Wikisource:Possible copyright violations

←Community pages

Possible copyright violations

Archives (current)→

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 Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States

Discussions

Template:PD-1996

Template:{{PD-1996}} seems to contain an error because it doesn't match the Cornell copyright term guide at the top of the page. Here is what it reads now:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996, and was never published in the US prior to that date. This work may still be copyrighted in other countries.

I think it should read: "was in in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996, and was not published in the US prior to 30 days after its first publication in its home country".

ResScholar (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC) corrected: ResScholar (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It still glosses over a few things -- if a work had a copyright notice and was still registered properly in the U.S. in the first place, it could still be copyrighted -- the URAA thing just means copyright was not restored; it would not remove existing copyright. Some countries have a URAA date later than 1996, etc. But the previous text was plain wrong, and this is a good improvement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Carl are you suggesting further amendments to Angr's rewording? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the logic of my suggestion is as plain as I supposed it was, so let me say here clearly that my suggested wording loosens the restrictions the current template declares now in its design of following the law. In their use and history of design, it can be seen many templates like these were originally intended to simply declare an exception in a large swath of cases related to the prohibitions of a convenient area of law, like a year, rather than explain all the exceptions applying to a particular law in one template. Over time some have been refined to be of even greater use through gradual incorporation of those sorts of explanations, sometimes through a wikilink to Wikipedia copyright policy statements, which are to prevail anyway.

Finally, this isn't simply an exercise of the intellect on my part, I found some cases I would like to use the template on to dispose of backlog, and I want to make sure all my Ps and Qs are accounted for when I apply the template to a particular case. If we want to redesign the template now that's fine too, but, Carl can correct me, what would remain would be items giving a fuller disclosure of reasons showing why the law applies and of countries to which the law does or does not apply. This would make the template more adaptable but bulkier, but these sorts of deferable trade-off questions might be better suited to a time when we want to deal with many templates at once. ResScholar (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The bit about simultaneous publication seems overly technical to me -- maybe just say "foreign work" or "Non-U.S. work" instead (as something simultaneously published in the U.S. is considered a U.S. work). I probably would emphasize that the copyright was not restored, and link to the relevant URAA bit (or the wiki article). And possibly w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights, which has a lot more detail. Actually... the wording in the first half of Commons:Template:PD-1996 is a lot more precise (and does include the 30-days bit); I'd say to switch to that, minus the note at the bottom which I think is more commons-specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading a bit more closely, the middle condition there should probably be changed to "first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice)" . Notices were required until March 1, 1989, but anything first published since would still be under copyright even if there was no notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. I support the compositional principles you advise. When I get the energy I'll do a mock-up here of a new template with your ideas (if someone doesn't beat me to it), and we can work from there. ResScholar (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Add discussion notice at Template talk:PD-1996 Jeepday (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Need a check for The Adventures of Pinocchio

Would someone with some time please have a look at translation The Adventures of Pinocchio and seek within the registration databases. Our work states that this translation was published after 1923. May need a little formatting too as to me it looks a little light on. I will do some digging on the author. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - seem to be several versions available for en.ws to host (like this nicely illustrated one), but unfortunately, what is here I see no reason to be PD based on translation date. - Theornamentalist (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: There is some work already started in WS, see Index:Collodi - The Story of a Puppet, translation Murray, 1892.djvu. It would be a nice book to work on. Once the disussion is settled, pls let us know which one to carry on. --Mpaa (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I started this one. --Mpaa (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

“	RE-544-960 TITL: The Adventures of Pinocchio. AUTH: Carlo Collodi, pseud. of Carlo Lorenzini, illustrated by Naiad Einsel, afterword by Clifton Fadiman, translated from the Italian by Carol Della Chiesa, author of renewable matter: the Macmillan Company CLNA: Macmillan Publishing Company (formerly the Macmillan Company) (PWH) DREG: 9Sep91 ODAT: 14Oct63 OREG: A659373 OCLS: A LINM: NEW MATTER: ill. and afterword XREF: Carlo Collodi , SEE Carlo Lorenzini , 1826-1890	”
—http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~lesk/copyrenew.html

• Comment can someone interpret that for me. If it is a 1926 publication, and the renewal took place in 1963 that would be after the 28 year period, so it is in the public domain? Or is the registration for a later translation? FWIW the author died in 1972. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Found and image here confirming 1926 publication
• Found a source Italian Literature Before 1900 in By Robin Healey (page 6 & 7) listing 1926 & 1929 publications.
• A search of Copyright registrations for 1953 & Copyright registrations for 1954 does not find a renewal listing the translator.
• Looks like {{PD-US-no-renewal|1972|pubyear=1926}}, which I have changed to on the work. If there no objections in the next two weeks this discussion will be closed. Jeepday (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Photography: Theory and Practice

Photography: Theory and Practice by Louis Philippe Clerc and the scan Index:PhotographyTheoryAndPracticeOCRed.djvu have very confusing licencing. The original is claimed as still under copyright but this UK translation into English is declared as in the public domain under US law. Unless there is some complicated issue caused by the interaction of three countries' copyright laws, this is presumably covered by the original work (unless that is actually in the public domain and erroneously declared as still under copyright). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is published in the US and UK (New York and London) in 1937. Taking just the US publication into account, it is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The UK version is still copyright, as the author died in 1959 (i.e. PD in 1959+70=2029). I'm not sure how the two rules intersect. As WS takes the US-rules view (which is great for pre-1923 and non-renewed stuff, not so good for weird URAA things), I would imagine we worry only about the US publication, but I'd like clarification on that as dual UK-US publications are ten-a-penny. The translator died in 1934, so life+70 is satisfied, but the translation is a derivative work, so it's also copyright to the author. Same reason we can't translate a modern French book and PD-self it! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep See discussion at User_talk:Atelierelealbe#Copyright on Index:PhotographyTheoryAndPracticeOCRed.djvu. The original may or may not have copyright in the US, though it is my opinion that the translation is public domain due to it having been published with permission, and therefore it stands alone for copyright discussion, ie. the right to copy was granted, and the translation is now public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep If the translation doesn't carry the copyright relating to the French original, then the English version is certainly PD in the UK now (life+70), PD in the US via URAA (same year) and life+50 in the UK in 1996, and PD in the US anyway by non-renewal. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Eugh. It sounds like the translation was published simultaneously in the US, so there is no URAA to worry about, and the PD-US-not_renewed is enough for that. Unfortunately, it is *still* a derivative work of the original book, so if those rights still exist, there could still be a problem -- the fact that a derivative work expires has no affect on the copyright of the original, and that includes the right to control derivative works. I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of court cases where a movie was not renewed, but was based on an original novel, and since only the one studio had a license to distribute the film from the novel's copyright owners, that studio still had the only rights to distribute the film. I'm pretty sure I see some publications of that French book back into the 1920s, maybe even 1926, but not earlier. If the copyright on the original was restored via the URAA, then yes there could be a problem with the derivative, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Export to Canadian Wikilivres as L.P. Clerc died in 1959 and George E. Brown died in 1934, as the 1937 French publication would trigger URAA.--Jusjih (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment -
  1. I'm not at all clear from the information above when the original work was first published; but it sounds like it was after 1923. The rule under US law for foreign works of the period (assuming they weren't published within 30 days in the US) is 95 years from publication. The URAA does not invoke the French law but rather forces the US to treat the work as if it complied with all US formalities. The copyright period for US works that were registered and renewed during that period was also 95 years from publication. So, again assuming the work was not published in the United States within 30 days of publication abroad (and was not published prior to 1923), the French original is still in copyright until 95 years after whenever it was first published. The dates of death of the author and translator are irrelevant to US copyright in this case.
  2. Even if the copyright on the translation has expired as to the translators the copyright as to the original remains and generally continues to control the publication of derivatives, including copies of the translation to the extent not licensed. Billinghurst has an interesting theory which essentially means that when the author licensed the translation, he was giving up his right to control the translation should it's copyright on the licensed work earlier expire. However, this would suggest that a licensed derivative work that failed to include the circle-c would also be in the public domain. The general rule is that for a derivative work a+b, there are two (somewhat) independent copyrights on the two parts of the work. In a translation, there is no way to identify what part of the work is the original and what part is the derivative, but the rule still holds, there is no merger of the creative content and therefore no merger of the copyright. Thus only that part of the work that is original to the translator is in the public domain. If you can identify it, you can publish it.
  3. Another way to look at it that gets to the same result is this: the publication of the translation constituted a US publication of the original (or part of it) greater than 30 days after publication abroad. The work would be protected for 95 years from publication.
  4. Where is the evidence that this work was published in the United States other than the multiple addresses of the publishing house? I may have missed it, but I didn't see a circle-c on the work and without that I'd find it hard to believe a US publishing house handled any part of it.

  --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  I have exported Photography: Theory and Practice and its sub-pages to Canadian Wikilivres, but some related pages like Template:PhotographyTheoryPractice lkpl may also require exporting as Index:PhotographyTheoryAndPracticeOCRed.djvu does not work fully at Canadian Wikilivres. Therefore, I am leaving this discussion open until all exports are complete.--Jusjih (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:John Masefield.djvu

Mpaa (talk • contribs) points to pages, containing dates, within the work that indicate that it was not published until 1923. We are going to need to do further exploratory work to determine the status of the work itself, and possibly some of the components. Note that the file was sourced from archive.org, though they cite it as 192[?] — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The date is 1929. From http://www.zvab.com/displayBookDetails.do?ts=john-masefield&itemId=128685646. I couldn't find any indication of copyright renewal (or even copyright notice, which would have been required at that time anyway). No indication of copyright renewal of the individual articles, or even other locations where they exist (using Google, the works indicated at the ends of the articles could have their archives trawled, but they are clearly not indexed by Google). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this decided now? I ask as I noticed that File:John Masefield.djvu still mentions possible copy-vio. Thanks --Mpaa (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that is one opinion. It will take a little longer for the community to come to a conclusion, as you may note from the age of those at the top of the page. You are welcome to have your opinion, and to present any evidence for or against the work's status. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Did not want to push ... still need to get familiar with processes. I asked as I had some pictures in the pipeline and was waiting the 'GO' before uploading to Commons. I do not have an opinion, I just saw something fishy and mentioned that. I am a bit hesitant with copyrights as they are a tough subject and I am too new in the business :-) --Mpaa (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Worldcat shows a book answering this description [1] from this Worldcat search, plus the back cover indicates that it was a US publication or US/UK. So to me it looks published in the US, and either a situation of no renewal, and the {{Pd/1996}} looks okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Further research is necessary. This is not a single copyright work, it's a collection of reviews put together by MacMillan Company (Masefield's publisher). I have updated the file page with {{Book}} and clarified the authorship (Masefield had been listed as the author but Masefield was the author of none of this - save some of the excerpted poetry in the reviews!). There appear to be 6 separate works here, five of which were previously published in major book reviews (one is from the NYTimes Book Review) and four of which are attributed (at least 2 to authors we have other works by). These works carry whatever copyright the originals carry. Failure of MacMillan to include the circle-c or renew this work has no effect beyond the possibility that MacMillan may have breached the copyright of the NYTimes, etc. The first and largest work would appear to be a creation of MacMillan Company and is likely {{PD-US-no-notice}}. The other works need to be individually researched to find out what year they were published and if they were renewed - they are so extensive (probably the complete reviews) that they are unlikely transformative/fair use.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  Oh and I'm not confident of the 1929 publication date as the above link also states that the biliography runs through 1929, the bibliography runs through 1926. Still the publication date is obviously >/= 1926.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  Also, the two links provided by Billinghurt appear to be the same. I think this is the correct WorldCat entry, though I don't consider it very helpful. And, {{Pd/1996}} is clearly not the right tag, the work was obviously published as it is a marketing work by a major publishing house.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bills

I have noticed that some time ago, you deleted Commonwealth of Britain Bill on the assumption that it was a copyright violation. The effect of section 166 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 appears to be that a Bill is only in copyright whilst actually passing through Parliament. If it is not actually in the process of going through Parliament, it appears that you can print it. You do not need to rely on it being an edict of government. So you might like to consider undeleting it since the deletion discussion seems to say that it has been withdrawn and is not therefore copyright (though it will become copyright again if reintroduced).

And see also ss. 166A to 166D. James500 (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If it can become copyrighted again it can not be on Wikisource as it can not meet GFDL, which is criteria. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's Parliamentary Copyright (which is what that section is), and I don't think it terminates once it's no longer going through Parliament (that would only have the effect of possibly changing which house actually owns the copyright). I believe they are now licensing that type of thing under the Open Government License, which is basically like CC-BY. I still think it should have been kept under that. The "edict of government" thing is U.S. law, which may or may not apply as well (it would certainly apply if the bill becomes law), but that doesn't have to be used as logic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary copyright does terminate once it's no longer going through Parliament; at least as far as I can see that's the effect of clause (5)(b): "Copyright under this section ceases [...] if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent, on the withdrawal or rejection of the Bill or the end of the Session[.]" (followed by a proviso related to the Parliament Acts, but they don't apply here). - Htonl (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Htonl here, AND it states specifically under that section at that time, and at which point the other parts of the act again become active, whereas it does not say that at that point it becomes public domain or no copyright exists, and you would still need to refer to section 165. At this point I do not believe that we have demonstrated that it is public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, clause (7) does say that no copyright can exist: "No other copyright, or right in the nature of copyright, subsists in a Bill after copyright has once subsisted under this section; but without prejudice to the subsequent operation of this section in relation to a Bill which, not having passed in one Session, is reintroduced in a subsequent Session." But the problem, as JeepdaySock has pointed out, is that tricky "subsequent operation" - if the bill is reintroduced it comes back under parliamentary copyright. - Htonl (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not yet found a clear description of it but this Bill might be licensed under the Open Parliament Licence (which appears to be exactly the same as the Open Government Licence; licence template {{OGL-UK}}). At least, Parliament's Parliamentary Copyright page doesn't list it as an exemption. I believe both the OPL and OGL are Creative Commons compatible. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, you're right... and as mentioned clause 7 implies that unpassed bills are completely uncopyrighted after the Parliament is finished (the text seems to preclude any sort of copyright from other parts of the act having effect), and passed bills revert to being Crown Copyright instead of Parliamentary Copyright. At any rate, I think the Open Government License is the best way to deal with this kind of thing, as they seem to be using that now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So where does that leave us? I really have no understanding of this but someone just contacted me on IRC about it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

On further review, I have restored the work though I've left the copyvio tag in place pending final resolution. The fact that a work could potentially re-enter copyright status is not a GFDL/CC-BY-SA violation because the work is currently under no copyright (if the arguments above are correct) and thus is public domain. The possibility that it could be removed from the public domain is purely speculative. The application of the Open Government License needs to be clarified as well.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

PD status aside, if a bill can be furthered in a legislative body by being (re)introduced, be it amended or not, wouldn't that make it an evolving work and that becomes the reason not to entertain hosting it? I know we host a handful of U.S. bills that also never made it into law, or were superseded by other bills that did, but [if I recall correctly] the consensus was that works in such constant, likely or unknown states of flux (idle being a state of flux here I guess) was of little benefit to, and beyond the scope of, WS.

There just weren't enough people around & willing to go back and (re)check, then add every legislative revision during a plain old mark-up stage forget about across different committees or multiple sessions/sponsors. I don't think much has changed since then so someone across-da-pond really needs to get an official position on what those Open Gov't/Parliament/Crown tags allow for in relation to what works WS can/cannot/should-not host under them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I consider that legislative bills should be excluded here unless the contents are finalized and fixed, even if dead, thus no longer evolving works, and the copyright licenses are definite and acceptable. What I say is to consider the inclusion and copyright policies. Please do not post works with any reasonable doubts. There are still many much more acceptable official works to post.--Jusjih (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chairil Anwar works

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted all five for no translation license provided.--Jusjih (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Works listed:

• Gravestone
• Let This Evening Go By
• Mirat's Young, Chairil's Young
• Some are Plundered, Some Escape
• While the Moon Gleams

Rationale: Although the original work is PD in Indonesia (due to age), the translation is not; the translation has enough creative input to qualify it for copyright protection. (Side note: A poem could not conceivably be considered "news") Also, it was originally published in the United States, which means that US copyright law applies to the translation. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete from the evidence provided. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Raffel (the translator) appears to have done a work called "Selected Poems" from the same poet,[2] published in New York in 1962 or 1963, which does not seem to have been renewed. If any of these poems (with the same exact wording) were in that volume, those might be different. However, I'm sure any of these poems are in there at all. Secondly, the Indonesian author died in 1949, so his works became PD in Indonesia in 2000, which was after the URAA. While it sounds like he died with no heirs, it's possible the copyright on the originals still exists.  Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian copyright information. Chronologically the colonial 1912 Act was in play until the 1982 Act was put into place, and it seems that the 1982 Act only gave 25 years protection post death, which would have had the work come out of copyright in 1974 in Indonesia, so to me it seems that the original work was not in copyright, so it comes down to when the translations were done. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Their term was expanded to 50 pma in 1987, but you're right, that change may not have been retroactive, meaning the cutoff date would be people who died in 1961 or before, for URAA purposes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Does anyone have access to the 1962 book? Noting how he mistranslated "Nenek" as "Grandfather" in his 1970 book, I'd expect there to have been some mistranslations in the 1962 work; conceivably some could have been fixed in the 1970 work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Holy Qur'an

• Previous discussion: Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2008-09#The Holy Qur'an

This text was deleted then restored. I noticed it didn't have a translation licence and when I tried to work out what that licence would be I hit a wall. This is a 1934 translation, made by an Indian scholar, printed in Lahore, British India (now Pakistan). First, I have no idea which country's laws apply here. Second, the translator died in 1953, so it's still under copyright by British law (1953+70=2023) and Indian law (1953+60=2013) but public domain by Pakistani law (1953+50=2003); however, by the URAA, it may also be copyrighted under United States law (1934+95=2029), unless I've missed something in the history of those laws. So far, I have not found an explanation for the restoration beyond the edit summary "restoring an older version so that links work" (which makes little sense without context). I haven't added the {{copyvio}} tag as I'm very unsure about whether this really is a copyright violation or not and this is apparently a relatively important translation. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The URAA I think says to use the country with the "greatest contacts with the work" when it has been simultaneously published in multiple countries. The author was born in present-day India, may have been living in the UK at the time it was written though traveled a lot, then was published in British India (present-day Pakistan). Oof. Berne Convention would definitely use Pakistan I think (shortest term). I would not use the UK; British India was a colony. The 70 pma extension did not come until recently. I could see it deemed as being simultaneously published in India and Pakistan though. Given the URAA definition... I would lean towards Pakistan. But... while it may be PD in Pakistan and countries which use the rule of the shorter term, I don't see how it is PD in the United States, as the copyright would have been restored I think regardless of which country is used, unless the translation was also published in the U.S. at the time (don't see evidence of that). Interesting that Project Gutenberg has a copy though; they are pretty careful I thought with this kind of thing. And from the en-wiki article, copies have been around the web for some time. It is also on wikilivres. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Levon Ter-Petrossian speech at the rally of 15.05.2009

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Unless there is a special law for Armenian politicians, Author:Levon Ter-Petrossian, it would seem that this work would seem to be copyvio. I doubt that political speeches of this regard would be declared government edicts. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear billinghurst sDrewth there is no copyvio here, Armenian legislateion defines poitical speeches free of copyright, therefore as a part of public domain. here is the article of armenian Law on Copyright and Related Rights,[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Armenia._Law_on_Copyright_and_Related_Rights#Article_4._Non-Protected_Works

Bauer v. Glatzer original complaint

• • move from Wikisource:Proposed deletions to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Proposed deletion became copyright question, moved to appropriate venue. Jeepday (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is basically an attack page. An agent who took advantage of her authors took exception to people more famous publicly calling her on it, and sued over it. I don't see that we have any need to maintain this, as it's not terribly notable that I can see. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that IMNSHO this sort of addition is not noteworthy, and at this stage our guidance on all these legal type works that have not been traditionally published have insufficient guidance on the notability/inclusion aspect. My preference is to be a lot tighter than we do at the moment, though I do note a diversity of opinion through the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The document is or should be a referenced source at History of Wikipedia. Also note WS:N is a red link, unlike w:WP:N. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, the article's referenced to PDFs at the w:Electronic Frontier Foundation, and in any case, this is obviously not the "original complaint", as Wikipedia was included in the "second amended complaint", which was tossed out anyway. https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/bauerorder.pdf --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have found the scans for the "Second Amended Complaint" at the EFF and made a new page with the complaint and the order dismissing it against the WMF at Bauer v. Glatzer et al.. I am not sure where the "original complaint" has come from as all mentions of it seem to me mirrors of our own content, while the second one is in several places. I'd say delete it as redundant and unsourced, and we can have it back if a source were ever to be found. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would caution that so far as I am aware, complaints filed are not public domain documents. There have been a few recent cases where law firms have asserted copyright interests in the text of their own legal filings, against other firms who copied passages for filings in other cases. BD2412 T 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

On closer inspection this is quite possibly the case. I have no prejudice against a deletion on a copyvio basis (nice to know that lawyers like to sue each other as well as everyone else). However, I think the case is at least of passing relevance to the WMF projects since it is relevant case law for the lack of liability for a website such as Wikipedia (or Wikisource) for actions of its users, so if we could have it, I think we should. Presumably the dismissal falls under {{PD-EdictGov}} and can be kept? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever documentation of the case is created by the court itself will indeed be in the public domain. In fact, one anomoly of copyright law that I've noticed in the past is that, if a court quotes lengthy passages of a copyrightable document, the court itself is immune from infringement claims, and at the same time the opinion, including that copyrightable content, enters the public domain. BD2412 T 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tend to agree that while the complaints and other material produced by the two sides in a case are public record, and distributing copies as part of documenting the court case would not be copyright violations, they are not "free" in a copyright sense. {{PD-EdictGov}} is about the legally-binding aspects, which would be the rulings. Obviously anything produced by a federal court would be PD-USGov as well, though non-ruling documents produced by state courts may possibly be copyrighted too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rats in the Walls

From Category:Possible copyright violations,was subject to a closed discsion without a clear decision at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2011-02#Weird_Tales_copyright_renewals_and_other_H._P._Lovecraft_periodical_renewals. Jeepday (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure we ever found a valid renewal for that one, did we? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find a specific renewal for that story when I was looking for Weird Tales renewals (in which it was first published) although the issue itself was renewed by the publisher. However, Lovecraft died in 1937 and the publisher-renewal was in 1951. From past discussions, doesn't this mean they lost the right to renew his works? If so, public domain; if not, copyright until 2019. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald report

Unlicensed work, appears to be an unpublished 1953 work, which would give keep it from PD for 120 Years. Possibly used as a document of the court. Jeepday (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the source? Presuming that it is not the work of a federal government employee. The work of a state govt or county govt rather than the work of an individual that possibly has been released into the public domain? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Per w:Lee Harvey Oswald would seem to be "Youth House (NYC, NY)", April/May 1953, (truancy, confinement) it is unclear if this is a government or contracted private organization. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mouss

This is a group of works listed on {{Mouss}}, the come to my attention through Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Empty pages. Appears to be a mix of copyright status issues along with general housekeeping issues. Jeepday (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• {{Mouss}} - Housekeeping, generally WS would use a portal for this type of connection.

  Potential portal replacement created: Portal:Zacarias Moussaoui. How much of the content is to remain depends on the resent of this discussion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Moussaoui and Reid Connection - unlicensed work of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
  • U.S. District Court materials would be PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• FBI Report, and motion, concerning Moussaoui's pursuit of marriage - unlicensed work of FBI
  • FBI materials would be PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• FBI eMails concerning Moussaoui - unlicensed work of FBI
  • FBI materials would be PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• Substitution for the Testimony of KSM - unlicensed work of unclear source, tagged {{copyvio}}
• Moussaoui's motions to the court - unlicensed motion, tagged {{copyvio}}
• File:HWMotion1.jpg - unlicensed image of motion, tagged {{copyvio}}
• Response to Moussaoui's motions - unlicensed work of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • U.S. District Court-authored materials are PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• 8-6-2001 Presidential Briefing - unlicensed memo is PD-USGov
• File:Memo1.jpg - unlicensed image of memo
  • Duplicate of proper Commons image File:CIA Memo.JPG
• File:Memo2.jpg - unlicensed image of memo
  • missing 2nd page of proper Commons image linked above -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript; PD licensed, featured content included here for completeness.

The_Variable_Man

Hi. Is this work PD? It has been published in 1953 and isn't this the copyright renewal notice [3]? --Mpaa (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just find out this on w:The_Variable_Man#Copyright_status, so probably this question is already answered. I leave it anyhow here for a final check. (WP is trustworthy but not not always correct :-) ) --Mpaa (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The talk page there points out that the copyright renewal Mpaa refers to is only for the "compilation, additions, and revisions," but not for the original work. So no renewal, then. --Eliyak T·C 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mirror (and most of the rest of Plath's work)

This is a poem by Sylvia Plath (1932-1963), who as an American, presumably published in the USA, and presumably (edit: actually there are a lot of posthumous publications, so this could not be true) before her death, so renewal is required. A quick check (Rutgers and Stanford for "Plath", "Sylvia", "The Colossus" (name of collection) and "Collected Poems" (her other big collection)) didn't turn up any records for her work except Renewal RE494405 for the poem "Tulips". However, we don't have an author page for Plath, which made me wonder if there has been a discussion about her works' copyright status before, as I would have expected there to be something about her otherwise. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This work has been added before, and deleted since it violated the license of the Open Directory Project. See archived Scriptorium discussion. Not sure if this affects the original works. Also the Collected Poems were published posthumously by Ted Hughes in '66, so some of those will be right out for quite some time. Colossus was 1960, so renewal in 1988, 1989 or maybe 1990 depending on the rapidity of renewal processing.

More results here, but only a '94 copyright assignment of Colossus, no renewal (or is this implied in the assignment, and if so, isn't it too late?) and a handful of individual renewals for individual poems. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Jaroslav Seifert

This involves Czech copyrights and the URAA, of which I am uncertain. First, this is in the wrong namespace but I didn't think moving it was worthwhile until the possibility of copyright violation was resolved. Underneath the copyvio template, there are a collection of poems:

• "Transformations"
• "To Prague"
• "Whreat of sonnets, Jaroslav Seifert" (followed by sonnets numbered 8-12 & 15)

I don't know when these were published but Jaroslav Seifert died in 1986 and the Czech Republic has a copyright term of life+70, so these poems will not be public domain in his own country until 2057. In looking for US copyright registrations, I have only found two: Slavnostní Pochod [Solemn March] (1938) and Ǎz Vlak Zmizí v Zatáčce (1959). No renewals found in Google searches. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

State of the Nation Address 2010 by President Jacob Zuma

What US license does this 2010 South African presidential speech based on [4] have? PD-EdictGov? As the source governmental website does claim copyright when possible with limited non-commercial permission, I propose exporting this work to Canadian Wikilivres, while continuing Wikisource:Scriptorium#Constitutionality of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act copyright restoration that I started on 2011-01-31.--Jusjih (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it qualify for {{PD-SAGov}} or {{PD-EdictGov}}? Not all "official" speeches are of a legislative, administrative or legal nature. I am unsure of South African situation.--Jusjih (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: previously discussed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2010-12. I can only speak as to South African copyright law, where it is indisputably public domain as a "speech of a political nature". (The government website's claim of copyright is a general claim and cannot of course override an Act of Parliament.) Whether it would be considered {{PD-EdictGov}} in the US I cannot say. I will also mention what I mentioned at the previous discussion: the State of the Nation Address is given regularly each February and also after a general election. It can be seen as part of the fulfilment of a constitutional mandate that the executive "provide Parliament with full and regular reports". - Htonl (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I was recently made aware that the much regarded Compendium II from the U.S. Copyright Office has been taken down from further public inspection and is undergoing a major overhaul. As we all know, the justification for our use of {{PD-EdictGov}} is largely based on the inter-office guidelines outlined within it. I don't know if this will eventually mean that our rationale for using that license will be rendered moot or not in that yet to be released new edition, but if history is any indicator, I'd try to avoid using it whenever another legitimate route presents itself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They only ever had a couple of chapters at that address. The main text is still hosted at ipmall.info. I think/hope they are making a pretty big overhaul to deal with electronic publishing, and other modern changes. I thought the site originally said the review may be done by 2013 or 2014 or something, but they no longer have an estimated completion date... probably impossible to know. I doubt things like PD-EdictGov and other well-settled questions would change though; that document is itself based on decades of case law, which does not change. Not really sure a political speech could qualify for PD-EdictGov though, unless there is some legal effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

<shrug> My original advice stands: I'd try to avoid using it whenever another legitimate route presents itself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure. PD-EdictGov though is based on court rulings dating back to the 1830s, and is pretty much rock-solid. Lots of documentation in this paper. I'm not sure a speech like this would qualify, but I could see taking PD-SAGov (or maybe {{PD-SA-speech}}) as a sort of PD-author, where the author themselves sort of declares something to be PD. The UK has said they consider their Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide; we could assume something similar for PD-SAGov. It does seem somewhat silly to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 Keep -- The speech could be all animal sounds nevermind political in nature or to some degree; it fulfills a S.A. Constitutional requirement regardless and that is where the focus must be given rather than towards any 'legal effect' (same old proclamation vs. promulgation catch-22). Our State of the Union speech would be excluded under the same conditions & on the same grounds if that nuance wasn't so easily usurped by the fact the speech was a work created by a Federal employee here in the U.S. first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• We have a precedent at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2007-11#Antonio_Villaraigosa not considering the press release by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, California, USA an "edict of government", while the City of Los Angeles does claim copyright on its official works whenever legally possible. Even if the page could be kept, it should not have been simply named "Antonio Villaraigosa" as the Mayor's name. For the 2010 South African presidential speech, my question is what its copyright status is, to decide if it is to stay here or move to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not believe the 2007 discussion should be viewed as a precedent for this particular case; the two are fairly dissimilar in my opinion. One issue I've had all along with relying on Compendium II has been the lack of any distinction between the mentioned U.S. non-Federal works (State, local, municipal, etc.) and works created by "true" foreign governments & their sub-divisions. I can accept the Compendiums' rationale that as a matter of fostering good public policy where (U.S.)citizens are unrestricted by any copyright protections when accessing the laws they are expected to know & abide by as a legitimate basis for hosting, but I never understood how or why works by truly foreign governments (like the one in question here) fall under the same category as those State and local works for no copyright protection. There is no basis for U.S. citizens to have unrestricted access to such foreign governmental works, be they legal effect-ish in their respective homelands or not, since U.S. citizens are not subject to them (either as statutory law or otherwise at any level of governance), have no say in the administration-of/representation-in such foreign governments &/or their sub-divisions plus have little to no value as vehicles promoting/affecting sound public policies here at home within the United States or any of its jurisdictions. There is plenty of case-law to support the exclusion from copyright protections for non-Federal U.S. State & local governmental works but I have not seen anything specifically ruling on relevant works created by foreign governments & copyright exclusion/inclusion under U.S. law. As best as I can ascertain, the only justification to exempt these works has literally been the few lines mentioning - for the most part, in passing - the subject matter found within the Compendium(s).

    Given this unavoidable disconnect between the U.S. citizen & any public policy that actually "affects" them taken in relation to works created by foreign governments, et al., I personally don't believe the Compendiums' guidelines carries "the weight" to properly justify anything generally in question here - well, anything beyond the borders of those non-Federal (but still U.S. bound) governments & their sub-divisions that is (i.e. the New York State government may be considered a foreign government in relation to the United States Federal government but New York is still bound by a common public welfare and thus, an all-inclusive drive for sound public policy across the various governmental sub-divisions at every level. This separate yet common interaction allows for the Compendiums' rationale to hold water, imho, and is supported by a well established body of case-law at nearly every level as well. However, New Zealand's government may also be considered a foreign government in relation to the U.S. Federal government but in no way, shape or form should that equate to New Zealand's government being on par with the New York State government; there is no common citizenship nor any unifying public policy in the latter comparison - there is no body of case-law supporting the artificial creation of one or the other to boot).

    I realize I am woefully in the minority in all this and accept the community believes otherwise re: the Compendium so, in conclusion, I vote "keep" on the South African speech based on it meeting the current standard for an Edict of Goverment banner but I still think there must be a more optimal justification out there to host this kind of stuff regardless. I'd think the 2007 press release discussion (if we need to revive it) needs to debate the pros & cons of the public policy perspective in full to merit an Edict of Government banner, but this section's heading is not the place for that. The overall recent trend has been to foster a transition away from nation-based copyright schemes to a more international copyright regime and I worry we are over-dependent on this non-binding inter-office guideline in light of that expected future and the changes it will surely instigate for us in the areas of copyright & hosting. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Index:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963).djvu

Bring over from Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Empty_pages#2._Used_on_existing_unlicensed_WS_works: Should this work be licensed {{PD-EdictGov}} or {{PD-UN}}? If one of these (or another) licenses is Commons appropriate, we should also add {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}}. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oswald

Bring over from Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Empty_pages, This Lee Harvey Oswald's Soviet application is mostly from File:Owald letter 1.gif which has a duplicate of File:LHO-request-citizenship.gif, there is also File:Oswald declined.gif. The response from Russia, could possibly meet {{PD-EdictGov}}, but I don't see how the rest meets PD. None of the content is found on commons commons:Category:Lee Harvey Oswald. Seems like the everything but the Russian peice gets deleted for copyvio, and the Russian piece for out scope as a stand alone. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Remaining Works of Aristotle works

On the Heavens (1930)
On Generation and Corruption (1930)
Meteorology (Aristotle) (1931)
On the Soul (1931)

These are the rest of the items from Oxford's The Works of Aristotle that User:Harryjamespotter1980 added whose copyrights were presumably restored in the U.K. by 1996. He should be applauded however for adding

• most of Volume 5: On the Parts of Animals (1912), On the Gait of Animals (1912), On the Generation of Animals (1912)
• as well as all of Volume 4: On the History of Animals (1910);
• and the entire Parva Naturalia ("short treatises on nature") On Sense and the Sensible, On Memory and Reminiscence, On Sleep and Sleeplessness, On Dreams, On Prophesying by Dreams, On Longevity and Shortness of Life On Youth and Old Age/On Breathing/On Life and Death (1908) from Volume 3.

ResScholar (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Index:Austen Sanditon and other miscellanea.djvu

Hi. This edition has been published in 1934 and contains illustrations from Maximilien Vox, who died in 1974. What is the status of this text? And of its illustrations (can they be uploaded to Commons?)? If it is Ok, can someone pls indicate the right tag for the illustrations? --Mpaa (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• From a quick look at the talk page it looks like {{PD-US-no-renewal|1934}}, I am unsure what to put for the author DOD. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can't find a renewal for the book in the Stanford database and, while there is a 1962 copyright entry for Maximilien Vox, it was for Nus de Harlem not this book. The latter was only from a basic search using Google but it should be correct. Therefore, as per Jeedpay, {{PD-US-no renewal}} for the book here and {{PD-US-not renewed}} for the images on Commons (which already hosts the images as part of the DjVu, just link the images back to the DjVu to keep everything clear). As the book was published in the US I don't think the URAA should affect the copyright (the artist was French and his works are still under copyright in France). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the publisher/country is wrong, which might effect things. While I was looking at the Commons file I decided to update it to the Book template, correct licence, creator templates etc. When I checked the scan to get the publisher, it claimed to be J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd (London) rather than E.P. Dutton & Co, Inc. (New York) as stated in the original description. (Maybe I missed something and this is the US edition.) I think this might still be OK if there was an American edition; the same illustrations would be included in that edition and so be in the public domain under United States law due to non-renewal. If it is a British-only book, Vox probably retains copyright of his illustrations as he did so in the UK as of 1996, which would be restored by the URAA. If the illustrations are not in the public domain then I don't think the entire book is in the public domain - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The scan is confusing. This page Page:Austen_Sanditon_and_other_miscellanea.djvu/11 states E.P. Dutton & Co, Inc. (New York), while the page after Page:Austen_Sanditon_and_other_miscellanea.djvu/12 states J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd (London). On the other hand, Worldcat point at this scan as the New York edition: see [5], section "Find a copy online"
      • Given everything pointing to the US version, I'm back to PD-US-not renewed being correct, for both the book and any derivatives (and I'll change the details on Commons again). Possibly the New York printing just added an extra title page or the reference to the London publisher was a (confusing) acknowledgement of the reprint. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lessons of October

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Withdrawn after receiving information.--Jusjih (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I just wonder what US copyright licenses this translation and its original version have. Keep it here with proper tag? Export to Canadian Wikilivres? Delete without exporting?--Jusjih (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say keep as {{PD-Russia}} & {{PD-US-no renewal}}. Trotsky himself died in 1940 and Wikipedia's List of countries' copyright length says Russia's terms are Life+50 if the author died before 1943. So the original has been in the public domain in Russia since 1990 (and, as it was published in 1917, it is now out of copyright in the United States anyway). The translator, Joseph Vanzler, died in 1956. He was Russian (well, modern Uzbek) but emigrated to the United States in WWI. The description says this translation was first printed in 1937. I can find it's registration (Feb 13 1937, reg. no. A102748) but no renewal. I can actually only find two renewals under Vanzler's various names: The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jurenito and His Disciples (1930) and The First Five Years of the Communist International. Vol. 1 (1945). So, it looks like an American publication with no renewal of an original work with an expired copyright term. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your information, but I still wonder whether Joseph Vanzler or John. G. Wright translated the work, before withdrawing this nomination.--Jusjih (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Russia made their 70pma terms retroactive in 2008, though I think only to 1993. Granted, Trotsky's stuff would still be PD under those terms, although I think there was also a section which said the terms are the later of 70pma and 70 years after rehabilitation -- and I think Trotsky was rehabilitated relatively recently. Anyways, none of that affects the U.S. copyright, since the works would have been PD in Russia in 1996 (50 pma terms at the time). I can't find a renewal for the translation either -- same results as AdamBMorgan above. So, the original would seem to be PD-Russia (and PD-1996) and the translation would be PD-US-no_renewal. John G. Wright was the pseudonym of Joseph Vanzler apparently so I'm not sure what your question is... Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your information. I just did not that know John G. Wright was the pseudonym of Joseph Vanzler. I am adding an author page.--Jusjih (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)