Wikisource:Possible copyright violations

From Wikisource

(Redirected from WS:COPYVIO)
Jump to: navigation, search
←Community pages Possible copyright violations Discussion archives→
Shortcut:
WS:COPYVIO
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. You may join any current discussion or start a new one.

Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted.

When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions. If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, the Rutgers copyright renewal records and Stanford Copyright Renewal Database as well as University of Pennsylvania's information about the Catalog of Copyright Entries may be helpful in determining the copyright status of the work. Google Book Search may also be useful to determine if the complete texts are available due to expired copyright. Help:Public domain can help users determine whether a given work is in the public domain.

Quick reference to copyright term

Contents

[edit] Discussions

[edit] Sir Gerald Kaufman's 15.01.2009 speech on Gaza Strike at House of Commons

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Imported to Wikilivres:Sir Gerald Kaufman's 15.01.2009 speech on Gaza Strike at House of Commons.--Jusjih (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The following is a speech presented in the UK House of Commons, and it intimated to me that this was a speech of unknown licence. The speech looks to be reproduced from UK's Hansard. There are a number of variations of licence through the website, and nothing that I could find specifically aligned for Hansard. I have dropped an email to the Parliamentary Archives for some clarification on what the copyright and restrictions may be. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hansard means "the official verbatim record of debates in the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, or South African parliament."
Political speeches are freely available via British Parliament Site, and no political public speech has copyright concern as far as I am aware in the history. Like Yasser Arafat's 1974 UN General Assembly speech has full text in wikisource, this important speech by Geral Kaufman also should deserve its own page. Kasaalan (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Being freely available from the source doesn't make it freely distributable or necessarily distributable without conditions that this site can maintain. This site requires abidance with the US laws of copyright, and that is the measure that we need to apply. Please have a look at WS:COPY and note the Fair use part. The discussion needs to be about copyright and which licence applies, do you have information to support your statement about 'political public speech'? -- billinghurst (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement no political public speech has copyright concern concerns me. There are certainly questions regarding whether or not the speech was originally written down in draft form, or whether it was ad-lib. Either way, simply stating that all political, public speeches have no copyright concern does not reflect the reality of copyright law. It definitely needs to be discussed here. Certainly, we have a lot of speeches kept under {{PD-manifesto}}, but in my opinion, some of them are kept erroneously (definitely not all, though). Jude (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the restriction on the electronic reproduction of Crown and Parliamentary copyright material. At present, neither Hansard nor Acts of Parliament or other statutory materials are available on the Internet, except to subscribers to extremely costly commercial services. This is the result of HMSO's policy of not permitting the free electronic reproduction of such materials. Electronic publication is permitted only on normal commercial terms, involving the payment of significant fees or royalties., sadly. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Jung. 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a 1995 letter, and UK Hansard is now available on the web, and there may be waived restrictions. <shrug>-- billinghurst (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well actually the 1995 paper has a title under it as A more recent press release gives details of how the situation has developed.
Ian Church
Ian Church, is the editor of Hansard, the daily record of what is said in Parliament. He was responsible for setting up and chairing a committee of Parliamentary officials, whose report has led to Hansard being published free of charge on the Internet. To its credit, the Cabinet Office endorsed this approach, despite the potential loss of revenue to the Exchequer.
The high cost of the paper version of Hansard has long been criticised, as putting it beyond the reach of many. An annual subscription to the daily version, for both Houses of Parliament, costs £1,185. The annual fee for an electronic version of Hansard, on CDs and through an on-line subscription, comes to £1,997.
However, as a result of Ian Church's initiative, Hansard has appeared in full on the Internet since October 1996, a development which makes Parliament's proceedings more accessible than ever before. All debates, questions and answers in both the Commons and Lords can be read free of charge the next day. The initiative goes beyond Hansard itself. A number of bills and select committee reports are also now available on-line without charge, and it is planned that by April 1998 all Parliamentary papers will be available on the Internet. These include some materials, such as amendments to bills, which are not directly available to the public at all at the moment. Few people will want to study Hansard regularly, but many will have an interest in reading a debate on a particular subject of importance to them - perhaps the environment, animal rights or the NHS - or seeing what their MP has been doing in the Commons.
So reading an article fully instead partly is better. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused. User:Kasaalan's definition of Hansard conflicts directly with w:Hansard, which states: Hansard is not a verbatim account of debates in Parliament. It seeks to eliminate "repetitions, redundancies and obvious errors". One instance of such an eliminated redundancy involves the calling of members in the House of Commons., etc. The public availability doesn't necessarily mean that it's free of copyright, unfortunately...
Well the Hansard logs cut out Madam Deputee parts for example. I have fully checked the transcript with the video. Actually there is a current/present word replacement in the text too.
Either way, I'd be interested to hear what response (if any) has been garnered from User:Billinghurst's email. Jude (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Links
-- billinghurst (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and I hate having to say that. While parts of the licence are lovely, it doesn't allow us to host the work at WS. :-( About the only option available is to ask the author directly whether they will allow the reproduction. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have replied against copyright hansard to the 1995 letter. As a reply to the referred letter, in 1996 hansard logs become publicly available over internet.
Yet putting copyright statement on Hansard logs actually even not limiting the case. Because British Parliement, is not the jobkeeper of MPs their speechs' copyright belonges to themselves, not to the government and publicly speaking makes it available to the public except commercial use, unless they explicitly state otherwise, that is called fair use itself. Calling the speech has any copyright issue is irrational, or all the newspapers around the world, would have to pay license fee to the politicians, but not even a single an example present in the history. The Disengagement Proposal of Ariel Sharon, Letter to George Bush from Ariel Sharon announcing his disengagement plan this letters are publicly available and I cannot find any note on copyright statuts of their work under the letters that Bush or Sharon giving out public licenses. Because it is simply unnecessary for a political speech or writing, unless you use it commercially, and even for a commercial book I am not aware any single objection to the use of a public statement. Since it is about the right of public awareness. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I send the mails necessary for clearing out the copyright issues. But maybe if you people also send letters tomorrow it may also help. Kasaalan (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Permission Granted Thanks for the help and concern people.
Dear ...
Yes, I give you permission to quote my Gaza speech of 15 January 2009 in full in Wikipedia.
Best wishes
Gerald Kaufman
Sir Gerald Kaufman replied kindly in 1 day via mail. Is there any other procedure we should take. Kasaalan (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(An initial note: I'm not a copyright expert. Hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable regarding British Government copyrights and work-for-hire laws will be able to clear this up once and for all). Firstly, "Publicly available" on the internet does absolutely not mean that it is free from copyright. Secondly, on the matter of that copyright, the moment that something is written by something (generally as a creative work that is copyrightable), it is automatically copyrighted. Just because someone reads it in public does not mean that it is free from copyright.
Thirdly, Hansard appears to be a modification of any speech made in Parliament by an MP. Members for Parliament, I would assume, are in the employ of the British Government. I'm not entirely sure what work-for-hire laws there are in the UK, but I guess it can be reasonably assumed that, as they wrote them to be spoken in Parliament, and they most likely wrote them while being payed, as part of their employ, that they become the copyright of the British Government. This means that Hansard has every right to dictate the copyright terms of a text hosted on their website, as they are a part of the Government.
Fourthly, because of this, I'm not sure that Mr. Kaufman has the right to grant us free use of the text. Fifthly, the permission email you have posted here is not usable, unfortunately, by us.
w:Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission has more information regarding requesting copyright permission, and it explains it in complete detail.
Finally, I hope that makes some modicum of sense and helps to clear things up. Unfortunately, not all the concerns addressed have been resolved. Jude (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The logs of the speech is publicly available since 1996, in British Parliament's own page.
Hansard logs only modificated for readability purpose, they remove "Madam Deputee" titles of the speech in written logs.
British goverment or state not employing the parliaments, in the way you think, actually no government does, the respective owners holding the copyrights.
Unless he signes otherwise, even a journalist' articles copyright belongs to him.
The rules of the Hansard is very clear, it says if you want to use the Hansard logs, get a written permission from the MP via mail for the most part, and that is what I did, and posted Sir Gerald Kaufman's answer above. He stated we can use the speech's full text in wikipedia. This is more than fair use. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete.
1. Again, publicly available does not equal a license on Wikisource.
2. There is such a thing as Crown copyright and it might supersede what would ordinarily be copyrightable by an individual.
3. The Hansard rules may be clear that speeches by individual members can be used with permission. But Wikisource only collects texts that can be freely redistributed without further restrictions even commercially redistributed. ResScholar (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial

Re-listing to gain proper consensus. Quotes:

Some exhibits may be found from page 51 onwards, and they were "ordered into the record." (John Vandenberg)
Copyediting: A Practical Guide, by Karen Judd (ISBN 1560526084) p. 202 it says:
“

Any copyrighted material introduced into GPO publications must be credited as well, and permission gotten. For example, if a copyrighted poem was read into the Congressional Record, you eed to get permission for (and credit) the poem but need only give credit to the GPO for their part in publishing the Congressional Record.

 ”
Many people have told me that anything entered into the Congressional Record was public domain, however there is nothing to that effect in USC 44 Chapter 9: Congressional Record (John Vandenberg)

Current indication appears to be that, while something copyrighted may be entered into Congressional Record, it does not automatically enter the public domain. As such, copyrighted material inside of this work would need to be redacted or deleted. Jude (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Ethically, I would consider that each part of the appendix should be evaluated on its individual merits. So that becomes redact parts from p. 51 onwards. If it is too hard to separate, then just keep up to p.50 of the report. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to clarify the issue here, since this topic has been open a very long time. The reprinting of the material in the appendix to the report is not probative on whether the material is copyrighted; whoever advised User:Jayvdb that republication of copyrighted material in the Congressional Record placed that material in the public domain was in error. As the House Report on the Copyright Act of 1976 explained, “publication or other use by the Government of a private work would not affect its copyright protection in any way.” (p. 60). Copyrighted material stays copyrighted even if it gets published in the Congressional Record alongside other material (the legislators’ statements, for instance) that is clearly public domain. (Does that mean Congress is infringing the authors’ copyrights? No, at least according to Congress; in the same report it excused its own copying as fair use: “The Committee has considered the question of publication, in Congressional hearings and documents, of copyrighted material. Where the length of the work or excerpt published and the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the circumstances, and the work itself is directly relevant to a matter of legitimate legislative concern, the Committee believes that the publication would constitute fair use.” p. 73). I have a feeling that most of the Weather Underground material included in the appendices is {{PD-US-no-notice}}, although only somebody who has done a document-by-document review (which I have not) would be able to tell for sure. But the republication of the material in a legislative report is neither here nor there as far as copyright is concerned. Tarmstro99 (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Line-Up for Yesterday

A poem reputedly written in 1949 by w:Ogden Nash (d.1971). At first glance it would seem to be CopyVio. Does anyone know differently? -- billinghurst (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Were there any renewals on the magazine it was originally published in? I don't have the time to check at the minute, but it would be a start. Jude (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The chain of evidence for this is kind of a long story: The first publication of the story, according to Wikipedia was in SPORT magazine in January 1949. It was then published in an Ogden Nash compilation called Versus in 1949. The copyright notice for that book gives a single copyrighting entity encompassing certain works of the year 1949—Ogden Nash. (the only other copyrighting entity is the Saturday Evening Post publishing company, which encompasses different years.) So I did a search of the "Project Gutenberg copyright renewal registrations: contributions to periodicals" for Jan-Jun 1976; Jul-Dec 1976 and Jan-Jun 1977 for Ogden Nash works, but there was no mention of "Line-Up for Yesterday." There was a mention of a Versus renewal, but it was an NM or new materials renewal which mentioned compiliation and "additional poems"—presumably other poems that were never published in a periodical. So my vote is Keep as the evidence shows the magazine was not eligible to renew, and Nash's estate chose not to renew—if it ever had, as a beginning to the point of this discussion, a copyright. ResScholar (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In that case, kept. Jude (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reopened this discussion. I think maybe I have overgeneralized when I "presumed" the 1949 copyright for Versus didn't cover poems that were published the same year. Nash's heirs could plead redundancy as far as not registering a copyright for each poem in the periodical copyright category written in 1949, but then registering a copyright for the unregistered "additional poems" in the book category months after they were published (unusual, but possibly still permissible).
I had already spent more time than I had wanted to thinking about the work, and might have realized this when I submitted my vote, but time has allowed me to relax my mind's grip on the problem, not think in such rigid categories and come up with a clearer thought on the matter. I had also forgotten about the "reasonable doubt" test mentioned at the top of the page, or at least was reluctant to apply it, partly because I'm reluctant to vote down someone's good effort. With my absence of knowledge of copyright technicalities, I have to claim reasonable doubt and change my vote to delete. ResScholar (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (revised 07:35)

[edit] Builder of Deserted Hearth

Publication in unknown year, author died in 1961. I am unsure of its US license--Jusjih (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Significant numbers of works by this author have been identified as not having their copyright renewed ([Author talk:Clark Ashton Smith link]). I would suspect that this work is similar, though present no evidence either way. billinghurst (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Borderland

Same as above. Publication in unknown year, author died in 1961. Need a US license or delete.--Jusjih (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A search turned up OCLC 422830, which I have requested by interlibrary loan. Looks like a compilation of previously published works; will check to see whether it includes info about when this one was first published. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that investigation yielded little of value. OCLC 422830, Selected Poems by Clark Ashton Smith, published in 1971 by Arkham House of Sauk City, Wisconsin, includes an express copyright notice on the reverse of the title page: “Copyright 1971, by Mrs. Clark Ashton Smith.” The book seems to reprint a number of earlier collections of Smith’s work, some with their own separate introductory essays, but it does not provide prior publication information about any of them (except the collection “Ebony and Crystal,” published 1923). Not much help to us in identifying the current copyright status of Borderland (p. 314 of Selected Poems) or Builder of Deserted Hearth (p. 330), both of which are printed in a section entitled “Experiments in Haiku” with no prior publication date given. In light of the previously noted difficulties that this author apparently had in complying with the copyright renewal requirement, I’m inclined to vote weak keep. I would change my vote to “delete” if evidence should arise that these works were first published (posthumously) in Selected Poems in 1971, in which case they would be automatically renewed for a second term and remain under copyright until 2066. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Various internet searches, this is the closest that I can find. billinghurst (talk)

[edit] Aitareya Upanishad (Sri Aurobindo translation)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept and self-withdrawn--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Publication in unknown year, author died in 1950. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The opening to "The Upanishads--Ii : Kena And Other Upanishads" says that his translations were published between 1909 and 1920, though later revisions were made. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei. 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep balance of probability; presumably out of copyright in India. billinghurst (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Works of Author:Fyodor Tyutchev

I was looking at Recent Changes, and noticed one of the poems of Author:Fyodor Tyutchev had questionable copyright status. Looking around apparently they were all created in 2006 by a user who hasn't edited since then, copying them from a website that itself appears to be infringing copyright. Complete works is a bit of an exaggeration; there's one that Yann labeled as legal, though I'll mention it below to be through, and several that might be salvagable with the right emails. Someone who can read Russian would be helpful as Tiuticheviana, our source for all this, is primarily a Russian language website. So, in chunks,

  • Translations by F. Jude. As that website indicates, that's a 2000 publication, and I see no evidence that they were released under a free license, so these should be clear deletes.
  • Translations merely attributed to Tiuticheviana. The website might give a friendly copyright status somewhere, and we might be able to get permission to use them, but we have no free license noted on Wikisource or obvious to the English reader on Tiuticheviana.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Attributed to V.V. Nabokov, details unknown, and in this mess I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt
  • Attributed to 1d35crewman, a good target if someone wants to ask for a free license.


    • Tears; needs clean up and removal of the reference to V.V. Nabokov if it is Smith's. Google is just telling me that it was printed in various places as early as the 1940s, and it'd be nice to have publication information, but it's included here for completeness instead of deletion.

--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


I know that copyright is quite complicated thing and nobody can understand it. We can leave here the stuff printed before 1932. But if this is still questionable, we can consider before deleting of them to move at least part of them into Wikilivres... It would be safer there under CC-BY-NC licence. What do you think? --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright isn't that hard in this case; if it's recent and you don't have a clear license from the translator, you can't use it. That goes for Wikilivres as much as us; unless we know that these translations have been released by their translators under CC-BY-NC, they can't host them under that license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just wrote to 1d35crewman, let see what he will answer... --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Did we get an answer? billinghurst (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No! --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mother

Hitler's poem Your Mother has recently been added to the site, and from the information gleaned, it would seem that the poem is still covered by copyright. This translation would also seem to be a copyright issue. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The original German is in the public domain because the US did not extend the copyright term for enemy works from 50 to 70 years. We cannot decide that the translation is PD unless we know where it came from. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I don't understand what you're talking about in the first sentence; the only time non-US copyright terms have mattered for copyright law is what they were when the URAA took effect on January 1st, 1996. As for enemy works, the law says "Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work." If Hitler's copyright is owned by a government--which is possible, but debated--it still wouldn't apply unless it was owned by the Alien Property Custodian, which I find unlikely, but I guess is possible, and I wouldn't know how to check that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Microsoft

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Billinghurst's concerns are legitimate, and evidence to the contrary has not been presented for almost five months. I'm deleting this. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This new page is a combination of works by more than one author, which were included without a copyright statement. While it is a series of letters, there is no evidence that the correspondence is all public, or that the author's have intended for the works for the public in a licence that we can justly apply.

I requested comment about the editor's thoughts on copyright at the same time as placing {{copyvio}} on the work. {{PD-Manifesto}} was quickly applied, removing copyvio. I have put it back and left a commentary on the Talk page. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The source of this "unofficial translation" states "Copyright (c) 2005 ∙KoryoPAT- Rainbow Patent & Trademark Agency ∙ All right reserved". Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "P.O. Box: 19, Ryonhwa-dong 1, Central District, Pyongyang, DPR Korea" - the website is of a company within the DPRK, and is thus under the jurisdiction of DPRK Law. Thus, Article 12 and Article 32 comes into effect under law. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 12:

The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright.

Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 32:

A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner, in the following cases:

  • [...]When a copyrighted work is quoted,
  • When a copyrighted work is performed free of charge, (The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-commercial, non-profit organization)
  • When a copyrighted work in public places is copied.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

    • With respect to "when a copyrighted work is performed free of charge", The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is about "free as in freedom, not free as in beer". For example, we are not permitted to upload images to commons under CC-NC licenses. I believe the fact that we are non-profit is irrelevant here. Hesperian 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This looks perfectly acceptable, especially under Sec. 12. To what extent is the DPRK party to any international conventions? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea endorses the principle of separation of legislature from executive, but from where I sit, "documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive: refers quite explicitly to executive documents, and does not necessary encompass legislation. Hesperian 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


This may also be of interest to all: 조선민주주의인민공화국 저작권법 Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I see it, the copyright question we need to answer is US-based, and the translation is not clearly out of copyright outside of the North Korea. The original is clearly a Government edict, the translation is not so. The only argument that I see progressed is that it is not copyrighted within North Korea, and that has a lower level of relevance. billinghurst (talk)
Comment: Re Ec's questions WIPO's country profile:North Korea -- billinghurst (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Does the United States recognize North Korean copyrights? I know there are tags, like {{PD-Iran}} for countries that the US rejects. Is DPRK one of them? 76.117.247.55 05:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It would seem the DPRK is not on the list, see the ref above Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States -- billinghurst (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about applying Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 32 to send the translation to Canadian Wikilivres as a work with non-commercial permission? This depends on how Canada treats North Korean copyright.--Jusjih (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikilivres accepts works under NC licenses, but it is not clear if this one is under such a license. The copyright statement doesn't mention that the translation was done "free of charge". Yann (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hit Where It Hurts

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted by Ted Kaczinski according to this on page 19: "Theodore Kaczynski retains copyright to this article" ResScholar (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete the declaration is there, and without definitive evidence to the contrary, it should be removed. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I cant see that PDF. But if someone else has seen it, then I agree we should deleted it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, after verifying express notice of copyright on the referenced page of the linked PDF. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Brazil

Text comes from http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/br00000_.html (Search both for "ICL-Edition" that turns up in Articel 82. That website uses a http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/download.html non commercial copyright licence. 76.117.247.55 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that it came from that site? -- billinghurst (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they BOTH contain a parenthetical note in Articel 82 that the "ICL-Edition" doesn't contain a certain amendment. 76.117.247.55 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If from a website with non-commercial copyright license, transwiki to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The first url states
“ { Editor's Note -

The raw text is based on a version presented to the public at http://star.hsrc.ac.za/constitutions/constbrapre.html. The ICL edition has been revised with a translation by the Brazilian Embassy in London (32 Green Street, London W.1). Revisions have first been consolidated up to the amendments introduced by the National Congress of 1993. For adapting the text to our format, many changes and corrections had to be introduced. Article titles were added by Antonio Basto in 1996. A translation error in Art. 54 has been corrected in 1998. We have now incorporated the Constitutional Amendments No. 1/1992, 2/1992, 3/1993 4/1993 5/1995 6/1995 7/1995 8/1995 [ IN PROGRESS: and the Revision Constitutional Amendments No. 1/94 through 6/94 (Revision Constitutional Amendments being those passed in accordance with the special procedure provided for in Article 3 of the Temporary Provisions.) ] -- Dec 1999, A. Tschentscher }

 ”

[edit] The Memoirs Of Babur

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted. ResScholar (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Found a duplicate of this "unknown translator"-marked work at a University of Washington webpage. Apparently it's a revised version of excerpts from a 1921 translation that's copyrighted 1999 by the professor. The 1921 PD translation is at this Internet Archive link. ResScholar (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. ResScholar (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

}

[edit] East-West dichotomy

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept; I'm not entirely convinced it entirely meets all our requirements for peer-reviewed publication, but the copyright is fine, and if someone wants to keep that issue open, it can be taken to Proposed Deletions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

East-West dichotomy is a copy of a website; when I asked the contributor for evidence that it was free to copy, he added "Copyright: This work is in the public domain: Copyright permission" to the talk page, which is pretty clear that it's not public domain or Free Content.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi Prosfilaes! Sorry for the delay, just now returned. I asked for permission from the author in advance, who is a diciple of the recently deceased Ji Xianlin, and he placed a permission in form of a public domain release for his work Copyright permission, so I applied the tag category PD-author-release. Is it ok now, or should we ask him for a specific declaration to wikisource? Anyhow, I think this is a keeper. Laters. Hou Yi (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then the copyright is fine, but we also need to know that this was previously published, that this isn't just someone's webpage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi! I found it also published in archive.org with Creative Commons license: CC0 1.0 Universal. But it was self-published even before in China on Peking Uni campus via simple on-campus press [where we print our dissertations] (100 copies, 15 RMB each) and distributed in October 2007 for free, and immediately "disencouraged" by the authorities for its foreign authorship, topic, and quoting Mao, Ji, Gu and Li. But many think it is ok. The cover was transparent, and first page was a Europe-Asia map with two-colored eyes, like a face. Laters! Hou Yi (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about how universities in China deal with dissertations, but if this text is indeed a dissertation, there is at least some implication that it has been (according to my knowledge of how dissertations work) peer-reviewed. While WS:WWI states "published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication", if the text has actually been peer-reviewed, I'm not sure that its self-publication would be an issue. Of course, it would depend on whether or not the text has been peer reviewed. Jude (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in China we have same Masters, PhD and research dissertations and all are peer-reviewed. I put mine up here: http://www.wanfangdata.com/index.asp (over 20 million Chinese dissertations and journal articles). But this one is by a foreigner, so he is not there. Cheers.Hou Yi (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • May I suggest that since we have copyright permission of the author here and another Creative Commons license CCO 1.0 Universal here, and since dissertations at any major university are peer-reviewed, we should keep this one. Any objections? Cheers! ^o^ Hou Yi (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The House of Cæsar

I've looked on Google Books and done a general web-search, and the earliest publishing that comes up is Songs of Adventure, 1926. w:Viola Garvin says "Robert E Howard paraphrased a part from Viola Garvin's The House of Cæsar for his suicide note.[1]", which is problematic because the linked page says that there are two possible Viola Garvins, and that the British one is merely the more likely. The article has an unsourced claim that The House of Cæsar is the work of this Viola Garvin, but I don't know if I should put any weight on that. In any case, we have a poem, likely by a British poet (1898-1969), where the earliest publishing I can find is 1926. If it is first published in Songs of Adventure, then it's PD, as that's an unrenewed American work, but I rather suspect that book is a collection of previously published work, as Songs of challenge, an earlier compilation by Robert Frothingham is such a collection. Without more information, I find it not improbable this poem is still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just read through (British) Garvin's obituary (The Times, Tuesday, Jan 28, 1969; Issue 57470; pg. 10; col E )and it says that she only published one collection of poems in book Dedication in 1928. She was literary editor of The Observer from 1926-1942, with the time prior being spent as a school teacher. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up, definitely different, as the Viola mentioned in previous para died single. Whereas archive.org quotes Garvin, Viola (Taylor), Mrs as author of As You See It published 1922. For that I can find the twice recorded marriage (1921)
  • Garvin James L Taylor Violet A L A Hampstead 1a 1793
  • Garvin James L Woods Violet A L A Hampstead 1a 1793
Found marriage notice and it says Viola daughter of Capt. Harry Taylor (decd), King's Messenger. Found her obit in 1959, and says aged 76, and that she wrote quite a bit of poetry. So while different, I don't think that it actually makes any difference to the outcome. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
One problem, however; the poetry of the Garvin from As You See It is stylistically nothing like the poetry of the Garvin who wrote The House of Caesar; I therefore conclude that the Garvin of Dedication wrote this poem, and, seeing that it cam from an uncopyrighted book, I'm going to restore the text to the page. Stolengood (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't work that way that you can implement your own decision. We have a community-based approach and decision-making process. I have reinserted the {{copyvio}} on the work -- billinghurst (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I see two outstanding questions
  1. Whether the copyright of an author (the poet) is extinguished by a second party having published the poem when the background of the relationship, etc. is not proven or commented
  2. What is the first publication date of the poem, and would a second publishing of a work, in a book without copyright notice, extinguish the copyright of a work where the element of the contribution is not known.
My gut feel is that for a British author published after 1922, where the author died less than 70 years ago, that the work is still going to be copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The copyright of the author can and often was extinguished by the publisher mishandling the work. If the American publication was the first publication, I think we can assume it was with permission of the author. If it was the second, and the first was in the UK, then URAA would have restored copyright.
My gut feeling is that it was first published in the UK somewhere, which means that unless it was first published prior to 1923, it's still in copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Have I Not Seen

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept billinghurst (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear why the possibly copyright notice was put up on this. It appeared in Poems and Portraits in 1922. Don Marquis died in 1937. Both works published before 1923 and the non-posthumous works of authors who died before 1939 are in the public domain in the US. Mathlaura (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No; only works published before 1923 are PD. Life+70 is only relevant in rare situations in US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was still published prior to 1923. However, I did just notice that the version on the page is abbreviated. I have my original copy of the book not on me at the moment, but am going to check Google Books tonight. If I do not find it there, I will copy the full poem in when I can check it for accuracy from the original book. Mathlaura (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Here is the Google Books link showing the 1922 U.S. publication and copyright date. Life-plus-70 is irrelevant, as Prosfilaes said, because that provision applies only to works created in 1978 or later. But all works published and copyrighted in the U.S. before 1923 are in the public domain here irrespective of the date the author died. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Have I Not Seen redirects to The Mystic. Is there an explanation or justification for that? Also when one looks at Poems and Portraits for Don Marquis it states published in 1915. There looks to be some tidying up required. billinghurst (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clutha Vets book "While you're here"

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted

Hello, © Clutha Veterinary Association 2008 Published June 2008 by Clutha Print Print run of 500 copies Design & Layout – Paul Bonini ISBN: 978-0-473-13712-0 Yann (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

CommentIt looks as though as contributor pbonini (talk • contribs) has some relationship to the work itself, so it might be worth explaining to them about release with an Wikipedia:OTRS permission statement. If that cannot be received then it looks like a delete IMNSHO.-- billinghurst (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing heard from contributor, so we had better delete. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Quite clearly not acceptable; if we get a free release, it can easily be restored. Jude (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Letters from the Earth

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted, no Wikilivres posting through 2012 due to Canadian Copyright Subsection 7(1) for posthumous work: publication + 50 years til year end.--Jusjih (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know this work is still in copyright in the United States, having been first published in 1962. It was not published in Mark Twain's lifetime (certainly not in 1909 as stated).Sbh (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The edition published in 1962 was renewed as RE0000511344, though I don't know what "Basis of Claim: New Matter: changes, additions, revisions." covers. I assume some of it was published elsewhere, but it does seem to have been published as a whole first in 1962.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
"Letters from the Earth" was first published in 1962 in a volume entitled Letters from the Earth. This volume also contained other sketches and unfinished pieces ("Papers of the Adam Family", "Fennimore Cooper's Literary Offenses", "A Cat Tale") that Mark Twain had not published during his lifetime. The volume was prepared for publication in 1935 (I think--this is from memory) by Bernard Devoto, and some portions of it (though not "Letters from the Earth") appeared in magazines at that time. The book however was delayed due to the objections of Mark Twain's daughter, who was worried that the volume would hurt her father's reputation. She relented later on, in part because of Soviet accusations that Mark Twain's works were being censored, and the entire volume appeared in 1962. This was the first publication of the piece "Letters from the Earth," though other items in the volume Letters from the Earth had appeared in magazines previously. None of the material had been published before 1923, except perhaps brief quotations in Paine's biography or some similar source. Sbh (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The copyright status of "Letters from the Earth" has come up before; in fact I brought it up in March of last year, as I see by going through the archives. I'll summarize here what I said at that time:
Twain wrote the manuscripts during the last decade of his life. Bernard Devoto prepared them for publication in the 1930s and they were published in 1962. A second edition appeared in 1973 put out by the Iowa Center for Textual Studies. The Wikisource version reproduces Devoto's 1962 text rather than the ICTS 1973 text. "Letters from the Earth" was copyrighted in 1962 by the Mark Twain Foundation, and the copyright was renewed in 1990. This therefore puts it in the category of works published between 1923 and 1963 with notice and renewal (Help:Copyright and Wikisource), which should mean that the work is still in copyright. As near as I can tell from 17 U.S.C. § 304 the copyright should be in effect either 95 years from the original copyright date or 67 years from the renewal; either way that adds up to 2057.
Now I missed the continuation of this discussion in June 2008; it was argued that "Unpublished works ... by an individual author: public domain for authors who died before 1938 (70pma)" applied, and "On that basis, the letters are PD, and the edition of the book they appeared in is copyrighted." But this applies to unpublished works; "Letters from the Earth" was legally published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and the copyright was renewed; hence, the work is still in copyright and will be until 2057. Sbh (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Index:Mystic_Treatises

It's a 1923 work translated by w:de:Jan Arent Wensinck, a Dutch professor who died in 1939. It's under copyright in the Netherlands, now and in 1996, which obliterates any chance that it may be PD in the US. A couple sidenotes off-topic here, but GIFs don't seem to work well in the Index system, and it's important to upload scans of the title page and the back thereof, as that publishing information is critical in understanding the provenance and copyright status of the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scheme: An Interpreter for Extended Lambda Calculus

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Keep, {{cc-by-3.0}} -- billinghurst (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this in the public domain? Certainly, {{PD-USGov}} is wrong, as it's written by people working for a private university. The original publication history is too unclear for me to declare {{PD-US-no-notice}} without further information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As the paper says, the research was funded by the US Department of Defense:

This report describes research done at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for the laboratory's artificial intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense under Office of Naval Research contract N00014-75-C-0643.

As far as i understand United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Sections 105 and 106#Scope of the Prohibition, while it is possible in some cases for private authors to request copyright in works produced under federal contract or grant, the government has to approve it first: the intent is that the public should not be required to pay a "double subsidy" for works using federal funds.
I am fairly certain that none of the authors of this or other AI Memos have requested copyright from the US Government (and would be denied if they did, since the papers' production does not depend on commercial publication, and is thus not hampered by lack of copyright), in which case {{PD-USGov}} should well apply.
Am i understanding it right?
(For the record, the above and related historic papers have been freely distributed on respected and high-profile archives like the readcheme.org bibliography[2] and others for literally a decade, without the authors or MIT making any copyright violation claim.) --Piet Delport (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties", so PD-USGov doesn't apply. As United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Sections 105 and 106#Scope of the Prohibition says, "Where, under the particular circumstances, Congress or the agency involved finds that the need to have a work freely available outweighs the need of the private author to secure copyright, the problem can be dealt with by specific legislation, agency regulations, or contractual restrictions." [3] is another document with very similar text at the bottom about support by the Office of Naval Research, along with an explicit MIT copyright notice. The best bet here is to show that the MIT AI Lab notes were sold to the general public, which would mean that since it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's fell into the public domain--{{PD-US-no-notice}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Note also [4], which says "Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts are protected under U.S. Copyright Law. (See Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 (1982).) The ownership of the copyright depends on the terms of the contract."--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the legal murkiness of this, i emailed the authors asking for clarification (and/or explicit permission). I'll report here what i hear back. --Piet Delport (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Jay Sussman responds:

What's needed to make this official enough for Wikisource? --Piet Delport (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation from Patrick Winston:

and from Guy Steele:

--Piet Delport (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I archived the relevant correspondence on the memo's talk page, and changed the license template to {{cc-by-3.0}}; this can probably be closed. --Piet Delport (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Job well done! -- billinghurst (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Various works of Author:Montague Rhodes James

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted texts and transwikied to Canadian Wikilivres--Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This short stories are all listed on the author page as being published after 1922 by a British author.

They can be transferred to Wikilivres if someone is so inclined.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Were they also published in US? If so, when? Otherwise, I agree that they sound like they should be migrated. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Manual for Revolutionary Leaders

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept, published in U.S. before 1978 with no copyright notice. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No mention of publication date, unknown author, no source, no license, etc. Yann (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can find Manual for revolutionary leaders, by Michael Velli. Compiled and edited by Lorraine and Fredy Perlman
Description  	 Detroit, Black & Red, 1972. 261 p. illus. 23 cm.
Review
-- billinghurst (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
source given in edit summary. They say "This work has always been completely free." Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The web site cited in the edit summary is not the author of the work, and we have had problems before with hosting sites adding their own (legally meaningless) disclaimers of copyright. For what it's worth, only a snippet view is available at Google Books, signifying that the work may not be PD. I requested a hard copy (OCLC 1204535) via interlibrary loan and will see whether it clarifies things. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Checked against hard copy (OCLC 1204535) confirming publication in 1972 in by Black & Red, Box 9546, Detroit, MI 48202, U.S.A. Published text omits any copyright notice, and work was published at a time when the lack of such a notice vitiated copyright protection. Tagged work {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Also tagged {{incomplete}} to reflect fact that text currently online here includes only through the middle of p. 206 of the 261-page original work. Those with an interest in the subject matter will hopefully try to complete the work. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaica College School Prayer

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted, per Sherurcij. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Work has appeared without dates, author, copyright status, etc. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Author:James Ussher - biographical notes

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: No action necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The biographical notes in the history of the page, Author:James Ussher, are included with an e-book of Annals of the World, also contained at this address. The home page of the site that hosts the work contains a copyright notice, although I am informed the e-book notes the entire content as being copyright free. The bio may belong with the work, but I edited the author page to temporarily occlude it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Since this involves removing material from a page, instead of deleting a page, this request is not necessary. The writing style of the bio notes is not of the 1600s. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Lottery

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedy delete; 2) reclosed, ResScholar's point to WS:S

I doubt that this story was written pre1923 looking at the year of birth. Needs further investigation. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. The Lottery and Other Stories (Farrar, Straus, 1949)Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 09:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so that will depend on the country of publication, and if US, then on whether it had a copyright notice or not?-- billinghurst (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" was originally published in the 26 June 1948 issue of The New Yorker (a US publication) and was copyrighted at that time. The copyright was renewed in 1975 by her children.Sbh (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
Later note. This has been previously deleted. I have amended the text on the author page to {{copyright-until}}. We may wish to consider deletion of Author:Shirley Jackson as there are no works in place, and unlikely to be any for many years. -- billinghurst (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The story would become PD in 2045 in the US, 2016 in life + 50 countries. Keeping such author pages with information about how long copyrights will last is useful. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC))
Although the work has already been deleted, and the discussion closed, I am briefly reopening this section in order to draw attention to and promote the use of the template: {{Copyright author}}. This template, originated by John Vandenberg, to be placed on the author page, says that a preliminary search indicated the author has no public domain works with the possible exception of little-known early works. It is already being used on pages of modern authors such as Langston Hughes, W. H. Auden, Hannah Arendt, Kurt Vonnegut and John Steinbeck. Neither of the Wikisource veterans Billinghurst nor Eclecticology seemed to be aware of the template, so I suspect other interested users and admins didn't either. I wonder if the this copyright notice might be more appropriately featured in a more prominent position on the page (it's at the bottom on some of the pages of the authors I listed) especially when the {{populate}} template is used, which sends mixed messages in any case and might call for that template's removal from that page altogether. ResScholar (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Futility (Robert E. Howard)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Contributor moved it to Canadian Wikilivres:Futility (Howard)--Jusjih (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This 1926 work, whose American author died in 1936, seems to have copyright renewal registered in the USA [5]. If so, I suggest exporting to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That link just shows as NO PREVIEW in my part of the world. billinghurst (talk)
I don't know enough about copyright law to comment on that (and the google books link doesn't show me any information) but Futility is on Paul Herman's List of public domain works. The list has no legal standing, obviously, but it seems to be researched and accurate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The renewal appears in the Rutgers list with number R369097. It was done by one Mrs. P. M. Kuykendall. Is there some question that she was not authorized to seek the renewal? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Mrs Kuykendall inherited the rights to Robert E. Howard's literary estate, so that makes sense. However, I was under the impression that copyright was generally transfered (at the time) to whoever actually published the work; in this case Daniel Bake Collegian and Daniel Baker College. I tried looking at the renewals through The Online Books Page, which states that 1926 works needed to be renwed in 1953 or 1954; otherwise they became public domain. I can't find either Howard, Kuykendall or Daniel Bake Collegian with the scans on that site. As an added complication, there seem to be two poems by Robert E. Howard called Futility. See: Howard Works and w:List of poems by Robert E. Howard. (I should point out my potential conflict of interest; I upload the poem in the first place (and created that list on wikipedia for that matter). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
But a large part of the point of the copyright renewal is that it returned the copyright to the author or author's family. I'm not sure it's ever worth second-guessing a renewal on the paper, unless we have a court case or similar major clearance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this poem is in the public domain and the other poem by Howard called "Futility" was renewed. However, I cannot prove that so moving it to Wikilivres may be the safest option (which I have just done). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama's Super Bowl Pre-Game Interview

While I can understand that the words of the president would be in the public domain, I would have thought that the words of the journalist would still be covered by copyright. That being the case, having just having one side of the conversation may be possible, it doesn't make it much of a work. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have heard people suggest you can simply "summarise" the question, ie "[question about current economic downturn]", "[question about recent al-Qaeda tape]", etc. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 13:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A summarisation of the question would seem appropriate. Jude (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW... An official government source hosting a transcript of the interview has been linked on the talk page if it matters. George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a fine line here. Obama is still capable of producing works that fall under copyright protection, if he does so on his own time - but is any of his time really his own now? The posting of the transcript on a government website has no effect on its copyright status. The U.S. government could post Harry Potter on one of its websites if it cared to, but this would not eliminate the copyright protection afforded to that work (even if the author agreed to have it so posted). Work that falls outside of copyright as a product of the federal government falls outside of copyright because it is a product of the federal government. BD2412 T 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
While I fully understand that Obama (the individual) may enjoy protections that Obama (the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government) cannot, I believe the question here in favor of removal concerned the "words" of the individual who asked President Obama the questions in the interview, & Not Obama's Replies. Again, fully understanding GPO publication hardly equates to protection either, isn't this a matter of the medium used or one of location. I may be more likely to accept the idea that the actual audio or video of the interview by a representative of NBC News (Matt Lauer) may have some justification for an edit regarding only the questions asked by Lauer of the President -- but NOT so much when it appears in the transcription of the interview (which was a product of the White House Press Office and not NBC). Also, does it not matter where the interview was held and with understanding in place? I'm under the impression that NBC may have a basis to claim protection had the President come to one of their programs or studios to conduct an interview but in this instance, NBC came to the White House and was granted time with the President in the Map Room of the White House, which is hardly part of the First Family's private residence within the WH btw. Finally, the title may betray the actual content of the interview - which covered not only "Presdential Picks" for the Super Bowl but many many other topics that concerned various matters of policy and governance. The sport aspect is very minor compared to the rest of the content IMO. George Orwell III (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
A large amount of the content of the interview appears to be politically or "Presidential" related. I agree with BD2412, though. The Government can post, link to, and do whatever it likes with copyright material on its websites, and that does not automatically make things public domain. Jude (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe anbody has tried to claim government publication automatically meant the content is public domain. The reason(s) for listing the page here concerned the interview questions put to the President and not so much the President's responses. The rationalization then, given that point on assumed partial protection for the interviewer, was that content made up of nothing but replies begged the question of being worth keeping or not.... well at least that is how I interpreted this. George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed the whole thing, I'd have to say that Matt Lauer is the author of the questions, and owns the copyright in those (or the network that employs him does). Although some of the interactions involve very short follow-ups, it is pretty clear that Lauer sketched out his interview beforehand and stuck to that script. BD2412 T 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hold on - are we talking about NBC News' transcription of what aired on their broadcast attributed to the Today Show (Hosted by Matt Lauer) or the White House Press Office's transcription of the interview INCLUDING portions of which were not broadcasted nor transcribbed but the questioning therein is still attributed to having come from Matt Lauer. Does this matter? The 2 transcriptions are NOT the same {do a word search for the term "peanut butter" for example), begging the question of what relevance scripted question plays either way too. Does NBC lay claim portions of a work not aired by them nor transcribbed by them?
In addition to the above, what role does this WhiteHouse.gov {the EOP → White House Staff → Press Office) disclaimer play in all this:

Copyright Notice

Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

While this goes to the website, the transcript which eventually was sent to GPO as part of the Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, appeared on the White House website back in February first and was compiled then posted by the WH Press Office. George Orwell III (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If I write a short story and stick in a drawer (or record a video of my reading it and stick it on a memory chip), and I never, ever show it to any other person, I still own the copyright to that work. All that it takes is reduction to a tangible medium (i.e. recording). An erroneous transcription of such a work is a derivative work, still owned by the original copyright owner despite errors in transcription. Also, as I said before, the government posting copyrighted material on their website does not divest the author of copyright ownership, no matter the license accompanying the work. BD2412 T 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I think it's been made painfully clear already that NBC news retains it's rights to it's contributions to the work. Does the issue then become one of the waiving of NBC's rights under that Commons License or not, a.) allowing this work to pass WS copyright standards as long as b.) edits are made to comply with what's outlined by that license (Attribution) OR is it now really a matter of c.) summarizing/paraphrasing the questions, striping any attributions/mentions of the questions relating to NBC's portion and posting the GPO/WH Press Office version OR finally d.) none of the above because no matter waiver, edit, commons license, etc. the work cannot comply with WS copyright policy? Thank you once again for your input. George Orwell III (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The nature of the questions cannot be copyright, it is only the words where there is artistic merit. Summarising the nature of the questions should circumvent NBC's copyright, unless you want to start applying to NBC to get creative commons attribution/permissions. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Still having a hard time time framing this. If “any creative work fixed in a tangible medium by any person is protected by a copyright in favor of the author of that work” is the psuedo-litmus test here as well, arren't there 3 seperate distinctions of “works” in play here.
  1. Medium = The audio-video of the actual interview (fixed), where Matt Lauer → NBC News have the claim of copyright to their work (audio & video) and the President → Federal Government have no claim their's as per law for works of the Federal Government nor have they attempted to reverse this default by seeking a claim as normally the case for these typ of Government works.
  2. Medium = Electronic/Printed Text (fixed). Afterwards, NBC News transcribes the aired portions of the interview and makes that available with protections in place as the author of that work. Matt Lauer is irrelevant as an employee of NBC News anyway but also because he is no longer authoring anything for this work.
  3. Medium = Electronic/Printed Text (fixed). Afterwards, the White House Press Office transcribes what it believes is the entire interview, aired or not, posts it on White House and eventually makes it way to the Government Printing Office as part of the Daily/Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. Obama is still not a claimant because he is an officer of the Federal Government anyway but also because he is not the author of this work as well, the White House Press Office is, and the President could not make a claim because but for that reason too.
So aren't we looking at three individual works: 2 of which are partially (Matt Lauer's audio/video) or fully (transcript of aired portion) NBC News' “property” and the third (transcript of entire interview) being “property” of the White House Press Office? I guess my hang up is akin to something like a newspaper article quoting somebody but having the person they are quoting somehow still having claim to copyright of the quoted text within the work that was solely created by the author of the article. Appologies if I'm not making myself clear here. George Orwell III (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The White House transcript would have been made after the interview, i.e. after the work was fixed in a tangible medium by NBC. Therefore, it would be a derivative work, with NBC still having ownership of the copyright. NBC can't 'own' Obama's words, since he is speaking in his capacity as President, and those expressions go right into the public domain. However, NBC owns everything else coming out of that interview. BD2412 T 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Okie Dokey - I can see a basis in a justification for removing it (as hypocritical and convoluted as it may be in the grand scheme of things) now and simply suggest deleting the article but allowing a listing for it to remain on Obama's page - linking to the external GPO hosted version rather than the current page in question.... unless somebody thinks it's worth summarizing the questions and keeping the rest content instead?
I do, however, believe if this is the standardard for these kind of works for major heads of state (past, present or future), it is a policy that is flawed if not flat out petty and needs a better solution at some point down the road. George Orwell III (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
And there is the difference between just and legal. Also, try to remember what is the purpose of Wikisource. It is not to record verbatim every conversation, nor every speech, nor to record every item about US law and US presidents, it is to reproduce published works in the public domain. So when NBC loses its copyright on the work, we can reproduce, so our task is to work hard at being here for that time. :-) billinghurst (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Unity

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This work is in the public domain. The problem is we don't know when the translation was done or who did the translation. We also know who did the transcription (that is actually what is listed as the translation by mistake right now). We don't know when the transcription was done, however. The work is public domain, so we can definitely add it later, we just might need to add a different version of the text. We just need to know if this version needs to be deleted. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In a Grove

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted

Possibly a misunderstanding by the uploader; the famous original was published in 1922, but this is a later english translation. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The earliest edition I could find is 1970, a US publication. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's by Takashi Kojima, I think we can assume that's the same Takashi Kojima who translated Written on Water: Five Hundred Poems from the Man'Yoshu (ISBN 0804820406), first published in 1995, so there's no way that it's not copyrighted, unless the translator wants to release it to us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete from the evidence provided. billinghurst (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with its deletion. It seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of a later translation that is definitely not freely licensed. Jude (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
On a second glance through, this is a very clear cut case. Deleted. Jude (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted

This is the autobiography of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, translated by Author:Mahadev Desai with volume one first published in 1927 and volume two first published in 1929. There are no U.S. copyrights listed for this book at Stanford, and according to the Library of Congress the English translation was first published by Navajivan press in Ahmedabad, India.

Mahadev Desai died in 1942, so his works passed into the public domain in India in 2002. This is of course after January 1, 1996, so its copyright status in the United States should be reckoned according to U.S. law, which grants a copyright term of 95 years to works not published originally in the U.S. that are still under copyright in their country of origin on January 1, 1996.

This kind of case was considered before in the WS:COPYVIO February 2008 discussion of The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam and was voted as delete.

The copyright issue was discussed on the talk page, reproduced here:

As mentioned in the talk page, the copyright owner (Navajivan Trust, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380014, India) doesn't enforce its copyright. It doesn't care about it. While in Ahmedabad, I asked them permission for translating some of Gandhi's works, they said "Why do you ask? Just do it!" For me, it's like they release the works under a free licence or in the public domain. So I think we shouldn't enforce copyright when the owner itself doesn't. Yann 12:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The message on the talk page doesn't come across with as much confidence as you do now (for example, "AFAIK, the Indian publisher do not mind it"), so that's why I posted here. Anyway, I guess it would be a pretty big switch for them to suddenly want to sue us for copyright infringement. However, is it possible to contact them and get them to explicitly release the work? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The postal address is above, but right now, their web site is not available (http://www.navajivantrust.org/). I found a mail on [6]. Mail sent. Yann 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Book is in public domain in India. In fact, the publishers lament that there may not be many takers for the book given the modern Indian society's current favorable disposition with material things, something which Mahatma Gandhi, through this book, forcefully preached as evil. The complete book is scanned and available on [7]. Wikisource should have no hesitation in reinstating the work on its pages. EyeMD 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If the publishers indeed lament that the work has not achieved greater distribution, they'll have no problem releasing it into the public domain in all jurisdictions. It's better to get that assurance first, rather than speculate on their wishes. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If you wish I can volunteer to go to Navjeevan Trust and ask for their permission. I am based in Ahemdabad. But then I don't know exactly how to do that. Is there any template/license letter for that which I can get signed.

The appropriate course of action, if the work is still desired to remain on Wikisource, is the filing of an OTRS release. The instructions are available at this location.

Otherwise I will remove this work in two weeks, if there is no objection to my reasoning. It seems as though someone already anticipated this eventuality, as the author page of Mahadev Desai already points to a Wikilivres copy of the work.

If the release ticket is provided at some future date, the work can be undeleted and restored.

ResScholar (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, it has always been my understanding and desire that WS operates under a different copyright policy than Commons - in that we allow texts that are PD in either the United States or their country of origin. Those which are public domain in neither, but only in Canada, are moved to Wikilivres. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 13:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That would defeat the purpose of the URAA. In the digital age, the technologized U.S. has the ability to publish at will throughout every corner of the world. Back in the day, while publishers in the less developed countries had to jump through hoops to get a U.S. copyright, at least they knew if they didn't do so, they could reasonably expect that they wouldn't have to compete with U.S. publishers in their own country. The URAA prevents the U.S., which is more technologically adept in both marketing and publication, from monopolizing the trade of talented writers who have provided benefits to readers of the English language (and others) and accruing financial benefits for works which it really had nothing to do with. ResScholar (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC); 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC); 08:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • But we aren't legally allowed to do that. The law where the servers are and where the foundation is legally organized only allows us to post works PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Doesn't India use 50 years duration? If yes, that would have taken it out of copyright prior to 1995. So then using the summation via the link at the top, it is more on the status of all the copyright components/labels and whether within or without the 30 days publishing. I would like more information before committing, though favour KEEP looking at the history. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No, India uses 60 years p.m.a., so it was taken out of copyright in 2002. ResScholar (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Duration in India was extended from 50 to 60 years in 1992, and retroactively extended to cover all copyrights then subsisting. Whether copyright was properly in the hands of Desai (d. 1942) or Gandhi (d. 1948), it seems to me that the latest date by which copyright would have ended in India would be 2008. It appears that the work was published in the United States in 1957, but I find it significant that a more recent edition of this publication asserts a copyright in the forward only, not in the work itself. BD2412 T 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I find the lack of a copyright notice on the Google version of the book significant as well, but perhaps for opposite reasons than yours. The foreword was copyrighted 1993, which suggests to me that that particular edition (found on Google) was prepared in 1993. The URAA did not take effect until January 1, 1995, so with the autobiography not having met the technical requirements of U.S. copyright registration earlier in the century, the U.S. copyright was not given until January 1, 1995 when it was granted by the URAA. Consequently the copyright notice did not mention including the whole work back in 1993 before the URAA took effect and probably not in later printings of the same edition even though the U.S. copyright did exist after 1995. Right below this remark Prosfilaes mourns the lack of U.S. edition of this autobiography, but unbenownst to him the Navajivan Trust that Gandhi himself set up has already found a U.S. publishing partner and, according to the book's Google page, is making the book available for reasonable prices on various book dealers' websites. ResScholar (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment; a clear release could serve so many more than us; I think it a positive value to humanity that Dover Publications and kin could put physical copies into people's hands without legal concerns, and that ebook companies could release them in various ebook formats.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • As this work is PD in India, I don't understand what kind of OTRS permission you want to get. Yann (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • How about permission to use it in the US, since it's not PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I don't think the previous copyright holder in India will give any permission. And I personally doubt that URAA restoration is currently valid. Yann (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with ResidentScholar (talk • contribs) and Prosfilaes (talk • contribs) that the best way to go here would be OTRS confirmation. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Letter in The Times of 2 February 1955 concerning legal status of Formosa

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted

Copyright violation. Durova (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a letter written by a British author and published by a British newspaper in 1955, and thus is certainly under copyright in the US. I have no idea when the author died, so I can't tell whether it can be transwikied to Wikilivres; he would have had to die within four years of writing the letter to be PD in Canada.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that you know what you are talking about...I don't want to cause troubel...Pity though, it was a great summary. I have no idea why you are talking about Canada or the USA....The Times is a UK publication and the author was studying in London at the time....Either way. I defer to you and will not argue. Regards. Formosa (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikimedia servers are in the US and the foundation is legally based there. That means that they have to follow US law. Wikilivres is a server, legally unassociated with us, in Canada that can take many files not available under US copyright law but available in Canada. For the most part, Canadian copyright law protects fewer works then most other nations, including the EU. There's no way this is out of copyright in the UK; it might be out of copyright in Canada (and Taiwan) provided he died shortly after publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
One may be able to argue that a letter to an editor for publication in a newspaper could be implicitly classified as a public manifesto, especially as the newspaper published the letter, and there would have been no specific release of they copyright to enable that to be undertaken. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: I can find the author of the letter, Georg Schwarzenberger, alive in 1985. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Golan v. Gonzalez

Please familiarize yourself with this case and its related cases. I researched this case when Yann mentioned that URAA Restorations would not be sustained. To me Golan v. Holder seems to say that if a work produced in a country foreign to the United States was in the public domain in the United States prior to 1994 (for example because copyright registration or renewal was not complied with) which is when the United States URAA Restoration acts were passed, it stays in the U.S. public domain. Does anyone else read this differently? ResScholar (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The last page of the Judge's decision in Golan v. Holder[8] says "Accordingly—to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government’s interest."
[9] seems like a helpful and hopefully accurate summary. In particular, this paragraph seems to say the question on whether we are free to upload these works, even in the Tenth Circuit, is still up in the air, as we're not a reliance party.
The second significant issue will be whether the statute should be invalidated on its face as overbroad, or whether it should be invalidated only as applied. If the statute is invalidated on its face, that would allow these plaintiffs to use ANY work of foreign origin that is in the public domain, whether or not they had relied on its public domain status. Indeed, unless and until Congress acted to fix the statute, even non-reliance parties could use works of foreign origin in the public domain. If the statute is invalidated only as applied, that would allow these plaintiffs to use only those works that they were in fact using prior to the restoration, which would be a much narrower decision. In either case, because collateral estoppel does not apply to the government, a decision by the Tenth Circuit would be binding only on the parties and others within the Tenth Circuit; it would not be binding outside the Tenth Circuit. Parties in other circuits could still sued (or prosecuted) for infringing works of foreign origin that were in the public domain prior to restoration.
As for whether we could be considered reliance parties:
Congress would almost surely try to enact some version of copyright restoration again. Remember, the plaintiffs conceded that Article 18 of the Berne Convention requires some type of restoration. [...] There also would be the question of whether a new statute would apply only to parties that relied on the public domain status of a work before its INITIAL restoration (on January 1, 1996), or whether a new statute would also have to protect parties that relied on the public domain status of a work after that date, but before the effective date of the new legislation. If Congress is required to start anew, a party who is considering utilizing a work of foreign origin that is in the public domain for failure to comply with formalities might be well advised to begin using such a work right away, in order to ensure its continued right to use such a work after the next restoration.
(And, yes, that's all fair use material, not GFDL or CC.) So we don't know whether Section 514 of The URAA has been overturned or not--I think the question of whether the court is going to void it in whole or consider it invalid in certain cases, not including us, is still up in the air--, we do know that the case is going to be appealed and that it's not yet been ruled on in a court binding on us, and we pretty much know that Congress is going to pass a new law with the same effect on us if this case survives on appeal and that it or may not require us to remove all the texts we uploaded.
Given all that, I don't see us as justified in uploading works not covered by the URAA, even if there is a narrow chance that we might get to keep them after all is said and done.
I'd also like to point out that the ramifications of ignoring the URAA are much different here from the Commons. The vast majority of non-American works published prior to 1989 would be fair game. Everything written in India in the 1980s would be acceptable. I've seen people storm out of w:Distributed Proofreaders because we were doing pre-1923 Finnish works by an author who died a mere 50 years ago; how many people are we going to alienate by accepting works by living authors made in the 1980s?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your last paragraph: why is it different here than in Commons? Indian law is 60 years pma, so I also don't understand your reference to works from the 1980s. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Because Commons requires that it be in the public domain in its home country, whereas en.Wikisource has only required that it be in the public domain in the US. Hence the vast majority of works worldwide published prior to 1989 would be in the public domain save the URAA, regardless of its copyright at its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not so sure. At least for European works, I don't think there is a significative difference of quantity: only works of authors who died between 1926 and 1938 are concerned by URAA. While there are some European works which are public domain in USA but not in Europe because there were published before 1923, but the authors died after 1938. Yann (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No; if a work published prior to 1989 wasn't registered for copyright in the US, it was in the public domain in the US. For legal reasons, the Copyright Office has lists of works that were in the public domain that the copyright holder now wants to express legal ownership of[10]; this list includes "Keiji monogatari 3 shiosai no uta", i.e. a 1983 movie, and this list includes the more literary Bambi, written by Austrian Felix Salten, died 1945.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Prosfilaes, for sifting through the case and its commentary and sharing your learned understanding of this new wrinkle in copyright law. ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The URAA copyright restoration since 1996 did not accept the rule of the shorter term. I wonder if any appeal has been filed. I expect the US Congress to try a constitutional amendment to support any new copyright restoration on foreign works once published without complying with US formalities. This court case would not affect foreign works published while complying with all US formalities, in which case they would never lapse US copyright while the rule of the shorter term does not apply. In case of any doubts in the USA, Canadian Wikilivres can host most works that may be under URAA copyright restoration.--Jusjih (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiography of a Yogi

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedy keep (withdrawn) billinghurst (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I just received this note on my talk page.

Hi, the Chapter 49 of the book Autobiography of a Yogi" is in public domain in the USA. Since 2005 it is part of the book Autobiography of a Yogi: The Original 1946 Edition Plus Bonus Material printed and sold by Crystal Clarity. You can check at [[11]]. The synopsis says: "(...) This updated edition contains bonus materials, including a last chapter that Yogananda himself wrote in 1951, five years after the publication of the first edition. It is the only version of this chapter available without posthumous changes."
Best regards,
--Tat Sat (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the course of confirming Tat Sat's claim I found Renewal record R590359 a 1974 renewal of the 1946 work which shows that whether or not chapter 49 is copyrighted, the first 48 chapters almost assuredly are. ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn The 2000 Federal case linked to on the Title/Table of contents page notes that the Renewing entity, listed at the work's Stanford Renewal record I linked to above, was not eligible to renew. ResScholar (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Nobel Peace Prize citation

Hello, This text is certainly not in the domain public. Yann (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. I went through a discussion with the editor a few days ago (after I deleted it for similar thinking). There is discussion on my talk page, with Cyg, and there are links to ability to use and reproduce on the work's talk page. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Comfortable to roll over on this especially in terms of subsidiary use from our site not protecting or providing further protection.-- billinghurst (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: If any permission to reproduce per http://nobelprize.org/nobelweb/terms_use.html is found but incompatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, transwiki to Canadian Wikilivres. The permission does not seem incompatible.--Jusjih (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: The permission says:
Press releases
Except where noted otherwise, press releases that appear on this Site may be downloaded, reproduced and published (and in the case of text-based materials, translated) by members of the press.
You are not allowed to use the Nobel Foundation trademarks when publishing or using press releases. </quote>
which only gives permission to members of the press and doesn't give permission to make derivative works besides translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Delete per http://nobelprize.org/nobelweb/terms_use.html

  • "You may not reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, modify, perform, adapt, generate derivative works or otherwise use the Content without prior written permission – if not expressly stated elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions of Use."
  • "Except where noted otherwise, press releases that appear on this Site may be downloaded, reproduced and published (and in the case of text-based materials, translated) by members of the press. "
  • "Commercial Use of the Nobel Foundation trademarks and other Site Content is expressly prohibited."
  • "All rights not expressly granted by Nobel Web herein are specifically and completely reserved. Nothing on the Site or in these Terms and Conditions of Use grants, expressly or implicitly, any right or license to use any Content or property of any third party."

I don't see how this could possibly be reconciled with http://freedomdefined.org/Definition, which has been endorsed and adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Hesperian 04:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you also need to read this http://nobelprize.org/contact/copyright/index.html

“ Permission in writing is not required for:
...
Use of the press releases from the Nobel Foundation and the Nobel Prize-Awarding Institutions, with the exception of logotypes and Nobel Prize design marks ("the Nobel Prize medals") ...		 ”

within the same context. I believe that this discussion has been closed and deleted preemptively in light of the prior discussion. I am not saying that it was incorrect deletion, I don't think that it meets a speedy determination.-- billinghurst (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think that this may be able to be resolved with OTRS. It doesn't sound as if they are trying to hold tight to their press releases. billinghurst (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Properly re-opened, though leaving the actual article deleted, so we can discuss. Personally, I still think delete:. Permission to use something copyrighted on Wikisource does not necessarily mean that it is compatible with our licensing system. I don't think this makes it free or fit our requirements. Jude (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Due.billinghurst (talk)
  • Keep I think we fit quite well within the press release permissions. Specified exemptions generally override broader legal provisions. As to what is meant by the press, that word should be given a broad interpretation. In this age of blogging and citizen journalism we are all the press; a narrow interpretation would bar anyone but those with physical printing presses from using the press release. We are not interested in reproducing the trademarks, so that part is moot.

    A rigid and narrow attitude about the copyrights of press releases defeats the purpose of such documents, and invites misinterpretation of the intent of those who released them. Has there ever been a legal case anywhere for the republication of a press release? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • We are a collection of Free Content, not just anything we can post. If everyone and anyone, even those clearly non-press, cannot fold, spindle and mutilate it, then it shouldn't be here. There's many archives of press releases, especially for something like this; let them who don't worry about Free Content keep a copy online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's right. By putting it here, we aren't just saying we're allowed to use it; we are saying everyone is allowed to use it. Hesperian 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. Our own page on copyright defines free content as "Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation". I see nothing that suggests that the definition is met by this work. Even if Wikisource fits into a specific permission, such as "non-commercial use", or "educational use only", allowing texts which do not conform absolutely to this spirit of freeness can only be detrimental to Wikisource, and Wikimedia as a whole. Jude (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, the licensing restrictions seem clearly outside the scope of “Free Content” as defined at WS:COPY. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted billinghurst (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this speech meets the stipulations of {{PD-manifesto}}: there is no evidence that this speech is intended to be released into the public domain by its author, nor is there any clear evidence that a reasonable effort has been made to verify that a work is unlicensed.. Indeed, consider a recent discussion where US State Governor responses to State of the Union addresses were deleted, here:

For one thing, I don't agree that just because a member of Congress makes a speech, even a political one, that he or she is necessarily acting in the course of his official duties. Furthermore, it's simple fact that the law only excludes copyright on work "of the United States Government", not works of the states. States can and often do assert copyright, so even if state governors are government officials speaking as government officials, their speeches still aren't in the public domain--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I think it should be deleted. Jude (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. We have had the discussion before; a speech is not free of copyright, there is no evident exemption by law due to the person. billinghurst (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This speech is not an edict of government.--Jusjih (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    Wait, does it fit Wikilivres:Template:Manifesto with Canadian copyright permission by law? If yes, I suggest importing to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I dispute the notion the speech does not qualify as an edict of government. The introductory line clearly states she is making the address as an officer (the Governor) of the State of Alaska and continues to refer to the actions she had made as acts of the State Executive or as acts undertaken as allowed by law in the role as Governor of Alaska through out the bulk of the address. Although it's peppered with non-governmental related tangents at times, the overall content still collectively outlines a policy position and a mini state-of-the-state review of sorts while serving as the vehicle to what amounted to an informal renunciation of the oath taken when she first officially took office in the process. She also points out the order of succession that will take take place after her departure by the time she gets around to the conclusion. The content of the speech is/was also made available for public inspection via the State of Alaska website-- not that doing so is a clear indication that the speech falls under being excluded from protection under copyright law but it does go to document archival and leans toward being classified as an official text. George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how a resignation notice, is an EDICT of government, unless the legislation otherwise defines edict differently than common terms. An official letter of resignation signed by the person would more likely be classified as such an edict. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. (Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01Online
I believe this can qualify as an " Edict of Government " if the document (the transcript) can be classified as an official text, not as a work of the US Federal Government, but as a work of the Alaskan State Government. Many states tend to mirror the Federal practice although some states, such as Florida, reqire an act of it's legislature to set the copyright status of that state's governmental works - BUT that is clearly noted/refrenced on such works. While the omission of such "a right to retain" copyright protection does not indicate the same does not also apply in Alaska's case, the lack of that type of notice not only on the address in question but the entire executive online catalog of various works, from what I can tell, does tend to lean the other way and indicate they mirror the Federal statue IMHO. Again, the optimal input here would be somebody familar with Alaska and it's legal framework (which I am not). George Orwell III (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Really? I can do nothing but disagree. I would consider an edict as something more powerful than an announcement of a glorified press statement. I would expect that it would be a formal tool. In a Commonwealth jurisdiction that would be a ruling, or something signed as part of formal government process, eg. Governor-in-Council. Surely there was a formal letter of resignation that would be required under legislation or constitution, that started a process that appoints a successor. That letter would be the edict IMNSHO. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well was this a matter of public policy as it related to the role of the Chief Executive of the Executive branch of the Alaskan state government and the peaceful & orderly transfer of power from one administration to the next without an election having taken place but rather a resignation causing the change instead or not? If so, then absent any Constitutional or legislative infringement otherwise, the publication can easily be considered matter of public policy by the Governor (the Chief Executive as before) and qualifies the transcript as official "State" text. If you'd rather not take the omission of any disclaimer, terms of use or standard indication of copyright status on the Office of the Governor's (the Executive Office) webpages as an indication of where exactly this and similar Executive works [I suspect] fall under, then I don't know how else illustrate the nuances involved when it comes matters of the Executive, the Executive Offices or any agency considered part of an Administration that normally reports to the Executive at any level of Federal, State or local government in the U.S. George Orwell III (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a creative work. This is not a declaration that "Governor Palin is resigning". If it were just a few lines of formal text explaining that Governor Palin was resigning, and perhaps outlining a few circumstances, I might agree, but it is very clearly not. Jude (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
That is one person's subjective opinion. The address was made by the still Governor of the State of Alaska and intended for the public at large as a matter Alaskan state administration or policy. The quality of content or method invoked to convey whatever pertinent information the chief executive deemed necessary or appropriate at the time, be it motivated by sincere public interest & welfare or not, has little to do with if the transcript of the address meets WS standards for allowable works.George Orwell III (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
None of which makes it Government Edict and hence not demonstrated to be definitively clear of copyright as per US law. Your eludication of the perceived intention of a US state governor's website and the lack of over restrictions does not make the transcript public domain, and thus able to be hosted at WS without restriction.-- billinghurst (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

← I did not mean to infer any of this was absolutely definitive -- not being an Alaskan lawyer and all. I merely tried to point out that this, as well as several other similar Executive "works" aren't going fulfill the hard definition of a Government Edict but still can be considered official texts that relate or are relevent as matters of Public interest or welfare (Policy) and allowable for (re)use in the public domain as such. The original premise was that this was not intended by the author for use in the public domain and that no effort was made to determine if the work is licensed or not. Well I take issue with the definition of who exactly the "author" is when it happens involve any individual holding nearly all of the noteworthy Executive-type positions in American government and also tried to point out that at least the online Executive hosted content lacks the same copyright, terms of use, etc, that the other 2 branches of government seem to apply diligently. Of course this means nothing definative either way. George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment
    • 1. This is a speech made by a person who was Governor of a State at the time.
    • 2. In the speech the person speaks as "Governor" to the people of state as citizens.
    • 3. The speech is a Resignation speech
    • 4. A copy of the speech was made a available to public via the State of Alaska website
    • 5. The press was invited to come.
    • 6. The speech made in front of news TV cameras
    • 7. The broadcast by the press.
    • 8. There no copyright notice that I can see on 2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech
    • 9. Copies of speech are on the web.
  • As I see it this is a {{PD-manifesto}} This not One-0n-One with Larry King Live, Speech at a Fundraiser, part of new Book, poetry at a coffeehouse,or a lectures in classroom. When someone invites the press(most if not all) to a speech about politics and makes a free copy of the speech was made a available to public without copyright notice it is public. When any party gives Response to an Union by Address the President they invited all the press to show it.--Lookatthis (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where you address the legal aspects of copyright, and how they apply in this situation. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
First I am not an Lawyer and I do not claimed to be however I think myself reasonable personare we going ask ever person in politics who makes a speech about politics before press "I agree to irrevocably release my speech in the public domain" what is Saturday Night Live to do if politicians public speech are not in public domain...I know we are not Saturday Night Live...if are going to use {{PD-manifesto}} this goes in if not lets use only {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-old-80}},{{PD-old}} --Lookatthis (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully Prosfilaes can clear this up (State claiming copyright where the Federal Government would release into the public domain; points 1, 2 and 3), but a few replies to your points. Point 4, websites can and frequently do post copyright texts. Since when does this public posting release them from copyright? I don't know of any instance where it does. For points 5, 6, and 7: fair use would cover this. We do not accept fair use texts on Wikisource. Point 8, copyrighted is assumed. Point 9: this has not been and never will be a reason to accept texts on Wikisource. "Because it's available elsewhere" we could accept Harry Potter and whatever else pirates post online with this reasoning. As Billinghurst points out, you haven't addressed any of the legal concerns, which are:
  1. Are speeches by State representatives copyright by their respective state, or at least, are they not automatically released into the public domain as would be the case if it were federal?
  2. Regardless of this, could this text be considered an edict of government and therefore, under US law, not be considered eligible for copyright? I'm disinclined to go with this assessment, though, as (Wiktionary puts it), an edict is a declaration of law or an authoritative commands. This is an announcement, which is neither. Jude (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - For the reasons George Orwell III mentions and also because in going through a few pages of the highest-rated Google hits for various phrases from the text, I note that it has been reproduced in quite a few places (including a number of mainstream media web sites and Alaskan government web sites) without any licensing notice. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Other people reproducing a copyrighted text (in fair use, likely, or illegally) doesn't necessarily mean that it is licensed in such a way that allows it to be hosted on Wikisource, and we do not accept fair use texts. They are also not required to indicate any licensing notice, as it is assumed to be copyrighted. Jude (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I am an intellectual property attorney. This text is subject to copyright protection. I have made a thorough search of Alaska statutes, and found none that ameliorate the automatic federal grant of copyright protection to any kind of work produced by the Alaska government, or any official thereof. To the contrary, many Alaska government agencies specify the copyright protection of their documents - see, e.g. Alaska Fish and Game Copyright Notice (stating: "Copyright protection begins automatically from the moment the work is created in fixed form and begins without any formality, process, or application. In keeping with changes in copyright law in 1987, the standard copyright notice (e.g., © 1999 Alaska Department of Fish and Game) is not required to establish copyright"). Cheers! BD2412 T 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. The law says "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy." This doesn't fall under any of those categories; there's no precedential value, there's no penalty for violating it, etc. It's public, yes; but I see no reason to think that that means we have unlimited rights to fold, spindle and mutilate. Are you sure they wouldn't send a copyright takedown notice against a bad Spanish translation; a willfully mangled Spanish translation; a translation into Redneck; or a video with whatever offensive backdrop you can imagine?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment − Just to be clear, there is no Federal Law that uses or defines the term Edict of Government as far as I know. The term and any application of that definition comes from the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01 Hosted Online. It is intended to be used primarily by the Copyright Office staff, as a general guide to the Copyright Office policies and procedures. Wikipedia does not cite any instances where this internal manual or the definitions found within it has been given any legal standing in court or specifically used as anything other than the guide it was intended to be for Copyright Office staffers. I only gave it credibility as being the generally accepted definition because it has been used as justification in of one of the PD banners over on Wiki. George Orwell III (talk)
      • At the very least, what that Compendium means is that if they send the speech in for registration, the copyright office will send them back a document that's prima faciae evidence in any US court that they own a valid copyright on the speech. Furthermore, the definitions we're finding elsewhere is backing it up; the 1913 Unabridged Webster's says an edict is "A public command or ordinance by the sovereign power; the proclamation of a law made by an absolute authority, as if by the very act of announcement; a decree".--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment If there is an administrator who is Lawyer who has gone to Law school and is a member of Bar good standing who believes this in Public Domain then the administrator/Lawyer should Keep it if the administrator/Lawyer think it is NOT in the Public Domain Delete it-- tell us why as Lawyer any way ---There is no need to have debate between non-Lawyer (like myself) about what the law is.--Lookatthis (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not sure if you're implying that the people who have commented on this so far aren't lawyers, and therefore shouldn't be making judgments about copyright, or something else entirely, but either way: we have plenty of contributors who are not experts in copyright (myself included), but have quite a bit of experience with different topics of copyright and can make judgments in line with our policies (as, indeed, Wikimedia Foundation council Mike Godwin seemed to support in his office hours chat a few weeks back), but we also have some experts (or, though not intending to imply any illegitimacy, people who claim to be) such as BD2412, who have clearly stated that they don't believe this text could be considered public domain, and have then explained their reasons why. Could you clarify exactly what your issue is? Jude (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
          • If it is under copyright it under copyright no matter how many people say it Public Domain. I think that works like this Should be Public Domain, However "Should be" and "what the law is" is not the same think. I just saying let a lawyer make the call short write essay why.--Lookatthis (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
        • For the record, I will be glad to provide evidence of my credentials as an attorney and my bar admissions to an admin or 'crat here on the condition that my anonymity be otherwise secured. I think it would be useful to do so now in order to dispel any future 'if he really is a lawyer concern. BD2412 T 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - As if it matters, since the enactment of the cited statue which that and other departments bases it's authority under to claim copyright, Alaska State Executive Order 208 transfered the control of all online government publications to the IT department of the Office of the Governor. Again I'm no lawyer but one authorizing statue is based under the Alaska State Procurement Code, as referenced in the Fish and Game Code chapter of the state statutes specifically and the other is for the ability to retain software rights as far as I can tell. Anyway... I don't know how accurate this collection is, but it may be useful to the discussion. George Orwell III (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • By default, Alaska has a copyright on the speech. They have to specifically reject it for the speech to be in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Who is this They , What did they say, When did say it,Where did say it , and Why?--Lookatthis (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Excuse me? Given the incoherence of that question, my only idea is to point you to w:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and hope you can figure out the answer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
          • So which is it? The idea that the controlling entity for all materials made available online for the Official Alaska State website (happens to be the Executive} makes executive-generated content (the transciption of a prior Governor's address) available online but with no clear assertion to retain that automatically granted-upon-creation right to protection as some of the departments have choosen to practice that also, by chance, again, answers to the same executive arm of the Alaskan state government or as the other two branches of state government choose to practice in thier assertion for their content disqualify the article or is it that Copyright Office's guidebook definition of what constitutes an official text as a being a true Edict of Government that disqualifies the transcription from being hosted? George Orwell III (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
            • What? The fact that it's not a government edict means the government of Alaska has a copyright interest. They don't have to clearly assert their rights; they just exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Sorry for any confusion. I'm not disputing that the State's interest may exist or once existed, I'm disputing that the guidelines in an inter-agency manual constitutes the absolute definition of edicts, official texts or matters of public policy, interest or welfare as outlined within it are... or that those definitions have any real legal standing in light of no given precedent or test in a court of law. Congress may have willed the creation of such a guide in 1976 to accomodate the re-write of 1909 copyright law but 30 years later that means very little -- other than for those who use it as a guide at work. George Orwell III (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
                • It's very simple, really. Under U.S. law (as conformed to international treaties), any creative work fixed in a tangible medium by any person is protected by a copyright in favor of the author of that work. There are exceptions, one of which is that the U.S. government disclaims copyright protection of works produced by the U.S. government. This does not apply against the states. Some states have taken it upon themselves to enact legislation which effects a similar disclaimer of copyright in government works. Alaska is not one of these. Another exception to the automatic extension of copyright protection is for certain public acts, for example ordinances and court decisions. The reason for this exception is that people have the right to know the law that governs their conduct, and to convey that information to others. A state can not pass a statute and then prohibit citizens from exchanging copies of the statute, because everyone has a right to be informed of what the law may require of them. A state court can not issue an opinion and prohibit copying of that opinion because that opinion may bind future courts facing the same issues, and therefore has an effect on people's rights similar to a statute. The same goes for a rule promulgated by an executive department. The common thread is that people have a right to copy and exchange documents which govern how the state requires them to behave. A resignation speech is nothing like these things. BD2412 T 16:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • Thank you for expanding on your reasoning on this. I'm curious about a side issue & as a tangent - would Sarah Palin the common everyday legal resident of Alaska have any claim to content, materials etc. she authored or had control over, such as the transcipt of this address, as Sarah Palin the one time Chief Executive of the State of Alaska or does the State retain primary right to the works, specifically the current and any future Executives? George Orwell III (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • This is actually the very typical issue of employer/employee copyright precedence. If you work for a marketing firm, for example, and your boss tells you to draft a campaign for a client, you should be under no illusion that you own the copyright in that work. If you write a letter of resignation, you probably do own it, unless this was something that your employer directed you to write and mapped out the content. Palin was under no legal duty to give a speech regarding her resignation, but she did so in her capacity as governor, and under the title of governor. It would be useful to know if any state funds were used to support the event itself. That would clinch it for me as being a product of her employment, making the speech property of the state. BD2412 T 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
                      • Actually, I believe this was a plain copy first made available as prepared remarks prior to the event (which was still further before the effective date of resignation) took place. I'm not all that curious to see if text matches up with what actually transpired, personally. I would think the actual video/audio or maybe just the content in the form of a PDF with State letterhead and any other pomp and circumstance that typically goes with it would be enough to clinch it. State funding may not be so straight forward because, ironically, one of the previous issues that hounded the former Governor revolved around disputes over the legitimacy of State reimbursements, travel allowances and similar payments made to her when they seemed not to be related to her duties -- 'nuff said. George Orwell III (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • Thank you. Lets see If I got this Right:
                    • 1."Under U.S. law (as conformed to international treaties)"Anyone Sarah Palin, Brian Schweitzer, Steven Spielberg, myself,Et cetera can make a "creative work fixed in a tangible medium" let us say a movie then the "Author" can give away the movie for free, show it to only friends and no-one else, only let it be shown if it is shown uncut, Show it in Movie theater world-wide one time only(one day, one shown, same time U.T).
                    • 2. Works of the United States federal government are in the public domain (17 U.S.C. 105).
                    • 3. States Can themselves to enact legislation to disclaimer of copyright in government works.
                    • 4. Alaska has not
                  • I hope I got this right--Lookatthis (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
<- (Un-indent)
(I am not a lawyer! :-)) Regarding point 1, I believe you are absolutely correct. Copyright exists for basically this reason: if I write a novel, I can get it published, give copies to my friends, they can exchange it; book stores can sell it, newspapers can review it, but I still retain control over the text. Unless I have explicitly released this copyright (or indeed, signed a contract which hands copyright over to my publisher, or whatever), this will remain the case until my copyright expires.
There seem to be a large amount of speeches hosted on Wikisource on the proviso that delivering the speech in public somehow releases all copyright on it automatically. As is currently being discussed on the Scriptorium, this could be the case in Canada (where Wikilivres is hosted), and it would therefore make a lot of sense to move speeches there instead of hosting them here; either way, in my non-lawyerly opinion, I believe that continuing to host these speeches could prove to be a problem for Wikisource and the foundation at a later date. It would also prove problematic for re-users of our content.
Regarding your last three points, I also believe this is correct. Regardless of whether or not Sarah Palin holds copyright over the speech, if she does not, then it could be assumed that copyright lies with the Alaskan State Government. Even in this case, as you point out, Alaska does not disclaim copyright automatically on works produced by them. So, in summation, it's copyrighted in either interpretation. Jude (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - How sure are we that she is the author, anyway? (Actually, this question could apply to any speech uploaded here that was delivered by a government official and cites that same person as the author.) --LarryGilbert (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Does it matter? If she's not, then the 'real author' owns the copyright, unless it was a work for hire (which it probably was). Either way, we can't host it. BD2412 T 13:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Absolutely, I agree with you. My concern was with the person who really did the writing being credited as the author. I take it that Wikisource's policy is the same as that of the world at large (that the authorship of a work-for-hire belongs to the one who is doing the hiring). --LarryGilbert (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Best evidence supports that no exclusion from copyright, so not in public domain.
billinghurst (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of Organic Agriculture

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy delete billinghurst (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a copy of this web page which says "© IFOAM 2009" at the bottom. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, has been labelled as suspect, though it does predate 2009, that will indicate that it is probably an earlier copy. billinghurst (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To the Bird

To the Bird by Hayyim Nahman Bialik , translated by Rachel Genussov and Eliyahu Ziffer

I have tried to start a conversation with the contributor and explain our requirements, though all that has occurred is the claims of release. As the author died 1934, I cannot put a lot of credence to that without further evidence. Anyone read Hebrew? -- billinghurst (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You have asked several questions and I answered. The Encyclopedist (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like we will need translation permissions for OTRS.-- billinghurst (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Since I am not accustomed with the legal terms would you be so kind to put here a draft of the required permission and I will have the transcribers signed it. The Encyclopedist (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Instructions with a pattern letter for acknowledging a licensed release (permission), can be found at this location. Except the e-mail should be addressed to permissions@wikimedia.org ResScholar (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1998 Cornell Senior Convocation Speech

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy delete Durova (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This text appears to be from the Cornell Chronicle's website. [12] I'm not aware of nor can I find any free-use terms on the site. --LarryGilbert (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing there to indicate that the work should be in the public domain. billinghurst (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. If not a very "public" speech, even Canadian Wikilivres may be unable to take it, unless any copyright holder's permission to repost is present.--Jusjih (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with deletion. I see no evidence to indicate that this speech was intended to be widely reproduced. Indeed, the speech seems specifically aimed towards those present, rather than the public in general. Regardless, it is still not our decision, and without a clear release, it should not be included on Wikisource. Jude (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Health Insurance: A Criminal Enterprise

First published (according to the contributor) here with an express copyright notice: “Copyright (c) 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.” Paragraph 2(a) of the site's copyright policy also suggests that the publisher ordinarily obtains an assignment of copyright from the original author as a condition of publication (similar to common, although not universal, practice in the offline world).

The contributor asserts, and I have no reason to doubt, that the original author of the piece consented to its posting here. The copyright provisions of the publisher's web site, however, call into doubt whether the original author can effectively grant such consent, since he appears no longer to hold the copyright.

In any case, more than the contributor's say-so is necessary before a copyrighted work may be hosted here; the work must be republished under a compatible open-content license, or the current copyright holder must communicate their approval directly to WMF via OTRS. Unless and until one of those events occurs, it would appear that this work cannot be hosted here. Tarmstro99 (talk)

  • Delete. Good research, Tarmostro99. Durova (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World Community Day

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedy keep billinghurst (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Women's responsibility in today's world

These two works have been added with {{PD-self}}. As the author is deceased, it would seem to be a claim of a copyright holder. I have asked the editor to supply a permission to mailto:info@wikisource.org -- billinghurst (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor has responded on Billinghurst's talk page and the "possible copyright violation notice" changed to "OTRS pending". ResScholar (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Keegan (talk • contribs) reports OTRS received and releases copyright. Applied to pages. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
{{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3964064}}

[edit] Living Enrichment Center: The 21st Century Church

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedy delete; page creator misunderstands copyright. The US requirement for a copyright notice ended decades before this document was first published. Durova (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The justification in the talk page that it was published without copyright notice does not apply to something originally published in 2004. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, it's either an anonymous work or a work for hire, but either way, it's not going to enter the public domain until the year 2124. (See Cornell's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States under "Never Published, Never Registered works.") --LarryGilbert (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Bear or The Empty Perambulator or The Pathos of Ignorance

The only place that I can find this poem via Google or Google Books is in the 1997 The poems of A.E. Housman. Given that Housman published two books of poetry in his life, we have both of them, and it's not to be found in either, unless a publication date can be found pre-1923, I think we're safe in assuming this was a first publication post-1923, presumably British, and thus out of copyright. It's good for Wikilivres, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding More Poems, Additional Poems and Notebook Fragments, since Wikipedia indicates they all were published posthumously.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations"