if you understand the licensing on Wikisource? We don't simply want to host the work, but we host it under a license that permits other people to use the text as well. See Wikisource:Copyright policy. So, we're not just concerned about getting permission for us to host the work, but by virtue of hosting it, the copyright effectively goes away for everyone in perpetuity who ever wants to use that text. If the work is not licensed under CC-BY-SA, or a compatible license, or in the public domain, then we don't host it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Comment we have previously had issues that interviewers are asking prepared questions, so their part of the conversation is probably copyrighted. Then as the answers themselves are an excerpt the answers in themselves are not within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Keep see also [9] Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 11:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (and any other individual parts)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The document is an international treaty that predates the WTO, and so the WTO cannot be its author.

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is an agreement of the World Trade Organization, and an annex of the Marrakesh Agreement which established the WTO. Given that the World Trade Organization is not a foreign government, the work is not a edict of government, and {{PD-EdictGov}} is non-applicable. Also, the World Trade Organization is not a direct agency of the United Nations, so {{PD-UN}} should also be non-applicable. As a result, the work may be a copyright violation and should be deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per their own Copyright and permissions which is not compatible with our licences. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)  Keep per billinghurst below. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: Could you take a look at the arguments presented below and either amend or reconfirm your !vote here? There is both new information and new arguments presented subsequent to your above comment. --Xover (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment  Keep if agreement setup the WTO then cannot be a WTO document as it will precede that organisation, and noting that it was agreed as part of GATT by signatory bodies ie. GOVERNMENTS. The agreement is an international legal agreement it gets EdictGov. The WTO's copyright permissions don't apply, and anyway noting that WTO says

Unrestricted official WTO documents and legal texts are free for public use.

— billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Billinghurst:So you mean, as far as the US is a signatory of the Marrakesh Agreement (and then ratified TRIPS), it will satisfy {{PD-USGov}}?廣九直通車 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, I am saying EdictGov applies. The WTO cannot claim copyright to something that pre-dates them. It is a GATT agreement. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Really? As per information from Wikipedia, TRIPS is signed after the last round of GATT (Uruguay, 1944) concluded. I am nor sure what you mean "(i)t is a GATT agreement," regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  w:Marrakesh Agreement Just because something is hosted at WHO site, doesn't mean they own the copyright, eg. https://www.wto.org/english%2Fdocs_e/legal_e/gatt47.pdf a 1986 document WHO cannot own copyright to an agreement that establishes it. That is the group of nations that signed it, hence EdictGov. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep per billinghurst. w:Marrakesh Agreement and its annexes (like the one in question here) are international agreements signed and ratified by the countries directly. Absent factors like Congress refusing to ratify it, this should be EdictGov. Documents produced by the WTO itself are a different kettle of fish. --Xover (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Istanbul Convention and other CoE treaties

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted. The text is public domain in the US under PD-EdictGov as an international treaty. (@Nederlandse Leeuw: courtesy cc).

Dear Billinghurst,
On 23 July 2018 you deleted Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, writing "Copyright violation (fair use not allowed): https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/disclaimer claims copyright on works, and only allows private use". I went to check this by emailing the CoE Director of Communications, Daniel Holtgen, who swiftly and curtly informed me that the text of all CoE treaties is public domain. For the purpose of transparency, I'll reproduce the entire correspondence here:

Dear Mr Holtgen,
Are texts of CoE treaties subject to copyright or are they public domain? The text of most treaties and laws around the world appear to be public domain and as such may be freely reproduced. But the CoE website disclaimer states:
'Unless otherwise indicated, reproduction of material posted on Council of Europe websites, and reproduction of photographs for which the Council of Europe holds copyright – see legal notice “photo credits” – is authorised for private use and for informational and educational uses relating to the Council of Europe’s work. This authorisation is subject to the condition that the source be indicated and no charge made for reproduction.

Persons wishing to make some other use than those specified above, including commercial use, of information and text posted on these sites are asked to apply for prior written authorisation to the Council of Europe, Directorate of Communication.'
It is for this reason that I address this question to you. I would like to reproduce the text of the Istanbul Convention on Wikisource.org. I've already seen the entire treaty's text reproduced by governmental websites such as wetten.overheid.nl, commercial websites such as Navigator.nl and private websites such as this one. The same goes for other CoE treaties such as the ECHR. Yet, the text of the Istanbul Convention has been removed from Wikisource in 2018, citing the CoE website disclaimer.
What is the CoE's policy on this? I hope to receive a response from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
[My name]

Public domain, so no problem
Daniel Holtgen
Director of Communications
+33668298751 @CoESpokesperson"

So it wasn't a copyvio after all. Could you restore the deleted page? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Comment As we have no specific licence for CoE, I propose that if returned that they are tagged {{PD-EdictGov}} — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Normally we would require the Council of Europe to contact OTRS in order for this claim of public domain to be acceptable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am taking the statement to be an indication that they while they appear on their page, they are outside of that provision as they are international agreements. Typically we have applied EdictGov and with the reputed confirmation, I see no reason to not comply. CoE is not going to get out of their way to fill our OTRS, especially not at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I seem to have missed that we are talking specifically about international treaties, and not about CoE content in general. I vaguely recall deleting some CoE stuff in the past as copyvio, and I do believe we would need OTRS confirmation to host general CoE content even if we had a posted note from their director of communications indicating otherwise. With regard to treaties, however, since they have force of law, they would be exempt from this and would be hostable as {{PD-EdictGov}} as you say. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with that. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I've filed an undeletion request summarising our discussion here. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I see you'd like me to make my undeletion proposal here? Fine, I'd hereby like to propose to undelete Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence based on the observation that its reason for deletion, namely a copyvio, was unfounded and there is no reason not to restore it. Additionally, I request a {{PD-EdictGov}} be added to indicate its legal status as public domain as agreed above. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep and undelete as PD-EdictGov as multilateral international treaty, ratified in multiple countries in 2014. This should also apply to the entire Council of Europe Treaty Series. --Xover (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What is taking so long? It has been 2.5 months since we all agreed it should be undeleted as PD-EdictGov. Why hasn't it yet? @Beleg Tâl: @Billinghurst: @Xover: can one of you undelete it please? Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: There is currently a backlog of admin tasks needing attention, and in the middle of summer we're even more short of available hands than usual. Rest assured that discussions on this page must be manually closed (no auto-archiving of unresolved threads) so it won't be forgotten, it may just take longer than we'd all like to get resolved. --Xover (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay, then I should just be a bit more patient I guess. I just didn't understand why no action was taken considering there was agreement. Good luck on getting these tasks done. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Jamiatul saadat (collector of felicities)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

I can find no evidence that this translation by Shahyar Sa’dat is in the public domain. The only date I could find is 1985 for the 2nd edition. Neither of the two [10] [11] online copies in general use have any copyright information. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Doon School Founder's Day address, 1992

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Delivered by Vikram Seth, who remains alive, and is therefore likely to be copyright in India as well as USA. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Beeswaxcandle:, this speech has been published under the Creative Commons license in The Great Speeches of Modern India, Random House, 2007. ParsnipEvidence (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see that this speech is in that book. However, I cannot verify the license that you claim. You will need to demonstrate that it is released under a CC license that is compatible with our copyright policy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin's speech at the 1940 military council about the Finnish War

The following discussion is closed:

Stalin's speech may not be hosted on Wikisource within the limits of the copyright policy.

I should like to work on an English translation of Joseph Stalin's speech at the 1940 secret military council about the experience of the war with Finland. It is already published on the Russian Wikisource, but has no accompanying scans. If scans are mandatory for a translation (which is strange because they are not for an original document) may I take them from a 1990 book? I cannot use an earlier source because this 1940 document was declassified only after the collapase of the Soviet Union. Can there be any licensing or copyright problems with publishing such historical documents as strenograms of speeches by persons long dead?—Ant 222 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Translations have in some ways higher restrictions to offset the extra freedom of translation, and the current rules are compromises. There is a problem with Stalin; he's not long dead, which for copyright purposes I'd call at least 95 years. Russian law demands 70 years after death (plus wartime extensions?), which hasn't passed for Stalin, and I don't know when the clock started in US law; if it was extemporaneous, it would be PD in the US, if it was legally published around the time (unlikely) it would be PD in 2036 (95 years from publication), and if it was legally published in 1990, it would be PD in 2048 (1977 + 70 years, for historical reasons).--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Could we publish its translation on the same grounds as the Speech_about_the_Munich_Agreement, made in 1939, or will it work for a speech excerpt only? If so, may I translate just an exceprt (less than 10% of the whole speech) to take advantage of the relaxed limitations?—Ant 222 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Is it really important when the speech was published, when we know the time it was made? Are not the documents of WWII universal heritage of the humanity regardless of who first published them and when? What of the infamous secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact—the purported Russian original was first published as late as in 2019. Can't we put them on WikiSource yet?—Ant 222 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is really important, because that's how US copyright law is defined. See Help:Public domain.

The "universal heritage of humanity" doesn't really mean anything in this context. The Diary of Anne Frank, for example, is clearly copyrighted in the US, and has varying legal status in Europe. Wikisource has generally made a policy of following the law. Stalin's copyright doesn't seem to be actively enforced, but it does seem to be his.

The secret protocols would probably be considered government edicts, and thus not subject to copyright in the US. There doesn't seem to be any way to fit Stalin's speech into that category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Thank you for the explanation. Is it, then, possible to use parts of that speach in the article about the Soviet-Finnish Winter war?—Ant 222 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ant 222: If by "article" you mean "Wikipedia article" then you would have to ask there (every project has their own policies); but my guess would a that the answer is a qualified "yes". enWP allows non-free material within the limits of "fair use", which would make short excerpts of copyrighted material permissible in such contexts. But ultimately that's up to the local policies there. --Xover (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

William Barr Memo to Department of Justice

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. While it is a public record by virtue of having been sent to the DOJ, it is written by a then private individual who retains the copyright.

File was speedy deleted at Commons with the claim that Barr was not an employee of the US government at the time that he wrote the document. No discussion took place. I have recovered the file so that we can explore the claim, and work out what should be occurring with our version of the document. If we believe that the file is in the public domain, then we should consider pushing the file back to Commons, and arguing its retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete When the memo was written, Barr was a private individual. That it was sent to officers at the DOJ makes it a public record, but it is still protected by copyright. I can find no theory under which it might be public domain or freely licensed. --Xover (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete per above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Memorandum on implementation of the 2005 China-WHO Taiwan MOU

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Unsourced 2005 document uploaded here in 2009 by Formosa and tagged with {{PD-UN}}. However, the document appears to be a WHO document, not a UN document, and the WHO unfortunately does not release their documents under a free license. It was just tagged for speedy deletion (which I declined) and the requester asserts that the document has never been publicly released at all. Google supports this assertion.

I declined the speedy on this as it does not appear to be sufficiently clear-cut to fall within the scope of the criteria, but absent new information or novel arguments it does appear the IPs rationale for speedy was correct: it is a copyrighted WHO document. I am therefore inclined to be quite aggressive in closing this unless contrary positions are evident fairly soon. --Xover (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• No one can verify the accuracy or even the existence of this "document".223.17.67.181 14:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  Of course we can verify that it exists. It's been discussed in news media and The Lancet. But it still appears to be ineligible for hosting here due to lack of compatible licensing and lack of sourcing. --Xover (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  The Wikisource article is the memorandum on implementation of the China-WHO MOU. It is not the China-WHO MOU. It could be a internal reference material for the WHO staff, but the existence of such material is still cannot be verified.223.17.67.181 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Xover: If it is the work of government bureaucrats solely for the working of government bodies, where does it stand with the new US Supreme Court ruling to be PD-EdictGov? WHO is a treaty organisation of the UN. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Billinghurst: The new Supreme Court precedent is actually a narrowing for this particular case: it (simplifying massively) points to the author being a government entity as the criterion, which neither the UN nor the WHO are, rather than force of law, which some non-government-authored international treaties have. I don't think we should apply such a narrowing (our practice for EdictGov has been fairly narrow, at least recently, to begin with) without some indication that it is needed, but neither does the nominal expansion from the USSC extend to all cases. In other words, unless arguments to the contrary pop up soon I'm still inclined to delete this. --Xover (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Army Faction dissolution notice

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The text is the translation of the dissolution notice of the Red Army Faction, written in March, 1998 and published in April, 1998. Per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works, the original text therefore enjoys 70 years of copyright after April, 1998 c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, such work enjoys 95 years of copyright since 1998. As a result, the text is likely to be copyrighted and unfree.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Commons rules are not applicable here, your argument can solely be made on US copyright, not EU copyright directly. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: DoneUpdated.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sherurcij:Courtesy pinging to creator.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  That won't work, where he is reported as being the pings don't get replies. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

It looks like this is a 14-year-old copy-dump of the first chapter of a 2000 (2nd ed. 2003) abridged 10-volume translation published by Darussalam (OCLC), complete with a copyright notice (so they're not releasing to the PD). This book is, like many other religious texts, widely copy-pasted around the Internet in various states of fidelity, which is presumably where it came from, but it's still copyrighted material.

There is a scan of that volume at the IA, where you can see the verbatim wording for the first (and only) chapter reproduced here, along with the copyright notice: TafsirIbnKathir13305 Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Wulverine claws: You have been working on this lately. Do you have any additional information about the copyright status of this text? --Xover (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol for Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (Trial Version 7)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Official Chinese government document (may be reasonably assumed to be {{PD-PRC-exempt}} since that exemption is pretty wide, but I haven't checked) translated from Chinese to English by the WHO's China office. The WHO is not the UN, and the WHO does not generally freely license material for which they hold the copyright. This translation is thus in copyright for a good long while (decades). --Xover (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Delete Agreed, PD as the original may or may not be^†, the translation certainly isn't. The WHO is pretty clear about this: https://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/

I'm not sure what the Swiss rules for corporate works are, but it'll presumably be least 70 years, so if anyone really wants a PD version, it'll be quicker and easier to learn Chinese and translate it yourself, maintaining a very aptly-named Chinese wall! Alternatively, if the Chinese government has translated it themselves in the meantime, that's OK too.

† the document is by a "state organ", but is it a "law, regulation, resolution, decision or orders of a state organ" or "other document of legislative, administrative or judicial nature"? I'd say we'd be pretty safe with concluding it's covered by "administrative nature". Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Index:The Gates of Morning - Henry De Vere Stacpoole.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept/no action. Research indicates first publication was in the US so only US copyright applies.

The author died in 1951, and was at the time of this work, in the UK. UK has a 70 p.m.a term, thus this shouldn't be hosted on Commons. However, this appears to be a US edition, and so the edition may be out of copyright in the US, and thus it may be eligible for being hosted locally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep It looks like this was actually first published in the US (meaning the URAA doesn't apply). American newspapers mention it as early as February 1925, and reviews start appearing in earnest from the beginning of March. In the UK I find no mentions of it until May. It does contain a copyright statement, meaning it could conceivably be covered by copyright until next year (95 years from the end of the year of publication), but searching the Stanford database I find no renewals of this work (I do find a couple of his other works though, with Stacpoole himself as the claimant). In other words, it looks like this is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. (it also lists a 1924 copyright, which would very much incline me to say keep even if there had been a renewal). In terms of Commons policy, the US is the "country of origin". --Xover (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up (1904)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. Simultaneously published in the UK and US with copyright notice, and will be in copyright in the US until 1 January 2024 du to renewal R171921 dated 4 June 1956.

This is the original stage play by J. M. Barrie, the text of which appears to have been copied and pasted from Project Gutenberg Australia. While the play premiered in 1904, and Barrie used it as the basis for his 1911 novel Peter and Wendy, the script did not appear in print until 1928; therefore, despite the Wikisource page’s title, we must consider 1928 to be the work’s publication date.

I’ve examined (to the best of my ability—I'm not a lawyer) the table linked to at the top of this page from the Cornell Library, and I have concluded that the play’s U.S. copyright term expires 95 years after its publication date—i.e., not until 1928 + 95 = 2023. My reasoning is as follows:

• The section of the Cornell table "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad" explores five different scenarios for publication dates from 1925 through 1977.
  • The first one of these listed cannot apply to this scenario because the work was not in the public domain in its source country (the United Kingdom) on 1 January 1996.
  • Of the other four, three result in a copyright term ending 95 years after the publication date, and thus support my conclusion.
  • The remaining scenario, which applies only if the work was published in the U.S. less than 30 days after publication abroad, requires one to refer to the section of the table for works published in the U.S. This section, in turn, includes three more scenarios that apply to works published in 1928:
    • If the work was published in the U.S. without a copyright notice, then the work is in the public domain.
    • If the work was published in the U.S. with a copyright notice, but the copyright was not renewed, then the work is in the public domain.
    • If the work was published in the U.S. with a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed, then the copyright term ends 95 years after the publication date.

Therefore, the only way the play could be in the public domain is if it was published in the U.S. less than 30 days after being published in the U.K., and the U.S. publication either (a) did not include a copyright notice, or (b) included a copyright notice but did not have its copyright renewed. The copyright holder, w:Great Ormond Street Hospital, alleges that the copyright was indeed renewed, eliminating (b) and implying that (a) is impossible. As all other scenarios result in a copyright term of publication + 95 years, the play should not remain on Wikisource, absent any evidence contrary to GOSH’s allegation. —unsigned comment by Skiasaurus (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2020‎.

Edit: @Inductiveload rightly points out below that GOSH actually does not allege that the copyright was renewed, but rather that it was extended by the Copyright Term Extension Act. This makes the analysis slightly different (see Inductiveload's comment for details), but the ultimate conclusion—that the work should be deleted—remains the same. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 01:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Delete I agree with the analysis, except for the last bit. GOSH doesn't allege there was a renewal, it asserts it was extended by the Sonny Bono Act to 95 years. If the work was indeed not published in the US within 30 days, that is accurate. If it turned out that the work was published in the US within 30 days, a lack of notice or subsequent renewal would make it PD in the US, counter to GOSH's statement. But I don't think it was (and even if I did think so, I have to prove it): they're probably right.

Since there's only a couple of years left on it, there's a PG version and our version doesn't add value to that, I lean "delete, and come back to it in 2023, ideally with a scan". Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment  Keep  Delete [ Changed to delete based on TE(æ)A,ea.'s discovery of a renewal below. ] Hang on. The script was published in New York in 1928 by Charles Scribner's Sons. A lot of US newspapers run the same profile on Barrie in March/April (PR before the publication?), and the play is produced in New York in November/December (presumably based on the US publication of the script). When the script was published, Barrie already had a US agent representing him for licensing performance rights: w:Charles Frohman's company (run by his brother and nephew I think), and Frohman had produced Peter Pan both in the UK and US (before his death in 1915).
  Do we know the date on which the script was published in the UK? If it was any time after January/February 1928 the likelihood is high that it was simultaneously published in the US. In fact, it is not unlikely the US publication actually predates the UK one!
  The US publication has a copyright notice, but I did not find any renewal in the Stanford database, so it would have expired after 28 years (1956-ish). --Xover (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• How does one go about showing this with a high enough level of confidence (and, actually, what is the required level of confidence)? What would be your approach to unearthing this information? Checking newspaper archives for book reviews would at least give a "no later than" date. Sadly, British newspapers are a bit tricky to search without a subscription, institutional access or physical library access. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Inductiveload: Absent conclusive evidence the standard is whatever level makes each of us comfortable that we're not subjecting ourselves, our contributors, or our reusers to unacceptable liability. To improve our confidence we need to look for evidence that gives or points to a publication date for the two editions; the most likely place to find that is newspapers, who often list "books received" (books publishers have sent them hoping for a review, typically a short time prior to publication), ads from publishers for new publications (typically very close to actual publication date), and actual reviews of books (typically shortly before or shortly after publication). This is not a book that is likely to have been actually reviewed in any mainstream media, but it is not unlikely that there will be other kinds of notice or coverage. Unfortunately my subscription to the relevant services seems to have expired so I'm unable to research that properly just now. --Xover (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Xover: The most interesting things to me about your comment are the second sentence ("The script was published…") and your mention of a copyright notice; but I’m not sure what your source(s) is/are for that information—can you share?

Unfortunately, the conclusion you've drawn (that "it is not unlikely the US publication predates the UK one") is, so far at least, otherwise based on evidence that is circumstantial at best:

• We can surmise, but we don't really know that the newspaper profiles actually had the purpose that you ascribe to them.
• The fact that there was a U.S. production doesn’t necessarily mean that the play must have been published by then—the producers could have been given or lent copies of the script for their cast and crew when they contracted for the performance rights.
• I can't find any evidence that Frohman’s company was his licensing agent, but even if they were, it’s irrelevant to the play’s publication history; see previous point.

So none of that is usable to make assumptions about the precise U.S. publication date or about its relationship to that in the U.K.

Finally, your last paragraph is true if, and only if, the play was published in the U.S. before or ≤ 30 days after it was published in the U.K.; otherwise, it is considered a foreign work and would have had its copyright restored in 1996, with its term lasting until 2023. As I've shown, we don't have any real evidence yet to suggest that the necessary relationship exists between the two dates in order for your last paragraph to be correct. Furthermore, while I concede that it's possible that GOSH made their allegation in bad faith specifically to deter the play's free distribution in the U.S., I submit that we ought to be assuming good faith on their part (even though Wikisource doesn't have that guideline/policy like many other Wikimedia projects do), for two primary reasons: 1) they're a children's hospital, and not a profit-driven organization, and 2) as @Inductiveload notes in their (unsure of pronouns) reply to your comment, it would be very difficult to show otherwise with a high enough degree of confidence. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Skiasaurus: I’m not sure what your source(s) is/are for that information—can you share? Sure. My source is the actual edition, which is listed in standard bibliographic databases. It gives the publisher, location, year of publication, and contains a notice that Frohman is the agent for performance licensing.

… none of that is usable to make assumptions about the … publication date [relative] to that in the U.K. Of course it is. Absent specific evidence that contradicts it, it is at least as usable as the evidence suggesting the opposite (which amounts to a bare-faced assertion by a third party with a commercial interest in that particular conclusion).

… w:WP:AGF … WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline for editors on Wikipedia. It in no way shape or form applies to GOSH, even on Wikipedia. Guidelines and policies that would be more relevant are w:WP:NPOV and w:WP:RS: we don't trust an entity to be neutral about issues affecting themselves, and especially not if they have a vested interest in a particular slant or outcome (GOSH is, in this sense, a primary source). Especially when it comes to copyright we do not trust any entity's bare-faced assertion that a particular work is covered by a copyright that they own absent evidence supporting the assertion: bad-faith actors regularly try to use DMCA and copyright claims to suppress information they do not like on Wikipedia (and other sites; Youtube videos falling under fair use exemptions is a prominent example), and on Wikisource we regularly find predatory publishers squatting on public domain works (publish a cheap ebook of a PD work, use that to claim copyright on the original in semi-automated systems like GBooks).

What we have here is a situation where GOSH's claims about the UK copyright are plausible on their own, and is backed by a ton of reliable evidence (a separate bill in parliament weighs kinda heavily there ;D), but their claim regarding US copyright is plausible on its own only absent indication of a US publication. The second we have evidence for that we can no longer take their assertions at face value: they have a vested interest in a particular outcome; have a vested interest in not finding any US publication (which, again, is easily findable within seconds in standard databases); and have a vested interest in a particular interpretation of the available evidence. That's not to say their position is necessarily wrong, but it does mean we cannot simply accept their assertions and have to both do our own research and weigh the evidence for ourselves.

Since you appear interested in this particular work, you can help by researching the actual UK publication date. If UK publication is indisputably in January or early February, the evidence so far makes it implausible that there was a concurrent US publication. If UK publication was after October then it is most likely the US publication preceded the UK one. Between those two time frames it'd be a balance of the evidence call unless we can pin down both publication dates to a greater degree of certainty. --Xover (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, some more research on this…
  Towards the end of September, US newspapers report that Barrie has approved plans to publish the play (the same story is printed in multiple newspapers and includes promotional language, so these are pretty clearly advance publicity by Scribner). By November 3 it is being listed as either for sale or as "books received" in Indianapolis (given it was published in New York, this then looks like the terminus ante quem). By November 10 it's listed in Cincinnati. On November 18 it gets a notice (review) in Dayton, Ohio.
  In the UK, I find the first mention of a plan to publish it on August 30 (The Guardian). On October 14 Hodder & Stoughton took out an ad in The Observer to announce that they will be publishing it ("for immediate publication", but clearly not yet actually published). On October 26, The Guardian runs a story that seems to be saying they are anxious to get their hands on it (their angle is that it's taken so long for Barrie to permit publication). And on October 25 it is listed as either for sale or as "books received".
  Based on this I would say the most plausible timing is that both the US edition by Charles Scribner's Sons and the UK edition by Hodder & Stoughton were published around the end of October or beginning of November. The earliest plausible UK date is October 14 (when Hodder & Stoughton ran the ad in The Observer), and the latest plausible US date is November 3 (the listing in Indianapolis), and within this interval it is impossible for the US edition to have been published more than 30 days after the UK edition.
  I wouldn't want to go to court based on this research alone, but in terms of Wikisource policy and liability for our contributors and reusers, I am more than sufficiently satisfied that this work (including the author's introduction, newly added for this edition) was either first published in the US or published in the US within 30 days of first publication. Unless a more thorough search turns up a renewal somewhere around 1955–1957 (I didn't find one, but I only did a quick search), this work is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. --Xover (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: This page indicates that the copyright was renewed; as it was a play, the Stanford database would not list it. The text is as follows:

 BARRIE, JAMES MATTHEW.
   Peter Pan; or, The boy who would
     not grow up.   © 26Oct28; D85173.
     Lady Cynthia Asquith (E), Peter
     Llewlyn Davies (E), & Barclay's
     Bank, Ltd. (E); 4Jun56; R171921.

—unsigned comment by TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thanks for doing the research on this! So it seems the "good" news (fsvo) is that my research on the dates wasn't wrong: based on the original registration date (© 26Oct28; D85173) it was published ultimo October—primo November. The bad, of course, being that those dates do not matter: this renewal, so far as I can determine, makes it clear that Peter Pan (the play script) is covered by US copyright for 95 years from the end of the year it was published. That is, the copyright will last until the end of 1928 + 95 years = 2023 and it will not enter the public domain in the US until 1 January 2024. --Xover (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Other (possibly interesting) information: the following are all renewals of post-1924 plays by Barrie (up to and including 1977):
    • Shall we join the ladies? (1928)
    • Peter Pan; or, The boy who would not grow up (1928)
    • The Boy David, a play in three acts (1938)
    • The Boy David; a play in three acts (1948)

Peter and Wendy

As an offshoot of the above, our copy of Peter and Wendy - Margaret Ogilvy is marked {{PD-nonUK}}. I am not sure that's right - it was published (in the US) in 1911 and Barrie died 1937, so this isn't this an easy 1923/70 year rule combo? The play has copyright wrinkles due to not being published for a long time, but isn't "Peter and Wendy" just a book? There's no indication about why that template is used.

OK, so I just can't read. GOSH's statement said "in Europe", but the CDPA applies in the UK (which might have been in Europe when the statement was written, but I guess not any more, so the statement is accurate at last!). I'll make a better note to explain this. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe we should change {{PD-nonUK}} so it specifically refers to special non-copyright regulation and omits any "PD elsewhere" language. Maybe generalise it so it could be used for Ka Mate and other such restrictions too. Neither the Peter Pan restrictions, nor those for the Book of Common Prayer and King James Bible, are actually copyright qua copyright; they are extra monopolies that exist beyond copyright. The Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act 2014 is similar (non-copyright restriction), and several countries have non-copyright restrictions on national symbols, coats of arms, or traditional cultural expressions. --Xover (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Professor's Teddy Bear

The following discussion is closed:

kept as US copyright not renewed

This is a short story by Author:Theodore Sturgeon (w:Theodore Sturgeon) which was included in his 1953 short story collection E Pluribus Unicorn, but which had (probably) been previously published in a periodical somewhere. Can we determine the copyright status of this story? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The ISFDB (the best source for questions like this) says first published in Weird Tales, March 1948. Weird Tales/1948 says both the magazine and story lack renewals; you can second-guess User:AdamBMorgan, but I've not seen any reason to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had forgotten about the ISFDB. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Index:Japan-Korea GSOMIA (English Text).pdf and file and transclusion

The following discussion is closed:

File has been undeleted at Commons as {{PD-EdictGov}} (plus, for Commons' policy purposes, PD-JapanGov and PD-KoreaGov).

The file was recently deleted at Commons per this conversation => c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tanka222. I have resurrected the file and moved it here to enWS. We now need to have the conversation whether the transcluded work should be kept, and the associated index: and file: pages.

My first thought on the work is that with the recent US court ruling about government works is that this is likely to fit the scope of {{PD-EdictGov}} — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

in light of the recent supreme court case, it should be PD-edict. remarkably buro deletion at commons, is not binding on this community. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Even without the recent USSC precedent I would say this qualifies for {{PD-EdictGov}} (modulo some relatively esoteric points of legal wankery that I am disinclined to take into account for this particular relatively straightforward issue). It is a bilateral international agreement with sufficient "force of law" to obligate both parties, and the countries (in the form of their legal governments) themselves are the parties. Their copyright status in Japan and Korea would depend on any PD-USGov style exemption in their legal code (which I haven't bothered checking), but the US status seems unequivocally to fall under EdictGov.
  PS. The deletion on Commons does seem to be a bit on the bureaucratic side: it looks like they were deleted for failing to slap on the right license templates, not for actually being incompatibly licensed (they may be, but that wasn't documented in the deletion discussion there). --Xover (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The underlying files have been undeleted on Commons. If nobody objects by next time I do a backlog sweep on this page I propose we close this as keep since it was prompted by the deletion on Commons. --Xover (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ave Crux Alba

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The national anthem of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is usually stated as author unknown, date unknown. According to this 2017 doctoral thesis, the anthem was composed in 1934. The translation does not appear in the source linked by the uploader. I found two editions of this translation in published texts [12] [13]; the former edition states "Courtesy of the Grand Magistry, SMOM", and there is no indication of free license or public domain release in either publication. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment If it was originally published by the SMOM (which is a sovereign state of sorts) as some kind of law then perhaps {{PD-EdictGov}} applies, depending on how/if it was "legislated". But would need such a source, and that looks pretty thin on the ground unless there's an online SMOM archive (or someone can contact or go to the Magistral Library: http://www.orderofmalta.int/government/magistral-library/). And the original is in Latin (naturally), so this English translation is of suspect copyright too.

The second link above also has the score, would be interesting to find where that came from. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete Copyright exception for a national anthem must be regulated specifically in copyright legislation; and even if a law mandates a specific anthem that does not on its own make that anthem exempt from copyright. But there is no copyright law for SMOM; they have no copyright relation with any state; and are not a party to any international copyright treaty. Naturally enough, as even were one to consider them to be anything even remotely like a sovereign state they have only 3 citizens. Every other person associated with them is a citizen of whatever country they hail from.
  In other words… The anthem is simply an anonymous work with probable publication in 1934, and probable place of publication Italy (where the order was primarily located in 1934). In Italy, anonymous works are protected for 70 years after publication. 1934 + 70 = 2004, making it in copyright in Italy on their URAA date (1996). In the US, anonymous works are protected for 95 years after publication, so the original is in copyright there until 2030. Since the original is still in copyright, the translation cannot be in the public domain.
  But even were the original out of copyright, the translation must necessarily have been created after the original. That leaves an exceedingly small window to climb through in order for this to plausibly be public domain in the US, and most of those involve first publication of the translation happening in the US shortly after the original was created. Absent specific information suggesting any such possibility I view that as so improbable as to be effectively impossible. --Xover (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with the overall conclusion, with some reservations. I don't think being party to a copyright treaty is certainly required to drop edicts to the PD in the US. Recognition of a state is not mentioned in the US copyright code as a prerequisite. When this came up with respect to w:Sealand, the 2018 conclusion was that if you call yourself a state, you lose your laws' copyright (in the US); but in 2009 it went the other way.

  There's no obvious way to show that any (hypothetical) legislation did or didn't even exist, so I have to agree the only real answer is to assume anonymous copyright and delete. But it seems being legislated is good enough for some other anthems without specifically noting copyright-exempting legislation for the anthem. If a local law is cited, it's for "legislative, administrative, or judicial" documents, which doesn't strike me as specifically also taking the anthems from the authors and placing them in the PD. That said, I doubt anyone would attempt a copyright claim on a national anthem if they want it played at the Olympics!

  As an aside, if a PD original did turn up, it wouldn't be too hard to do a fresh translation of those 5 lines if we were sufficiently nice to a laWS denizen. Doesn't mean we can keep this one. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  The Constitution of the Principality of Sealand is a whole `nother issue: it's not just straight up a law, it's a constitution (the instrument from which all other laws derive, handwaving away Common law systems and such factors). If the legislating entity is recognised as a sovereign nation by the US there is absolutely no doubt that it would be covered by PD-EdictGov. The discussions about it have all essentially been about whether it can meaningfully be said to be a law (vs. something that just looks like a law but has no legal effect) when no country on earth recognises Sealand as a sovereign nation. Prosfilaes' 2018 argument (that effectively decided the matter) was regarding "how similar to a sovereign nation" you have to be in order to qualify for EdictGov, and that Sealand just barely squeaks by.

  But a national anthem is not itself a law even if a particular one is mandated by a law. How do you figure it'd fall under EdictGov? --Xover (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't figure for this page, because it isn't an edict, as you say (hence why my original comment was only a comment). But if such a thing did exist, what then? Sometimes the law embeds or appends the anthem - what do we do in that case? (Hypothetical bikeshed alert). I wanted to find a good example which I felt like I'd seen, but the best I could come up with was National Anthem Ordinance (the underlying anthem is declared {{PD-CN}}), and the rest of Category:National anthems is a bit of a mess, most other recent anthems that declare a licence at all have a local PD licence as a "state sign", so perhaps it's moot and all the examples I can think off are PD by that route, which SMOM almost certainly doesn't have. And the only other anthem laws I can find (Russia and India) don't embed the anthem.

As I said, I don't know, or even suspect if such a thing even exists, I was just thinking out loud and vaguely hoping someone might have a smart idea like a huge archive of SMOM stuff that I'd missed, which would be fun for more reasons than just this.

 Delete, in any case, on this incarnation, since I left that out last night. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Pfc. Gibson Comes Home

The following discussion is closed:

apparently no notice on text

This is a 1968 Pulitzer Prize winning article from w:The Courier-Journal. The source is behind a paywall, and any copyright records are in print only, so I can't prove the original had a copyright notice. But ten years later, the Copyright Office is listing registrations of copyright, and there are renewal registrations for works published in the Courier-Journal in 1957, and I have a hard time believing that a newspaper that had already won four Pulitzers at this point wouldn't have done something so simple as putting a copyright notice on the paper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You may be eligible for a free Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library if you'd like to see for yourself. Like most newspapers at that time, The Courier-Journal was not printed with a copyright notice. The 1957 works that you note were printed with individual copyright notices, unlike virtually all other articles in the paper, because they were written by John Steinbeck, already a very famous author by then, for national syndication. (See example here.) Toohool (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And you're right that, 10 years later, they were copyrighting the paper. Here's the masthead from 1978 with copyright notice, and here's the masthead from 1968 without copyright notice. Toohool (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me as stupid that they wouldn't add one line to effectively grab 28 years of copyright, and I'd really like to examine every page of that newspaper myself instead of depending on the header. But I'll accept there's reasonable evidence for the claim that there was no copyright notice on the newspaper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Plays

The following discussion is closed:

A useful listing of plays for which a copyright renewal exists is at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Plays and is a quick resource to consult if a play comes up for discussion here.

In response to this discussion, I have created a list, (currently placed here, but perhaps more appropriately placed elsewhere,) of plays copyrighted in 1925 or later which were renewed in the years leading up to and including 1956—this includes all renewals of 1925–1928 works, and some renewals of 1929 works. The plays are listed in the same manner as they were in the renewal publications—alphabetical by author’s name. I believe that some authors are duplicated, but that is due to the renewal records listing the authors’ names differently in different sections. The standard format is as follows:

;Last Name, First Name
:Work (Alternate Name—optional) [Publication—if published as part of a larger work, optional] (year of copyright)

This list may not be the most accurate, and I hope that others may point out errors, and make corrections, where possible. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

Which plays on your list are hosted on Wikisource and are therefore up for copyright discussion on this page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Index:The correct pronunciation of Latin according to Roman usage.djvu and file at Commons

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

@Zppix: A 1937 work with a copyright statement (fifth page) that would typically ahve it under copyright until 2032. Just labelled as PD-scan at Commons. At archive.org there is not claim about the work in any direction. The author Rev. de Angelis is at this time is not further identified. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Published in the US in 1937. In 1937 the term was 28 years, so it would have had to be renewed in 1964–1966. A search of the Stanford DB reveals no renewal. So I conclude it's {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Arizona Proposition 302

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

I'm going to go ahead and list these here mainly because I have no clue what their copyright status is:

• File:Arizona Proposition 302.PDF
• Index:Arizona Proposition 302.PDF
• Page:Arizona Proposition 302.PDF/1

Arizona Proposition 302 was a ballot initiative to provide funding for Cardinals Stadium (passed November 7, 2000). As best I can tell this is the ballot proposition as distributed prior to the ballot. What happens to such a proposition after the ballot? Does it get enacted into some kind of state law or ordnance? Does the proposition itself become some kind of law (in the EdictGov sense)? Are such ballots really just an instruction to local government to pass a law, or otherwise make an appropriation? AIUI this varies from state to state, but I'm on pretty thin ice here.

And I can't really get a grip on the legal status of "The Tourism and Sports Authority" of Arizona. Do they fall under PD-USGov? Are they law-givers so their work falls under EdictGov? They sure look like a mostly commercial entity to me, albeit one playing with taxpayer dollars. They are the authors of this particular document for copyright purposes, so their formal status is central. For any other kind of material I would have said it was clearly in copyright; but since it is at least a quasi-legal document the issue is… muddy.

In any case, the file was uploaded here in 2006 and tagged {{do not move to Commons}}. This is obviously incorrect: a US document is either PD in the US and can be hosted on Commons, or it is not PD in the US and can not be hosted here or on Commons. --Xover (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Prosfilaes: Any chance you could either say something intelligent on this, or at least give me some pointers on what to research here? This case is kind of a "wet soap" one: every time I try to come to grips with it it just slips out of my fingers. --Xover (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, it was the writing of a non-federal government organization to promote something; even if it went on the ballot to describe what the proposition meant, it's not actually the proposition itself. It has no legal standing, so it's not EdictGov, and I don't see any reason why it'd be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you! --Xover (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of the Hungarian People's Republic (1949)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept: translation is covered by expired UK Crown copyright.

The translation of the Constitution of the Hungarian People's Republic (1949) comes from a unattributed PDF source at [14], in which it is hosted on Princeton University Program in Law and Public Affairs's website. As the translator and the time of publishing of the translation is unknown, it is impossible to determine whether the file is published free.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Looks like this comes from British and Foreign State Papers, v.155 (1949, Part 3), published 1958. You can see snippets matching in pagination and formatting at Google Books, but both Google and Hathi disallow access to the full volume based on the date.

Assuming it's a UK government (Foreign Office, now Foreign & Commonwealth Office, which has Crown status) translation, it's probably OK, since {{PD-UKGov}} applies in that case and 1958 is over 50 years ago. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Good news: Google agreed that it is public domain, and released the scan. It is now up: Index:British and Foreign State Papers - Volume 155 - 1949, Part 3.pdf. This work starts at p. 658. It was quite a faff to do since there were dozens of duplicate and out-of-order pages, which doesn't really fill me will enthusiasm for doing the order 200+ volumes of the BFSP series!

So,  Keep, but should be migrated to the scan at some point. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Withdraw per updated information.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

IMPORTANT! Foreigners in China during the epidemic must abide by the following

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The text is a notice from Chinese government, in which it quotes a number of legislation translated by www.pkulaw.cn (Parts of the quote are from the www.pkulaw.cn.), and the website's content is all rights reserved. As the text mainly explains COVID-19 related Chinese law, the text is meaningless if it's legislation elements are removed. Moreover, as a compilation and explanation of COVID-19 related law, I doubt whether this text can be considered an edict of government under U.S. copyright law.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this right, you are suggesting that the English translations of the Chinese laws quoted in this text are copyrighted by Chinalawinfo Co.,Ltd. Peking University Center for Legal Information and therefore cannot be hosted here, even though the translation was republished by the Chinese government in an official forum? It is my understanding that "official" translations of Edicts of Government are covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}, but it looks like this is probably not an "official" translation. Unfortunately it seems to me (though I could be mistaken) that you are correct and this text should be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

The following discussion is closed:

Speedily deleted per CSD § G2: the work has been previously deleted following the discussion in "WS:CV#Guerilla Open Access Manifesto". To avoid repeat additions by contributors that are not familiar with the history, I have also applied autoconfirmed protection to the page name with a log message pointing to that discussion.

Adam Harangozó and Koavf: if either of you actually intended to challenge the previous conclusion then please do so in the form of an undeletion discussion (linking to the deleted page name is fine, and if the situation merits it we can temporarily undelete pages to facilitate discussion), including a rationale for why the original discussion should not apply.

Deleted before: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2019#Guerilla_Open_Access_Manifesto. I don't think that the consensus will change but I am very much in favor of us keeping it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless you want to make a substantive appeal, this is speedy deletion territory. BethNaught (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Trial of Joan of Arc: being the verbatim report of the proceedings from the Orleans manuscript

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The work was translated by W. S. Scott d:Q59626943 (Scott, Walter Sidney, 1900-1980) who was a British clergyman [15] and published in 1956 per http://faculty.smu.edu/bwheeler/1431trial.html There is no evidence that work is in the public domain. British author so the work would not be out of copyright. We would need to demonstrate that it was simultaneously published in UK and US AND without the required copyright components. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• I also find (and only find) this edition, which is a reprint from a 1968 Folio Society printing (as opposed to the 1956 Associated Book Sellers printing mentioned above). It may well have been simultaneously published, although unlikely, but without a scan of a title page to prove this, there is no way to determine conclusively. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC).

“	THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC, Being the verbatim report of the proceedings from the Orleans Manuscript, translated by W.S. Scott, 1956, Associated Book Sellers. The International Joan of Arc Societyπs on-line edition of the 1431 trial record is edited by Dr. Jane Marie Pinzino with permission of Royal Folio Society. See Associated Book Sellersπ original hardcover edition for Scottπs critical apparatus. http://smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html	”
—http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/joanofarclinks.html

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sinews of Peace

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. The provenance and copyright situation for our copy of the text is unclear, and the overall copyright situation for the work is complicated. The outcome of the discussion is thus that the current text be deleted, and anyone wishing to add it in future must have a clear provenance and copyright rationale.

Unsourced, annotated, ("etc.") 1946 speech by Winston Churchill. In 1946, Churchill was no longer PM or held any government post; he was the leader of the opposition and MP for Woodford. The speech is a prepared political speech (warning against Soviet expansion and the Eastern Bloc) delivered at Westminster College in Missouri. As such it is in copyright in the UK (pma. 70) until 2036 and in the US (pub. + 95) until 2041. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Sir Winston Churchill was, at the time of this speech, the leader of the opposition and no longer PM; but this does not change the fact that he was PM and was the principal negotiator with Franklin D. Roosevelt, US President; and Joseph Stalin, USSR General Secretary at Casablanca, Morocco (1943-01); Tehran, Iran (1943-11); and Yalta, Crimea, USSR (1945-02) - although Stalin was absent from Casablanca due to the Battle of Stalingrad. As such, Churchill spoke with, first hand, deep knowledge and authority on the historic and critical strategic dialogue that took place between Allied leaders during WWII. I am not a copyright expert, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that, in practical terms, that it has long been in the public domain. If there are technical copyright issues, I have little doubt that these can be addressed starting with Churchill College, University of Cambridge; Archives or International Churchill Society or other authority. I would be surprised if permission to host the transcript of this speech (text and/or audio) is not granted.
Enquire (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:44, 10 April 2017 includes an unverified transcript, plus a (broken) YouTube link (user account no longer exists). I found, what appeared to be an authentic full audio transcript (YouTube v=DZBqqzxXQg4) Introduction by President Harry S Truman, with Churchill's speech starting at 08:42 in 55:54 audio. This speech was delivered at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri as the seventh John Findley Green Foundation lecture series (1937 to 2019, ongoing). If YouTube is not a trusted audio transcript host, I have no doubt that a trusted audio archive can be found, either to be embedded in Wikisource, or else to be added as an EL. In any event, this is a significant speech that should be included as a Wikisource.

Enquire (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that the text transcript (although not, apparently, audio) can be found here: Sinews of Peace, 1946 Enquire (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I note that the YouTube (v=DZBqqzxXQg4) audio credits: Licensed to YouTube by SME (on behalf of Sony Classical); EMI Music Publishing, and 8 music rights societies

Enquire (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid that neither Cambridge nor any other university own the copyright to Churchill’s works. According to information given at International Churchil Society Curtis Brown Group Ltd and its agents represent the Estate of Sir Winston Churchill and handle all copyright permissions. It would be great if they agreed with publicating the speech under some of our free licences, but it seems that their attitude to commercial usage is not compatible with our licenses, which explicitely allow commercial usage :-( But it may be worth giving it a try. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enquire: I feel your frustration: copyright laws around the world tend to be completely out of touch with how normal people view what is reasonable. In the UK the main term of copyright protection is for 70 years after the death of the author (so 1965 + 70 = 2035 for Churchill, and terms are counted from the end of the year in which the author died). In the US, the copyright term for such works is 95 years from the date of publication (so 1946 + 95 = 2041 for this speech). Many copyright systems have exceptions making some or all works by that country's government ineligible for copyright, but that does not apply when the author in question is no longer in government (and besides, the UKs is one of the more regressive laws in this respect). In US copyright there is also an exception for extemporaneous speech (getting copyright protection requires a work to be "fixed" in some tangible form) that has sometimes been relevant to (impromptu) speeches hosted here, but that does not seem to be applicable here (there is no way Churchill didn't prepare this speech ahead of time). Wikisource policy is that works hosted here must, at a minimum, be in the public domain (either ineligible for copyright, or copyright must have expired) under US copyright law.

As for getting permission to host it… Nothing would be better than getting such permission, but keep in mind that getting such a permission that would actually work is a pretty tall order. Our licensing policy requires a free license, where the word "free" refers more to "freedom" than being without fees. Our main license is the {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} (Creative Commons Attribution+Share Alike) or the {{CC-Zero}} public domain dedication license, which permits others to freely redistribute, reuse, and modify the work, including for commercial purposes. So by licensing this speech for use on Wikisource, the owners of the copyright would in effect be permitting anyone that wants to to exploit it commercially. This goes a lot farther than a mere permission to host it somewhere for academic and educational purposes, and is not generally something copyright-managing organisations are interested in.

If you do get in touch with them about this, please also keep in mind one final "bureaucratic" hoop that must be jumped: we are going to need some way to verify that any such permission has indeed been provided (not just an individual contributor's say-so), for which we have the m:OTRS process. In essence, if the copyright holders are willing to freely license this work, you will need to get them to email the appropriate email address listed on the OTRS page, and the volunteers there will verify that the copyright holder releases the images under an allowable license, that they do so clearly while understanding what that means, and that they actually are allowed to license the images in such a way (e.g. they hold copyright). And the copyright owners must communicate with OTRS directly: forwarding their emails will not be sufficient. --Xover (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a small note to OTRS: I think it is not necessary that the organization contacts directly our OTRS. When somebody gives me a permission in similar cases, I usually simply forward our correspondence to OTRS and if the correspondence includes everything needed, the OTRS volunteers approve it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is distinctly preferred, I believe, since a direct communication is more verifiable than a forwarded version of one, which is easily faked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: I do not doubt that what you wrote is true and it is obviously true that we need to ensure that whatever is published has the appropriate permissions. What I am trying to convey is that this transcript (text & audio) is already, in reality, in the public domain. Furthermore, it is profoundly in the public interest for it to be hosted on Wikisources. In any case, unlike commercial media, I doubt that obtaining permission would be a major barrier and, as we know, apparently Sony/EMI have already granted permission for the audio to be hosted on YouTube. That is, assuming that they hold copyright, rather than the International Churchill Society or the John Findley Green Foundation who host the Green Lectures. If anyone, I would have assumed that the JF Green Foundation would be the original copyright holders. Regardless of the details of copyright, what is the procedure to secure such permission?!?

Enquire (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enquire: "available to the public" is a different concept from "public domain". In terms of history, education, world heritage, academic study, etc. etc., then, yes. But in terms of copyright, which is the aspect that our policy cares about, the copyright is owned by whoever is the successor in interest to Churchill's estate. "Public domain" is the status of a work that is either ineligible for copyright protection, or whose term of protection has expired. Since neither applies here, it means the only way we can host it is for the current legal owner of the copyright to license it to us under a compatible license (typically {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} or {{CC-Zero}}). Any copyright owner that is actively managing their copyrights is extremely unlikely to do that, because it hurts their ability to commercially exploit the copyrights (and copyright is primarily an economic right).

The speech as such is Churchill's copyright, passed to his heirs. The recording of the speech has a separate copyright, owned by whoever did the recording. The license tags you see on Youtube are in regards the recording and not the speech itself. The recording permissions are provided to Youtube and others (radio stations etc.) through compulsory collective licensing deals: it is not a license for that individual work, and we cannot get a relevant license through the same channels.

The Churchill Estate (which is not the same as the International Churchill Foundation) owns the copyrights, and they have chosen to use the Curtis Brown Group Ltd to handle licensing. This in itself is a strong sign that they care about commercially exploiting the copyrights, which in turn suggests it is unlikely they would be interested in anything that interferes with those commercial interests (such as a free license).

But if you want to try, you need to start by contacting Curtis Brown. If they are, despite my misgivings, willing to license the speech under one of the licenses mentioned above, you will need to get them to send an email confirming that to OTRS (see the link above for the address). OTRS will need to see that they understand the implications of the license (anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial purposes!) in addition to confirming that they are willing to release it under that license. Note specifically that it is not sufficient to "get permission" (too vague) or to get a license for use "on Wikisource" (people need to be able to reuse everything we host here).

I don't mean to be discouraging, and nothing would be better than being able to host this here; but in my experience it is extremely unlikely they will be positive to such an approach. --Xover (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Enquire:Those aren't arguments we use or accept. Lots of things are commonly out there that aren't in the public domain copyright-wise. I know of one instance where something was so much not in the public interest that we rejected it, but in general it doesn't matter; if it's copyright-legal and someone uploaded it, it stays. Sony has granted permission for the audio to be hosted on YouTube, in exchange for the ad revenue on that video; that's purely a commercial issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Delete Clearly not PD in the UK or US per Xover's analysis. "Because it'd be really nice to have it" doesn't quite cut it. If someone could sweet-talk the rights holders into releasing it under an acceptable licence and they send OTRS an email, sure. But I'm not holding my breath. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's probably {{PD-US-no-notice}}, as there was an advance text of the speech that was provided to the press, apparently without limitations on use, as it was printed in full in many newspapers without any copyright notice. For example, it was published here in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the same afternoon (which must have gone to press before Churchill even delivered the speech). Probably {{PD-US-no-renewal}} too, though I did only a cursory check for renewal. However, the page would have to be edited to conform to the advance text, as the publication status of any additional material that was added by Churchill would be unclear (unless someone can find a transcribed version of the speech that was clearly published with Churchill's authorization). Toohool (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources that mention the advance press copy and the differences with the speech as delivered: [16] [17]. And here is an auction listing showing a copy of the text that was distributed at the lecture - no way to tell if it had a copyright notice, but it supports that there was an authorized general publication in 1946, and therefore there would have to have been a renewal around 1974. Also, I found that Churchill published the speech in a book in 1948, which was presumably eligible for URAA restoration, so the verbatim version of the speech appears to be under copyright until 2043. Toohool (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toohool: hmm, interesting. My inclination to delete the unsourced version we have stands, since I think it's more likely to be from a book or something via some website. It's certainly some other version than the paper has: the very first line: "President...., I am very glad" (WS) vs "I am glad" (SLPD).

However, assuming this newspaper was published without a copyright notice (since you have Newspapers.com access and mine is pending review, perhaps you could have a quick look at the first and last page for such a thing), does that mean the text on that specific page is PD? Or would we also have to show the advance copy was provided to the paper without such a notice? Presumably such an advance copy wasn't actually published as such, rather it was more a private correspondence between Churchill's people and the papers, so would it matter? A newspaper reprinting under licence an excerpt of a book that was registered and later renewed would surely not drop that excerpt into the PD just by the the newspaper not following copyright formalities, right? My brain hurts. @Xover: any clue what is needed for confidence in this case? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Things are a bit simpler if we focus on {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, to avoid any questions about copyright notice. I checked the CCE for Type C renewals ("Lectures and other works prepared for oral delivery") for 1973-1975, and also Type A renewals (in case it was registered as a book or pamphlet), and found no trace of Churchill or "Sinews of Peace".

So the only possible point of contention I see is whether there was truly a publication of the advance text. With your point about it being a "private correspondence", you're getting at the question of general publication vs. limited publication. Distribution of copies to a defined group of people, for a limited purpose, with limits on their right to reproduce or distribute the work, is a limited publication, which, for the purposes of copyright, is no publication. In this case, it seems that last element is lacking, as some of the media (at least the Associated Press and United Press) promptly distributed the entire text to their member newspapers for publication. To find that this was limited publication, we would have to believe that both of those organizations violated limits that were imposed on their use of the text. Journalists generally have a practice of honoring embargos and off the record sources, so I don't think we should assume that such a violation was committed, without evidence. We would also have to discount the evidence that the text was distributed to attendees of the lecture, which would undoubtedly have been a general publication (though I admit the evidence of that, the auction listing I linked above, is thin).

As for whether it's better to edit the existing page to conform to the published advance text, or delete the page and start from scratch, I'm indifferent. Toohool (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If we make the determination that the SLPD version is an un-renewed work that is separate to any copyrighted version (e.g. the 1948 book, assuming that is copyrighted), the best option IMO is to delete or rev-del the page and start again from the page image(s). All three versions are a bit different, so it seems there are at least 3 versions sloshing about. We'd need a full proof-read to switch to either the 1948 book or the SLPD in any case, rather than just slapping down a PD version over the top of the existing version.

Differences

WS version	SL Post-Dispatch	1948 book
No headings	News-style headings (e.g. US at Pinnacle)	No headings
President McCluer,... America:	—	—
I am very glad	I am glad	I am glad
somehow or other	is somewhat	is somehow
So, in fact we have	—	In fact we have
It is also an honor, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps almost unique	It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique	It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique

However, I suppose if it was that the SLPD version is based on (with editorial changes, e.g. to fit it on the page) one of the copyrighted versions, then it is also copyrighted? Despite being "published" earlier in the same day (assuming we take the day of the speech as "publication" of the lecture materials). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I'm having trouble following the discussion here, but a couple of points…

First, the speech, though it exists in multiple versions, is a single work. There are disco-dancing angels hiding in the copyrights for the various modifications made at different times, but de minimis non curat lex: what matters in practice is when the work was first fixed into a tangible form, and when was it first published (and as Toohool points out, "published" in copyright means "general publication"). Later republications, with out without modifications, need not concern us overly for copyright purposes.

And in general, a given newspaper's failure to include a copyright notice does not affect Churchill's copyright. It's not an article he's written for them, it is notionally a transcript of the speech (his people are just giving the newspapers a perfect transcript so they won't mess up their own transcript, and to make it easy for them report the speech). And newspapers have various fair use and "news of the day" exceptions for such reporting.

As such, I don't think it is clear when "first publication" happened for copyright purposes (it may have happened much later and in the UK → URAA → copyright until 2041). And since we don't have clear provenance for the text currently on Wikisource anyway, my inclination is that we delete what's there and if anybody wants to re-add it from a specific source they have the burden of explaining the theory under which it is public domain. We cannot clearly say that it's a copyvio, but neither can we clearly show the opposite, and the default presumption is that works are copyrighted. --Xover (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: Indeed, that makes sense, hence the !vote delete stands.

I guess my real side-bar question is: when does it stop being a newspaper reporting the news of the day (in which case it's some sort of fair use and doesn't affect the underlying work's copyright) but from a written source for accuracy/speed and when does it start being Churchill publishing his speech through a newspaper (along side other channels)? Is that "general publication"? And does that differ, from, for example, someone serialising or excerpting a novel in a newspaper? How easy is it to "slip up" and accidentally drop something into the public domain in that period where copyright notices were required? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Anthem (Rand)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. At the time of publication, Rand was a US citizen and living in the US, and as such the work is excluded from URAA restoration. It was first published in 1937 in the UK, with or without a copyright notice, but its copyright was not renewed in 1964 or 1965 as would be required by US copyright formalities.

Novella by Ayn Rand first published in the UK in 1938, and subject to an effective pma. 70 term there. Rand died in 1982 so it will be in copyright in the UK until 2053. Being a work first published outside the US that was in copyright there on the URAA date (January 1, 1996) its US copyrights were restored to a pub. + 95 term so it will be in copyright in the US until 2034.

There was a significantly rewritten version of this work published in the US in 1946 that is often held to be in the public domain in the US due to failure to renew the copyrights, but that issue would only affect the changed material: as a derivative work of the 1938 edition, that edition's copyright would still apply. I am not aware of any other editions of this work that could plausibly have a differing copyright status. --Xover (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

At the time, Ayn Rand was a national of, and domiciled in, the United States. As per United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_104A#(h)_Definitions, a restored work "has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country", where eligible country explicitly excludes the US. So the URAA wouldn't have restored this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, that makes sense. Thank you! --Xover (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hossbach Memorandum

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copyright term is either as unpublished or pma. 70 from Hossbach's death, neither of which term will expire any time soon.

The w:Hossbach Memorandum is a 1937 memo written by w:Friedrich Hossbach (1894–1980) summarising a meeting where Hitler discussed foreign policy. The meeting was an official one, and Hossback, as Hitler's adjutant, was acting in his official capacity, but the "official works" exemption in German copyright law is narrow and essentially only applies to laws (it works like PD-EdictGov, not PD-USGov). This document, as a mere summary of a meeting, does not meet PD-EdictGov in the US. In addition, German copyright law always vests copyright in the natural person who created the work, so the term of protection for this work is pma. 70 calculated from Hossbach's date of death, that is until 2050. In the US it is thus in copyright until 1937 + 95 = 2032. --Xover (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The one thing I'm sure on is that it's not 1937 + 95, since it wasn't published in 1937. It seems to have been first published in 1945 at the Nuremberg Trials, but presumably not with any permission of copyright holder. There's a letter from him to an American history professor in 1953, which my German is insufficient to read, so it's possible he published at some point, which may be first publication, or it was still technically unpublished in 2002 and thus out of copyright in 2050 in the US.

Are you sure German copyright law always vests in a natural person? Can you imagine a company having to go around to the secretaries after every meeting and license the meeting notes from them? Yes, it's PMA the natural author, but if it was owned by the German government (likely) and was owned by the Alien Property Custodian (unlikely), it'd be PD. Or if it was just owned by the German government, it's likely they authorized publication at some point, which may change publication date.

I always feel so frustrated over stuff like this, that's clearly functionally PD, but apparently not technically.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Certain is perhaps overstating it, but I am convinced it is so. It is an aspect that is stressed repeatedly in all the sources I looked at while researching this, including the text of the law itself: I had a devil of a time figuring it out because I couldn't find anywhere in the text that actually addressed organisational copyright (looking for anything that would calculate the term from date of publication rather than pma.). The situation seems to be that the basic assumption is author's rights, where some are inalienable, but rights to economic exploitation etc. can be licensed through mechanisms like employment contracts. But for our purposes here, where we don't really care what happens during the term when the copyright applies, the salient point is that this effectively makes all terms for German works pma. of the natural person.

But let's put this a different way… Do you see any set of circumstances regarding date of publication that would actually put this in the public domain now?

For whatever that's worth, the best I've been able to find is that it "was discovered after the war and presented in evidence at the Nuremberg trials." Presumably it sat in Nazi archives until then, and I'd be perfectly comfortable assuming that constituted publication for copyright purposes (by assuming it was released, one way or another, by the legal successor to the Nazi government and that they had whatever permission they needed to do so). --Xover (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't see any set of circumstances that would put this in the public domain now. I'm guessing we're looking at 1945 + 95, then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Translation rights

The following discussion is closed:

Kōnstantinos D. Mertzios died in 1971, so anything he wrote (including translations) that was published in Greece is protected by copyright in Greece until 1 January 2042.

I recently uploaded to the Greek Wikisource a small text (about 10 lines) which is a translation of a 1772 italian text, published (the translation) in Greek in 1940. The author and translator died in 1971. The uploaded text is a very small part (about 1%) of the whole published translation. The article was proposed for deletion on the grounds of "possible violation of translation rights". Is this a legitimate reason to delete the article? Thank you.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Skylax30: Yes, a translation which was published in 1940 by an author who died in 1971 is protected by copyright in many countries. You will need to check the copyright rules of Greek Wikisource, and the copryright laws of any relevant countries (probably Greece and the USA) in order to confirm whether the translation is still protected by copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

More specifically: Kōnstantinos D. Mertzios died in 1971, so anything he wrote (including translations) that was published in Greece is protected by copyright in Greece until January 1 2042, unless Mertzios or his heirs explicitly stated otherwise. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My Urals and Round the Ai river I went

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No plausible rationale for compatible copyright status.

There is no indication that these translations are freely licensed. The uploader was asked to provide more info nearly a year ago with no response. I myself could not find any indication that these translations are not copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Cats and The Conscript

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. Both works have previously been deleted for the same reason and been recreated: The Cats, The Conscript.

These are unsourced work by H. P. Lovecraft. In the 2009 edition of H.P. Lovecraft: A Comprehensive Bibliography, "The Cats" is item I.B.iii.28, first published in A Winter Wish (Whispers Press, 1977), and thus has 95 years of copyright from 1977. It was also published in The Fantastic Poetry (Necronomicon Press, 1990), if for whatever reason Whispers Press wasn't a legal printing, which would keep it in copyright until 2048. "The Conscript" was likewise first published in A Winter Wish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Decision upon the request for recusal of a judge, 1973-10-08

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted the first and third ones as non-governmental Judicial Research Foundation [18] and Sir Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law, University of London [19], may have assigned the copyright to the Supreme Court of Japan. Kept the second one for now for no other translator.

The original work in Japanese may be in the public domain, I am not so certain about the translations. The source of the site says copyright Copyright © Supreme Court of Japan. All rights reserved. That page also says "This translation is provisional and subject to revision. Translated by Judicial Research Foundation."

Other pages that I see probably face the same issue

• Judgement upon penal case of defamation, 1969-06-25
• Decision upon dismissed request for documents submission order, 2000-03-10

@JOT news: for your comment.

— billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Index:Kirk Presidential Address 1949.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per discussion; not the address of a national president but of a New Zealand temperance society. The work is PD in New Zealand, but not in the UK or US.

A 1949 work from New Zealand seems too recent to be PD, and the underlying scans seems to have been uploaded with an ND clause CC license which is generally incompatible with Wikimedia projects ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this {{PD-EdictGov}} perhaps, as a presidential address? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the president of the country, but a temperance organization. The author died in 1957, so it became PD in New Zealand in 2008. The U.S. would need to wait until 2045. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Delete per Carl Lindberg. Note that the scans have now been deleted from Commons. BethNaught (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation:Fatherland Front Bulgaria for Macedonia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per discussion; Original will be under copyright in Bulgaria until 2064, and under copyright in the US until 2040.

I'm opening this discussion upon a request from User:TE(æ)A,ea. (diff: [20]), who reverted my speedy deletion nomination. "Fatherland Front Bulgaria for Macedonia" is a translation (derivative work) of the original work "Отечественофронтовска България за Македония" by Tsola Dragoycheva (1898 – 1993) which is a copyrighted work according to the copyright law of Bulgaria (where it was originally released) and in the United States. Both states have expiration: "life of the author plus 70 years". For me, it's clearly for speedy deletion, but I would like to hear what other editors think as well. --StanProg (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This reasoning appears correct to me. I do not see any reason why this would not be protected by copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a technicality, but that's not US copyright law, which, for works published before 1978, extends for 95 years from publication for most non-US works. So another 20 years for the US and English Wikisource, even if it's more like 40 for Bulgaria.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, since the article is originally released in 1945, that means that it will be in PD in 2040 in the United States (i.e. English Wikisource), and in Bulgaria in 2063 (1993 + 70 years)? Did I understood correctly? --StanProg (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much. In both cases, copyright extends to the end of the year, so it's 2041 and 2064.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Magna Charta Universitatum

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

This is likely obvious, but I wanted to bring it here to be absolutely sure. This is a document created and signed by universities in the late 1980s; there is no indication of a period public domain declaration; and I did not find (but did not search very much) for a later declaration or CC license listing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

 Delete No claim or evidence of a free license or public domain. Website of the author organisation has a copyright notice and no obvious free license. BethNaught (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fireflies

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Published in New York in 1928, copyright renewed in 1955 (1). Hrishikes (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• According to this Web-page, Tagore’s “Fireflies” was written (or published, it’s not clear) in 1926, and translated by the author. Is the above known to be the first publication? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC).
  • That is the bilingual version, Lekhan. It was printed in 1926 and is available at bn:নির্ঘণ্ট:লেখন-রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর.djvu. It was written during the author's visit to China and Japan; and when he went to Europe, he got it printed at Budapest. The title page has the date Kartik 26, 1333 B.E. (= November 1926). The work was printed in the author's handwriting. The English portion was separated and published with decorations in 1928. It can be seen here. Hrishikes (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

2 Index - Traffic Signs Manual VOlume 8 Parts 1 and 2

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by proposer: "Stale Concern. Material was previously nominated at Commons and kept."

Uploaded and transcribed in good faith:

Index:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 1 (Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road). Designs 2009.pdf Index:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 2- Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations) - Operations 2009.pdf

However, on Commons , Commons:User:Fæ: raised a valid concern about the applicability of OGL documents previously labelled as Crown Copyright. In addition whilst these at some point, appeared on the Department for Transport website, they were actually authored by Highways England, and thus the OTRS listed for them which was taken in Good faith, may not actually cover portions of these works. The status of these is thus ambiguous, and thus they should be removed until someone else is prepare to get a specific explicit OGL release confirmation from the relevant agency. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Modern Czech Poetry

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The work was simultaneously published in the US, so by Berne Convention rules its "country of origin" is the US, where its pub.+95 term has expired. Since the country of origin for copyright purposes is the US, this satisfies the Commons policy requirement that it be public doomain in both the US and the country of origin. See this discussion on Commons for details.

Being - Modern Czech Poetry

The concern is that the translator Author:Paul Selver was still alive in 1970. Whilst the work is PD in the US (by date), evidence in the edition suggests it was originally completed in London, and thus UK copyright terms may apply. At the very least it the scans backing this should perhaps be hosted locally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Given the colophon specifies both London and New York, I think it is probably safe to assume simultaneous publication (within 30 days), and thus the copyright has definitely expired in the US. In the UK it is also definitely still in pma.+70 copyright.
  I have previously assumed that for the purposes of Commons copyright policy, simultaneous publication was treated as a US work, but after being challenged on this point I have not managed to find this spelled out in any policy page there. Thus the work can definitely be hosted locally on enWS, but whether it can be hosted on Commons pivots on that obscure point of policy. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Xover: -- See at United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101:

For purposes of section 411, a work is a ‘‘United States work’’ only if—

(1) in the case of a published work, the work is first published—

(A) in the United States;

(B) simultaneously in the United States and another treaty party or parties, whose law grants a term of copyright protection that is the same as or longer than the term provided in the United States;

(C) simultaneously in the United States and a foreign nation that is not a treaty party; or

(D) in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party, and all of the authors of the work are nationals, domiciliaries, or habitual residents of, or in the case of an audiovisual work legal entities with headquarters in, the United States;

Maybe you are looking for (B) above? It is incorporated in c:Template:PD-URAA-Simul at Commons. Hrishikes (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Hrishikes: Indeed, that is the basis of my understanding of the issue. But I have been unable to find any guidance (policy etc.) that spells out that this also means that the "PD in source country" requirement of the Commons copyright policy does not apply to such works. My understanding was that that was the case, but, as mentioned, that's been challenged. --Xover (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  I found Commons:URAA-restored copyrights#Are all foreign works affected? where it is written: Works simultaneously published in the US and abroad (defined as publication in the US within 30 days) are not affected. which I understand that their copyright was not restored by URAA and can stay in Commons. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of statutes in France

The following discussion is closed:

The copyright question is straightforward: not PD in France, but {{PD-EdictGov}} in the US, and thus within the enWS copyright policy. There is an interesting discussion to be had about translations, but that's better raised on the Scriptorium than here, and should probably come after resolving other inconsistencies in our policies.

Hello! Are French statutes (such as laws and regulations issued by the French government) copyrighted works under the law of France?

A Wikipedia article (though unsourced) says that "There is no specific provision for government works or laws: the copyright is normally held by the relevant public body."

But an article on the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal says that "French scholars similarly teach that no copyright protection can be claimed in official or statutory documents, or in decisions of courts."

So, is it possible for me to translate a French law (in respect of which the period of 70 years after the death of the author has not yet passed, according to the general rules of copyright under the French law) and host the translation here? Thank you so much! --Miwako Sato (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato: There is no copyright exception for official works under French copyright law. It is possible that the practice differs from the actual law, but in terms of the copyright policy here that's immaterial.

That means such works cannot be hosted on Commons, since the Commons' copyright policy requires works to be in the public domain both in the US and the source country.

However, on English Wikisource the policy requirement is only that the work be in the public domain in the US. And under US copyright law, this would almost certainly fall under {{PD-EdictGov}} because in the US an "edict of government" (laws, judicial decisions, etc.) are not eligible for copyright protection. Thus both the original and the translation can be hosted here in terms of the copyright policy.

However, before you start translating, keep in mind that the original text should already be transcribed at French Wikisource before the translation is eligible for inclusion here. If French Wikisource require works to be public domain under French copyright law then this will have the same practical effect. I don't know what their policy is, and it is entirely possible that they only consider US status, but you'd have to check there. --Xover (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation" seems like an overly restrictive requirement that basically ensures that very little ever gets translated. I'm all for requiring a scan, but I don't see why we need to require someone proofreads everything in the original language first, under whatever rules the other language Wikisource has, and then come back here to do it all again in English. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm torn on that balance. But what you point out is not (afaict) a side-effect of the policy, but the explicit goal. enWS is for faithful reproductions of previously published works, so both annotations and user translations are by default out of scope and the respective policies that permit them are restrictive by design. I would like to see more translations and creative annotations here, but I can also absolutely make a case that they shouldn't be permitted at all. And I don't think the restrictiveness of the policies is the main reason we don't see more good translations and annotations, so loosening the requirements is most likely to let in more of what we don't want without generating any more of what we do want. --Xover (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WS:SCOPE explicitly says: However, in light of the fact that there are countless source texts published in other languages that might never be translated otherwise, plus the fact that new, complementary translations can improve on existing ones in many ways, Wikisource also allows user-created wiki translations. So user translations would seem to be explicitly in scope. I don't see a reason to require a version on the French Wikisource, if that's not legally possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: They are in scope, but the issue is that WS:T says: A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. And looking at old discussions it seems clear that the intent is explicitly to tolerate translations (and annotations), with an attendant high bar, rather than to encourage them as first class citizens. Personally I am ambivalent, mainly because we do not have the greatest technical facilities for translations. We do have some pass the bar—like On Discoveries and Inventions—but they are really hard on the (often new) contributors to do right. I'm not alien to the odd case by case exception, but with a generally lowered bar I worry we would get a lot of dross and very little gold. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine, then maybe the "appropriate" wiki is the best one where it can be legally hosted. No problem hosting the French source on en-wiki if it's to support an English translation. If it's in scope here, and legal here, then there shouldn't be any technical rule to prevent it. If it can be legally hosted at fr-wikisource, by all means move it there, but I don't think that clause should be read to prevent it altogether. Additionally, WS:SCOPE is policy, while WS:T is a proposed guideline. Even if it was a passed guideline, I don't think it should be read as an absolute rule -- a guideline should not overrule a policy. If it's legally possible to host the source on a more appropriate language wiki (it doesn't even specify Wikisource, just a wiki) then that should be done, but if there is significant doubt on that, then I'd go ahead and host it here. A posting at Wikisource talk:WikiProject Translation characterized it as First of all, the topic of Wikisource-generated translations came up at our Scriptorium a little while ago. There was some minor opposition, but the support was emphatic and led to some new ideas, [...] I think there are rules to delete partially-translated works which become dormant for a long while, if that happens, but I don't think we should be putting up unnecessary barriers for people to get such efforts moving. It's a tough thing to do, so if people can find a way to make good translations happen, seems to me that should be encouraged to find a way that works. Annotations may be another matter, but those would seem to require a non-annotated version to be present first, so that may not be worth worrying about until the full translation happens. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I really don't see the point of requiring a proofread scan at another wiki. As long as the scans/source documents are available for verification/validation purposes, there's very little benefit to the average reader of a translation to have them also proofread at xxWS, and it basically makes it all but impossible to translate something for the average mortal. It's hard enough to get something sorted at enWS without having to do it all in another language, with another entire set of rules. For example, deWS has very strict rules and they average new editor would last minutes there without losing heart. The only people who realistically could do so are people active at both subdomains, and even then, the effort of proofreading once AND translating again would be substantial when the translation is what the editor in question is actually interested in.

Having a high bar for the translation quality and completeness is an orthogonal matter and certainly is one to be supported, IMO. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To continue on that point, it would be annoying, at best, and actively detrimental, at worst, to require the original version of a work to be proofread elsewhere. It should not be the goal of Wikisource policy to oppose the addition of legitimate new texts by such strictures that are unrelated to this project. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Originals are still in copyright and not within Lehrer's authority to release.

While the translations by Lehrer may be released, I am not certain that the originals, eg. by author:Jacques Brel, are in the public domain.

• The Bourgeoisie (Les Bourgeois)
• All Is Well (Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise)
• Juca
• Sunshine (Bom Tempo)

— billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like they are. Jacques Brel (Belgian/French) and Chico Buarque (Brazilian) were both born after 1926, and have not been dead for 70 years, which is the term of copyright protection in Belgium, France, and Brazil. "Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise" was published in 1935, and Paul Misraki (French) died in 1998.

— CalendulaAsteraceae (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oration on the Dignity of Man

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Translation copyright appears to belong to A. Robert Caponigri, and it is still active due to renewal RE0000238037.

Translation by author:Theodore Gracyk who is a living author of an PD-old work. No source, claimed that the work is >> 100 years, though not possible with the described translator. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Copying my comment from that work's talk page: This looks an awful lot like A. Robert Caponigri's translation. The third edition was published 1956 with an explicit copyright notice. Gracyk does not claim to be the author in the linked source. I think Gracyk simply copy-pasted Caponigri's translation, and if Gracyk thinks it is in the public domain, it's probably because of {{PD-US-no-renewal}} (which we should verify). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That translation does seem to show up a bunch on Google Books, but the 1956 work you mention was renewed on 1984-12-18, renewal number RE0000238037. The claim for the renewal was "introduction and translation". Caponigri died in 1983, so the renewal right would have reverted to his estate, but it seems the renewal was done under his name (and the name of the author of the introduction). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Father Speaks to His Children

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This work was written in the 1930s, presumably in Italian, and possibly being published soon after. The author, Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasio, died in 1990, and we have no information about the translation or translator. It seems like another case of "the authors want to spread their message" being confused with "this work is the public domain"; we certainly don't have information attached to our copy about its licensing, besides the PD-author tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Delete per Prosfilaes. Also, the official-looking ebook versions linked from w:en:Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasio (one, two) carry copyright notices with terms forbidding commercial reuse. BethNaught (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Romances of Chivalry on Greek Soil

The following discussion is closed:

Tag removed per BethNaught's reasoning (with which I concur). It seems likely to have been added by mistake.

I happened across this work and noticed that it's tagged with {{PD-nonUK}}. This was done by Theornamentalist in 2011—I'd ask them about it but they're globally inactive since 2016. Perhaps Zhaladshar may have some context on this as the creator of the page?

I don't see any reason why this work should be under copyright, or non-copyright restrictions, in the UK. As noted at w:en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Unusual grants of rights, the well known examples of non-copyright restrictions are Peter Pan and the King James Bible. The Book of Common Prayer is also affected. These account for all of the pages in Category:PD-nonUK, except for this one, and another that already had a complicated discussion on this board.

Would anyone object to that tag being removed? BethNaught (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

The copyright situation for this work is not entirely clear, and there are factors that weigh in favour of both PD-USGov and the opposite. There is also no clear consensus among those commenting on how to weight the available evidence. However, there is a slight numerical advantage to the keep votes (2 out of 3 total, so extremely weak) and the parallel deletion discussion on Commons was also closed as keep (on similarly flimsy grounds). Based on that I am going to close this as a technical "keep", but note that it is more of a "no consensus to delete" and anyone that on reflection disagrees should feel free to open a new discussion about this work.

1998 work and author is still alive. I do not see that we can call this {{PD-USGov}} and I don't see that there is any legitimate licensing that would allow us to retain this work.

Note that I have started the pairing conversation at WikimediaCommons. @Rajasekhar1961: uploader. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

w:Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (established in 1862) published series of books of good teaching value for medical persons. The Institution is closed in 2011. Some of their publications are available in Archives under Public domain licence. They are published by USGovernment. Hence may be considered as {{PD-USGov}} to be used in Wikisource. I am interested in this work, and would like to upload the other books in the series, if it is acceptable to Wikimedia foundation.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is the publisher, but not the author. The author is not an agent of the US government and did not write this volume while working for the government. An author retains rights to their work unless the author releases them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Hang on… This scan was uploaded to IA by an archivist at the National Institutes of Health Libraries and is included both in the NIH Library collection and the Federal Collections collection at IA (and the NIH links to it and a copy on Google Books from their catalog). The work contains no independent copyright statement (which is not required by the copyright act but is common practice in publishing all the same, when copyright applies). The series has been published in multiple editions (at least three that I've found), all of which by AFIP, but with different editors. The edition preceding this one has multiple scans fully available on HathiTrust (who are notoriously even more Catholic than Commons on copyright). All of which strongly suggests that this is a product of the AFIP that just happened to be produced as a work-for-hire: that is, the "author" is listed for academic credit, not copyright purposes. The history of the work, which is given in a preface, also describes it as a product of the AFIP, in particular due to drawing on the expertise of their employees and the materials in their archives.
  Bottom line, the balance of probabilities here strongly favours this being a {{PD-USGov}} work. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

did you try contacting the author to find out if it is a work for hire? (there are also four copyrighted images.) don't know why you would speculate that authors for a US government publisher would retain rights: different year, same USGov methods. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 11:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I should make clear, when I say "bottom line" I mean "bottom line for me". This is not a case where there is an unequivocal right or wrong answer: but for me the balance of the evidence (absent new information) falls down on the side of it being PD-USGov. The opposite conclusion is equally valid, I just don't find the arguments for it persuasive. --Xover (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Index:Login USENIX Newsletter feb1983.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. USENIX have released pre-1997 issues into the public domain.

Copyright notice on page 2.

No evidence for the PD claim used on the upload. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• A number of ;login: issues, in addition to this one, were uploaded to the Internet Archive by a user named “USENIX,” which acts as, or is operated on behalf of, USENIX. According to their Web-site, they plan to retroactively release all back issues of ;login: as open-access publications; however, their Web-site does not give a specific date for this, nor does it give the type of license they intend to publish them under. I presume that the CC-0 release listed on the Internet Archive page is sufficient as official; and, if someone wishes to add more issues in the future, they should receive them from the USENIX Web-site, when they are released there. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC).
  • How do we know that USENIX on IA is operated on behalf of USENIX, as opposed to being some random user?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That is the only missing link, it seems. I find it unlikely that some person has uploaded all of these issues of ;login: while operating as “USENIX” without USENIX knowing, especially because USENIX intends to pledge ;login: issues open-access; but, I have no proof of this claim. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC).
•  Comment Note that the file has been deleted at Commons, and I have filed an undeletion request. --Xover (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  And the file has now been undeleted at Commons. --Xover (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep Issues of ;login: published prior to 1997 have been uploaded to IA tagged as {{CC0}}. The uploads were made by user "USENIX" to the "USENIX" collection—which are both in themselves indications that it is unlikely to be a third party—and the USENIX homepage for ;login: now also links to that collection for access to the pre-1997 issues.
  Unless a Wikisource-specific complication surfaces in the near future I intend to close this as keep. --Xover (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Christmas Blessings

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as G2: this work was previously deleted as a copyvio (twice). In addition I have placed it under autoconfirmed protection since it has now been deleted three times.

This is a more complex case. It has several titles; the 2009 HPL bibliography gives it as "Christmas Greetings to Mrs. Phillips Gramwell—1925", and numbers it I.B.iii.31.b. It then says it was first published as "Christmas Greeting to Mrs. Gamwell—1925", in Beyond the Wall of Sleep. Given that it mentions 112 Christmas greetings by HPL, and it's hardly a form unique to him, it should probably be moved to the later name if kept.

Beyond the Wall of Sleep was a 1943 work and needed a copyright renewal, which it got. From Gutenberg's renewal transcriptions, we get "Beyond the wall of sleep. Collected by August Derleth & Donald Wandrei. NM: compilation. © 22Nov43; A177408. August Derleth & Donald Wandrei (A); 6Apr71; R504228." There's an argument here that the "NM: compilation" would not protect any works published in it, and it is unlikely to be have been legally published earlier. I'm not sure how a judge would rule, especially in the modern day.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• The copyright was registered as “Lovecraft (H. P.) Beyond the wall of sleep, by H. P. Lovecraft. Collected by August Derleth and Donald Wandrei. © Nov. 22, 1943; A 177408; August Derleth & Donald Wandrei, Sauk City, Wis. [7171]” (p. 235). As such, while the copyright was obtained for the whole work, only the copyright for the compilation was renewed, meaning that the poems of Lovecraft first published in Beyond the Wall of Sleep are in the public domain, but the work itself is not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC).
  • I don't know. I don't think you can renew part of a registration like that; the renewal should cover everything the registration covered. https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_H._P._Lovecraft says Derleth and Wandrei claimed ownership of the Lovecraft copyrights, which is unclear as to its accuracy. If they owned the Lovecraft copyrights, then the original registration would have covered new publications, I believe, and then any added notes in the renewal may have been harmless error. I'd almost say the original registration hurts our case, since it's a registration of Lovecraft's work and has no limitation to compilation. It's ugly; Lovecraft, Lovecraft's heirs, Derleth and Wandrei all failed to dot their i's and cross their t's, so a lot of this stuff depends on what documentation might be found in a legal battle or how lenient a judge was on minor errors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That is not unique to this registration; several other renewals (from this specific location) claim only “new material,” when the registrations did not. I do not believe the Derleth and Wandrei actually ever claimed copyright over Lovecraft’s works, but only claimed copyright for the compilation, and it is for that reason that the renewal is specifically limited to the compilation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC).
•  Delete While acknowledging TE(æ)A,ea.'s argument, I come down on Prosfilaes' side on this one. --Xover (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Index:Constitution of India, As on 09 September 2020.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probable copyvio. There is a plausible argument that the translation itself and the preface may be covered by copyright. The arguments presented that the compilation garners separate copyright are not plausible. The argument that an Indian work must fall under a PD-USGov type copyright exception under Indian copyright law in order to qualify for an EdictGov exemption under US copyright law is incorrect. It should also be noted that PD-EdictGov was extended under a recent (2019, I think) SCOTUS opinion to cover all works by a legislative assembly regardless of whether the work has force of law as such. In this specific case it is arguable whether the work in question can be said to be by a competent legislative assembly as such, or merely by a random government department.

User:Hrishikes noted that this might be a copyvio per the Commons discussions at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and Commons:Template_talk:GODL-India#Can_the_user_site_assume_GODL?, bringing here for a decision. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishikes:, @MSG17: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is {{PD-EdictGov}} locally, which is sufficient. I don’t think that there are too many works hosted here that could be culled by the proposed deletion (on Commons), but this section should remain open until the determination occurs. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC).
  • This is not Edict-Gov. The concept of Edict-Gov is a matter of inter-government courtesy, where one country recognises another country's Edict-Gov. The definition of Edict-Gov given in section 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium III of U.S. Copyright Office Practices includes legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, etc. This document is not one of them. This is not Edict-Gov in India, not being covered by section 52(1)(q) of the Indian Copyright Act. As far as I understand, the U.S. does not disregard other countries' copyrights, except when the work was published more than 95 years ago or when the U.S. does not have copyright relations with the source country. The U.S. does have copyright relations with India, because of multiple bilateral and international treaties. Therefore, we should not interpret Edict-Gov in a manner violative of another country's copyright, especially when the U.S. has copyright relations with that country. Hrishikes (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The Constitution, along with all amendments thereto, constitute an integral portion of the law of India, and are therefore obviously excluded from copyright as a “legislative enactment[]… or similar type[] of official legal material[],” by §313.6(C)(2); this is immediately followed by the following: “[T]he Office will not register… any translation prepared,” &c. All legal works in India must be translated into the English language, and the Constitution (as revised) is no exception to this rule. In addition, the copyright law of India has no bearing on the public-domain status in the United States, as the government-edicts exemption is in no wise related to international-law comity. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC).
      • This is not "legislative enactment", because, in its current form, it was not enacted by any legislature. It is a composite document, consisting of the original constitution and the multiple amendments thereto. Being edited that way, the editing government department holds copyright of it. That is why it was not uploaded to Commons under the Edict-Gov provision. All items listed in section 313.6(C)(2) are directly issued by the competent legislative or executive authority; therefore, "similar documents" mean other such directly issued documents of legal nature. This document, being an edited one, has no force of law. No executive authority can issue orders citing the authority of this composite document. Therefore, this document is of literary nature, and not of "official legal" nature. Another updated version of the Indian constitution is present in this site, created by Wikisource volunteers. That volunteer-created document has no force of law, and neither has this one. Accordingly, this is not Edict-Gov. Hrishikes (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I disagree with your appraisal of the state of the enactment, and maintain that it is an “official legal” work. I do not know enough about the functions of the Indian government to conclusively prove this, but I believe that this edition, created by the “Secretary to the Government of India,” was done in his official capacity as such, and that he does not have any legal copyright in the composite work. Even if this Constitution were not to be considered a government edict, it does not follow that the editor holds copyright, as the instructions provided in the acts amending the Constitution leave no room for creative expression nor originality—the requirements for copyright. (The work would then be in the public domain both as a government edict (the individual sections) and as a work ineligible for copyright (the combination of the sections).) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC).
• Wherefrom are you getting the idea that a foreword by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, makes the document Edict-Gov? It makes the document a "government document", not Edict-Gov. The work has to be assessed as a whole, and not as individual sections, because it has been uploaded as whole. And wherefrom are you getting the idea that a government document is ineligible for copyright? It is ineligible in the U.S., of course, but that ineligibility is extended to foreign Edict-Gov documents only, not other government documents.

• This work is an annotated work, because of updating of original text, footnotes, front matter and back matter (including appendices). Such an annotated work can also be Edict-Gov, if it has "force of law", as provided for in the concluding part of section 313.6(C)(2) of Copyright Comp3. And if it does not have force of law, then it is to be considered as a "non-dramatic literary work", as per section 717.1 of Copyright Comp3.
• Now, about this "force of law". Obviously, an Indian document cannot have force of law in the U.S., so it must have force of law in India. So, can an annotated version or a translated version of a legislative enactment have force of law in India? It can, if it is declared as an "authoritative text". Such a declaration has to be made under the authority of the President of India, invoking the provisions of Authoritative Texts (Central Laws) Act, 1973. A document, so notified, will have the same authority as the original enactment, and accordingly, force of law. You can see such a notification on page 1 of this file at Commons. The document under discussion has not been notified as authoritative text, therefore it does not have force of law, and accordingly, it is not Edict-Gov in either India or U.S.
• As a government document, it has a copyright of 60 years from publication year (2020) in India. This copyright will be recognised in the U.S., as per section 104(b)(2) of 17 U.S.C, India being a treaty country. Then this U.S. copyright will last for 95 years.
• This document can still be hosted here under a certain condition. This was originally hosted in the website of the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, India, which is the creator department. Source site policy given at http://legislative.gov.in/website-policy says:

"Material featured on this Website may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the departments/copyright holders concerned."

Accordingly, the file is hostable, if permission is obtained from the Legislative Department. Then it will be covered under a CC license or equivalent. Hrishikes (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Update: File has been deleted at Commons. Hrishikes (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)