Wikisource:Possible copyright violations

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Possible copyright violations
Shortcut:
WS:CV
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. A search through Archive.org or Google Books 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

Discussions[edit]

PD-EdictGov roundup[edit]

I sent up a trial balloon earlier but didn't get any response so I figured the correct thing to is blatantly disregard w:WP:POINT :-P

Hopefully this isn't too much of a mess to follow. We've had discussions about particular licenses before with mass deletion proposed, but those have been more or less uniform. By contrast, there's a lot of different stuff going on here and many are probably PD under a different justification. If this is too much to discuss under one heading, it's fine to break it apart or do it incrementally, obvious cases first etc.

So, quick prefatory comment: I'm suspicious of treating {{PD-GovEdict}} as broadly as {{PD-USGov}}. What little I've read of it seems to suggest that exists as a legal doctrine that people should in no circumstances be denied access to instruments of law and governance. A lot of stuff that governments do doesn't fall under that.

Speeches and the like by government officials or organs[edit]

Some sort of possible composite information thing[edit]

Non-actionable treaties[edit]

Works of private persons or organizations[edit]

Non-actionable law instrument type things[edit]

Miscellaneous things that aren't really instruments of law or whatever[edit]

Prosody (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about a lot of these but I need more information about this law/policy. The wording is a bit vague and I haven't found much via Google to help explain it any further. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the discussion below, about whether it pertains to non-US copyrights at all, I am at least convinced now that this licence does not apply to speeches, statements and similar. On the other hand, treaties might be close enough regardless of whether they are actionable or not (constitutions appear to count and they may not be entirely about rules; they can include general statements of values and aspirations, which would be vaguely similar to one of these treaties). I'm not sure about some of the other cases (although I'd say the 2008 Zimbabwean agreement is essentially a treaty, albeit an intranational one).
So: Symbol delete vote.svg Delete or re-license all speeches licensed with {{PD-EdictGov}}. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion below is largely putting the cart before the horse (but that is the way the question(s) were first introduced). In my view, the first point that should be addressed before we even begin to approach the academic or philosphical questions being addressed below is the most basic one...
Are any of these these authorized translations made into English by the same entity that created and/or first published them? If so, does that mean they cannot be copyrighted in the U.S.?
The idea that even authorized translations of "foreign" governments somehow still falls into the yet-to-be-properly-vetted-and-proved-legitimate 'Edict of Government' exclusion zone is a false notion. Simply visit the Copyright.gov search engine, select registration number and enter TX0003578346 for a prime example of the unproven "wishful thinking" long taking place now here on en.WS being contradicted in actual Copyright Office practice (well... at least as far as translations may go in all this).

UPDATE: Compendium I (Pre 1976 copyright law revision however) has a specific reference related to all this made in it HERE. Even then, the problem there is that its a caveat, mentioned as the exception to the rule and not the rule itself. Take any government work Not originally published in English but translated afterward and you have what qualifies regardless as new material which is 100% copyrightable (the rule) be it a foreign law or a foreign newspaper. There is no difference; only undue weight. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would an English translation of a law be covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}? Swedish laws are written in Swedish. Although you can find English translations of some laws (for example [1]), the translations are not laws themselves, and the original Swedish text takes precedence if there is a difference somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Source of Law[edit]

The language of {{PD-EdictGov}} is supported by the link to http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0200.asp which is a University of New Hampshire site, a search for an "Official" government source finds http://www.copyright.gov/compendium/ "The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices is currently undergoing a major revision as of October 2011.". Is there a reason we are not hosting US Federal copyright laws here, particularly ones we use to justify our licensing? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Compendium I, Compendium II & the yet-to-be-revised Compendium III all WERE NOT, ARE NOT & WILL NEVER BE considered prima facie evidence of the actual U.S. Federal law (U.S. Code) nor any official regulations (Code of Federal Regulations) derived from those Federal laws. Period.

It is inter-office guide book for employees of the Copyright Office designed to be an aid (a "cheat-sheet") for properly carrying out their official duties. The only reason it was ever "published" by the Government Printing Office was due to it being mentioned in passing in one or more of the Committee reports reviewing the proposed changes to the existing copyright laws and copyright office practices at the time. The only way to see what the Committees were referring to in hindsight was to 'go down to the Copyright Office and ask to see somebody's inter-office Xeroxed copy of it'. Basically, they got tired of it being "misplaced" by the office lackeys or having to accommodate every walk-in request for it so they finally slapped it all together and made it available through the usual channels for a small fee via the GPO.

In all my research to ascertain how or why the Compendiums have become such a relied upon authority & justification here in the wacky-wiki-world, I have yet to discover any significant or relevant lawful citation of it or precedent set by it in U.S. case law. Its really only mentioned or referred to in academic circles. Apparently somebody at the Wiki-Foundation took one of those classes, put 2 + 2 together and viola! the pseudo justification to host these works was born. Only its continued unquestioned use and the passage of time make it seem legitimate as a basis for anything. Other than that it is no more official U.S. Federal law than the Library of Congress' night-watchman's Official U.S. Government fire alarm response manual. -- George Orwell III (talk)

We have a few hundred documents using PD-EdictGov, there are about 120 items on Commons using the tag. Is there any stand up in court, support for it? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Even more Googling still didn't find much but it did suggest that the basis of this position are two 19th century Supreme Court cases: Wheaton v. Peters and Banks v. Manchester (I've added the latter to Portal:United States copyright case law).
The book Intellectual Property Protection of Fact-based Works (Google Books link) briefly covers this, using the phrase "expressions of law cannot be copyrighted", before going on to modern circumventions. Another book, Intellectual Property Law (Google Books again), has more detail, including the idea that expressions of law are just statements of facts and therefore cannot be copyrighted.
Wheaton v. Peters only really covers the judgements of the Supreme Court itself. Banks v. Manchester seems to be the most relevant, although I have not read it all. Wikipedia has no article on it but I was actually surprised to see that Conservapedia does. A relevant quote from the end of the Banks judgement: "The question is one of public policy, and there has always been a judicial consensus, from the time of the decision in the case of Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, that no copyright could, under the statutes passed by congress, be secured in the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties. The whole work done by the judges consitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute."
That was technically about US law but the wording could be extended to all laws of all nations. I don't think it has ever been really decided (at least not from my minimal not-a-lawyer Google-based research) but it seems to be defensible at least. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I left a note at Commons:Template talk:PD-EdictGov, about this discusion. They don't seem to have a copyright discusion page like ours so did not see anyplace else to drop a note. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that was specifically about laws in the United States, where State (New York) and local (New York City) laws "share" the legal-space (up to a point) with Federal laws (United States of America). One needs to remember that folks in the United States are subject to two distinct & separate legal authorities - The Federal government and its laws cover all 50 states uniformly; anything not specifically covered by Federal law & government falls to the individual States. I've always held the belief that when one "reads" the Compendium's blurb as its been applied around here that if you are not familiar with this dual legal reality here in the U.S. one might not understand that ALL governments (New York, Arizona, Hungary, Boston, Sweden, Guam, France, Dallas, Egypt, etc.) are "foreign" as far as the U.S. Federal government is concerned - it is the supreme law of the land. But even an employee of the Federal government can not & does not go home at night at the end of the work day as a citizen of Federalistan or Federalitopia - the go home as a Californian, a New Yorker, an Alaskan etc. This in essence means, while all governments are "foreign" to the Federal government and Federal law, some governments however are officially recognized by Federal law (New York, Arizona, Hungary, Boston, Sweden, Guam, France, Dallas, Egypt, etc.). Based on this nuance, I believe the term "foreign governments" was used in the Compendium as a catch-all phrase to cover entities that do not technically fall under State or local but still subject to Federal statutes (i.e. Guam, Puerto Rico, the Mohawk Nation are not States for example but still bound by some degree of federal law. They are surely familiar & recognized by the U.S. Federal system but they are still technically run by "foreign" governments).

The second key to all this is mentioned in U.S. case law - it is the term binding every citizen. For the Compendium logic to universally apply, you must be a citizen of some formally Federally recognized entity and/or subject to whatever government that entity might have via the law. It's kind of crazy to think that inclusion of the edict of government term was thanks to some Russian citizen or similar that once tried to register existing Russian statute as a work he or she claimed was the author of and, as a result, was added to the inter-office list of ' do's & don'ts ' for mid-level copyright clerks. Even if he or she happen to be a representative of the Russian government, the idea that international policies from one nation to the next concerning copyright is handled by anything other than agreement or by treaty is bordering on the laughable imho. How that ever translated to mean every U.S. citizen should have the free and unfettered access to the rules and regulations they should be aware of and abide by [including those rare instance when on holiday in the south of France], I'll never know. Its far more likely for me to think the term "foreign" wound up in there to cover some question at some point concerning Puerto Rico rather than the inclusion or exclusion of copyright protections covering Polish law. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

George could you clarify a bit, your statement starts out "No, that" in the singular where Adam is talking about two court cases. Jeepday (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The Banks v. Manchester case cites the earlier Wheaton v. Peters court opinion to begin to layout & then support it's ruling, which opens by re-affirming the findings, etc., originally outlined in the earlier (Wheaton) opinion just the same. Banks then goes on to make it clear that it is just as unconstitutional to try and legislatively assign and/or judicially designate copyright rights to a person or persons (i.e. artificially create a copyright assignee) that would conflict with the relationship between a government & it's citizenship as it was unconstitutional back when the high court first ruled that any person or person's Constitutional right to secure copyright based on his or her own merits cannot supersede the same relationship between a government & it's citizenship as illustrated within the Wheaton opinion. Banks v. Manchester also helped erase any remaining implied limits or lines drawn in the scope of the governance -- local, State as well as Federal -- as it related to the citizenship after the acceptance of Wheaton. The initial unconstitutionality found in Wheaton now applied to any level of government and not just the Federal-level output.

The supreme point I was trying to make clear is one should not overlook the court's usage and application of the term citizen throughout any of these case opinion. There is nothing in any case law that I know of that even remotely mentions, forget about outright supports, a redefinition that extends to include foreign governments in addition to the lawfully recognized U.S. citizenship as originally stated. To me, it seemed like Adam was going to ignore that nuance based on nothing more than something similar giving rise to that apparent effect found only in what amounts to just an inter-office cheat sheet - not actual precedent set by any U.S. case law. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks George, that helps a lot. So there are two different concerns when applying PD-EdictGov
  1. Governments falling under US law.
    • U.S. Federal, any 1 of the 50 States & every local entity within that State
      • all covered by Wheaton v. Peters [8 Peters 591] vein of U.S. case law
      • Federal later enjoys 17 U.S.C. 105 for all works; not just edicts
  2. Governments outside of US Law.
    • Any type or level of government not mentioned in #1
      • an infered association with "public policy" principle set up in Wheaton found in Compedium II
      • no known statute, case law, proclamation, etc. supporting that association found

With #2 being the largest concern for lack of clarity or legal standing. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Right - sounds like you got that. <Note that I expanded the bullets in your list> There are a few more nuances that never quite added up or have no legal basis to support them as well but I don't see the need to address them right now until at least these points are digested by others first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not that I was going to ignore anything, I just didn't pick up on the nuance of "citizen" (and I haven't read the court opinions in full). However, I do think this is the basis of the Copyright Office's assumption, that international laws are uncopyrightable as well as American laws, made when compiling their internal policy. Compendium I (linked above) is clearer on covering genuiely foreign countries, as separate from states and territories within the US, such as Canada or Australia. As you say, however, this is just an internal guide and has no weight in law. I get the impression that this has never been established in law either way. It is Schrödinger's Copyright, if you will. Until it gets challenged and a US court makes a decision, we won't know if the Copyright Office's opinion is correct or not. If I'm right about that, this changes the question from "Is this legal?" (because its legality is indeterminate at the moment) to "Which position do we want to take, assuming either could turn out to be wrong if it is ever established?" Deleting all non-US items covered by this licence would be the safest option. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Concur that without something else coming into support, it looks like all the foreign works with no other license will be deleted. There are a few hundred to review, so we will probably need a list, on a sub page of everything in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-EdictGov&limit=500 These will need to be reviewed, if they are foreign with another license just remove the EdictGov, if they are foreign without another license tag with {{copyvio}}, to give a chance for additional licensing to surface. And of course we will have to monitor our progress with notes on the sub page as there are bunch. I propose we give a week or so for something else to come out about foreign edicts, before starting the sub page and review. Jeepday (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably should limit that WhatLinksHere search to transclusions only: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-EdictGov&limit=500&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1. - Htonl (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves - that's how the previous discussions on this matter wound up unresolved (& I'm probably the worst in this area 'cause I can't keep it under 5,000 words!).-- George Orwell III (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────┘
To the point on the inferred association made by the Copyright Office never being directly tested by the courts (paraphrased).
Well that's not entirely accurate.

While its true, to the best of my knowledge, that no foreign government has sought legal relief either way in the U.S. courts over copyright concerning their official works, many local and State governments have addressed (then readdressed) this in the courts - in spite of the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' guiding principle remaining sound. Keeping in mind that at some point in history (believe it started with the 1909 Copyright Act), the Federal government was ejected from this debate entirely with the enactment of the blanket provision covering all works authored by any Federal employee (codified today as 17 U.S.C. 105), all that the relevant court rulings managed to accomplish here was the speedied nationalization/localization of what some think was an insider's monopolistic publishing scheme, unfairly contracted out to chronicle the key areas of governance for a tidy sum in return. Nobody was rioting in the streets demanding copies of the local building codes or anything as noble as that.

Please recall; the courts said 'one could not profit from these works at the expense of limiting their access to the public' - they never said you couldn't insure to do both at the same time.... But you had to be the government, not a sub-contractor for it, to accomplish both aims satisfactorily and that is exactly the path events were taking during this era. Eventually, most local & State governments subsidized the individual's "guaranteed" access to their works by commercially distributing to those who were willing to pay for having those works available at arm's-length access (universities, law firms, corporations, etc.) instead. Both Wheaton and Peters are part of the modern day U.S. Reports for example and the prohibitive cost of an in-house Printing Office for most States or municipalities means contract-publishing is still very common today.

Also remember; it wasn't until the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act that Federal law completely usurped local and state Common laws on copyright. This meant the whole 'affixing notice, timely registration & renewals by schedule' thing was largely done for appearance sake than any legal jeopardy or public necessity, if done at all, by the States (the nice thing about generating ridiculous amounts of content that nobody else has access to, nor the authority over, is you don't have to worry about counterfeiting & piracy stuff so much). Only the recent rise of the Internet would force these local and state actors back into what we'd consider "copyright compliance" - though the end of the recognition of Common Law copyright & the monopolies they protected by the 1976 Act had to have helped. If you look at the Copyright.gov registry today, you'll find oodles & oodles of local and state registrations for their official works - the [ironic] defense used to satisfy the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle being official state and local web sites host the same government content for any & all with little to no cost to Joe Publick. California is the only state to mimic the current Federal law; anything generated by the government(s) of the State of California has been legislatively waived of any possible copyright claim and released to the public domain (w/ caveats for scientific, technological, etc. advances of course).

So once again, the question of legality and policy of the copyright system falls to the relationship between any given level of government and it's citizenship. The absence of a foreign government & their official works being tested in a U.S. court for copyright infringement (or not) is of little significance and does not give rise to an "unanswered question" (imho). There is no lawfully-domestic-yet-unlawfully-foreign citizenship to speak of here (the U.S.), demanding free and unfettered access to something they really don't need to be made aware of nor have to abide by because, even if the work happens to have been created in English in the first place, the content is not made up of rules and regulations that touches them in some way regardless. The only reason for a foreign government to register anything with the U.S. Copyright Office is to secure standing ahead of suspected infringement and to deter counterfeiting, piracy, etc. (all of which would be preempted in U.S. courts by Treaties dealing with international copyright anyway if I'm not mistaken). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

George I believe the above is primarily focused at #1 "Governments falling under US law.", but it trails the discussion on #2 "Governments outside of US Law" and includes some discussion about #2. Can you sort the arguments out so each stays separate? If non-US works survive this discussion they will at the very least have a separate version or indicator of PD-EdictGov. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that this the way the discussion has developed but it necessary to fully understand the points I'm going to make by the "end" of each segment - which will fit into the #1 #2 list as a single summarized sentence (hopefully).

The above outdent, which I hope was clear enough about being the post Banks v. Manchester time-line of events, serves 2 purposes:

a.) sets up the "fork" about to come covering what can and cannot secure copyright protections by State & local governments subject to U.S. law; and

b.) partially rebukes the idea there is an unresolved question developing for foreign government's thanks to not having any court cases to base a guideline on. Compared to State & local governments on the same time-line of events, enough accumulated case law testing the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle has been accrued by now to further refine it while there was little to nothing on the same point developing in the courts concerning foreign governments at the same time. Folks can read into that fact however they wish.

Point b.) is self-evident, imho, and is something just to keep in mind - not to add to the development in the #1, #2 list.

Moving on to point a.), with the understanding now that most State and local governments subject to U.S. law do manage to register copyright protected works while still providing the public access to the relevant rules and regulations the must abide by both at the same time, the following is to help break down that nuance so "we" can better develop en.WS policy & guidelines at the end of the day.

To open this segment, I must point out there is no official U.S. law or Federal regulation that formally defines the term edict of government. We have come to define it based on what Compendium II, etc. has said about the term and, for the most part, the consensus in this matter to date says (paraphrased) that an edict of government is an official government generated work that touches upon what by now should be the familiar 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle by causing some effect/affect in relation to that government's recognized citizenship.

Now to illustrate an edict in action - a State Assembly introduces, marks-up and eventually passes a bill that's content is an amendment to a previously existing law; the Governor of that State signs that enrolled legislation, enacting it into a law; soon after, the State's secretary takes the executive's endorsed bill (remember it was an amendment to existing law) and codifies the legislative language into statutory form, updating the statutes lawfully in effect as being 'now current' in the process. Typically, the electronic (on-line) set of State statutes is updated to reflect change in standing law before any formally published print version is made available to the public. When all the changes made while the State government was in session are codified, the contracted publisher replicates the "public" standing law and then usually annotates, indexes, cross-references, etc. it for printing (i.e. makes a derivative of the codified law). This now annotated State statutes for a given year or session can be registered with the Copyright Office as new material added to previously public domain content.

That said, the breakdown for the above in relation to what is and is not copyright protected can be though of as...

  • a bill never formally introduced into the official record.
- citizens are not expected to know and abide by something never enacted into law
- bill was historically significant? Yes=probably excluded from copyright. No=can be registered.
  • a bill formally introduced into the official record & marked-up in official proceedings, but never became part of enacted law.
- citizens are not expected to know and abide by something never enacted into law
- bill was historically significant? Yes=probably excluded from copyright. No=can be registered.
  • a bill formally introduced into the official record, marked-up in official proceedings and eventually enrolled that became part of enacted law.
- citizens are expected to be made aware of and abide by something enacted into law.
- the rationale for copyright exclusion is based in the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle.
  • any secondary legislation generated by the Executive as a result of delegated authority found in the enacted law.
- citizens are expected to know and abide by something enacted into law.
- the rationale for copyright exclusion is based in the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle.
  • the codification of the enacted law into statutory form and merged to reflect a standing code.
- citizens are expected to know and abide by something enacted into law.
- the rationale for copyright exclusion is based in the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle.
  • judicial testing of the application or the interpretation of a standing code.
- citizens are expected to know and abide by something stricken out of the law as well.
- the rationale for copyright exclusion is based in the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle.
  • official publication of a standing code.
- citizens are expected to know and abide by the rules and regulations governing them.
- the rationale for copyright exclusion is based in the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle.
  • publication of derivatives based on the official publication of a standing code.
- citizens are expected to know and abide by the rules and regulations governing them.
- copyright exclusion based in the 'Wheaton-Public Policy' principle remains for officially published standing code.
- any and all additions made to the official standing code be they authorized by the gov't or made by a third party can be registered and secure copyright protections.
Given the above nuances, we can further modify the #1, #2 bullet-list (below) too better define the various points falling under each point expanded upon from the discussion(s) to date. --- George Orwell III (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks George, that reads well. I like the bullet list also. Why did you strike out "covered by Wheaton v. Peters [8 Peters 591] vein of U.S. case law" under "U.S. Federal"? As I understand it both 17 U.S.C. 105 & Wheaton v. Peters work to prevent copyright for these. Jeepday (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've amended it to better reflect the Wheaton principle is not invalidated at the Federal level, merely superseded by a more expansive (i.e. better) provision in the law, found directly in the current statutes of the United States. Thanks for pointing out the possible confusion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


  • Is there evidence of wide spread interpretation of allowing Wheaton & Compendium II to grant copyright prohibition to "Governments outside of US Law"? Is the lack of court challenges because no one is republishing these works? Jeepday (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    Any interpretation should be approached from another direction. Currently we try to base inclusion/exclusion of Foreign Gov't works based on U.S. law, but this is counter intuitive compared to the adherence to the Copyright Laws of foreign nations and the international Treaties with them that "other" nations tend to follow. If a foreign government wants to release their works into the public domain (or not), they should be outlining as much in their own national copyright laws (just like the U.S. Federal government has). And we have dozens and dozens of examples of Nations both explicitly & implicitly placing their government works in the public domain. None of this Compendium-base c-rap is even necessary if we stick to that approach.

    Its not that government works similar to the output of the U.S. Federal government aren't being produced world-wide - they are just being "registered" at home (if at all) and not the U.S. Copyright Office (why in blazes would they? Most being recognized members of Berne, URRA, etc., "registering" at home basically provides them with the same protections as registering in the U.S. ever could but is being secured by treaty rather than by U.S. law). So it does seem to be true that nobody is "publishing" these works for normal distribution in the U.S. (again, why in blazes would they? It's not their citizenship!). The chances of a rogue publisher pirating official government works of a foreign nation here in the U.S. and actually making enough money to even cover expenses is just not very likely (well pretty stupid actually).

    I can see the best thing now is to show the Copyright Office's own Congressional testimony. If I remember right, I believe they even cast a long shadow of doubt on the application of anything in the Compendium starting with the age of the Internet, but it is been some time since that so I may be wrong. More later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

    As far as I have understood, the extra compensation provided by 17 U.S.C. 412 demands that the copyright holder has registered the work with the US copyright office, even if it is a foreign work. For this reason, there may be a reason to register a non-US work in the US, provided that you have reason to expect that you will need to sue someone in the US. I would assume that laws mainly are interesting in the source country of the law and that copyright violations mainly take place in that country, so registration in the US may be unimportant. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Muench v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ. Co. says that the Compendium gets Skidmore deference, that is, “an agency's interpretation may merit some deference whatever its form, given the ‘specialized experience and broader investigations and information’ available to the agency.” Given that an actual court will give it deference, I don't see why we should be second-guessing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It goes on to say... "The Copyright Office's Circulars and Compendium II should be afforded this lesser deference, or Skidmore deference, so long as the Copyright Office's interpretations do not conflict with the express statutory language of the Copyright Act." 2010 WL 1838874 (S.D.N.Y.), p.6 of PDF.

More important is another citation found in the same case opinion (footnote 8 on p. 11 of the PDF):

FN8. As the Court of Appeals noted in Morris, “ ‘the Copyright Office has no authority to give opinions or define legal terms, and [...] its interpretation on an issue never before decided should not be given controlling weight.’ “ Morris, 283 F.3d at 505 (quoting Bartok v. Boosey & Jawkes, Inc., 523 F.2d 941, 946-47 (2d Cir.1975)). Nevertheless, the court found the Copyright Office's interpretation of the Copyright Act set forth in Circular 62 as applied to the registration procedures of serials to be “persuasive.” Id. And, as discussed above, Circular 62 provides that the registration of a serial by a claimant who owns all of the rights in the constituent parts will extend to the constituent parts. Id. at 506.    <highlighting by GO3>

So not only is the prior reference limited to only the Compendiums' interpretation of contributions made to serials - NOT edicts of government - but the ruling outright cites the role of the Copyright Office (& it's Compendium's) as NOT having any authority whatsoever to give opinion or define legal terms AT ALL. I'm afraid that supports rather than dismisses the previous discussion(s) far above resulting in the Wheaton principle summary outline below dealing with what are & are not properly interpreted statutes of Copyright Law for us to follow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet item guideline[edit]

A running bullet-list of points summarizing developments of the above discussion(s). Please make changes to phrases, wording, etc. as desired but explain or comment on them in the discussion - not here.

  1. Governments falling under US law.
    • U.S. Federal
      • covered by Wheaton v. Peters [8 Peters 591] vein of U.S. case law Superseded see next bullet at this level
        • any work generated during official proceedings that ultimately factors into the establishment of a recognized "Edict"
      • Federal currently enjoys 17 U.S.C. 105 for all government generated works - past, present & future - not just "Edicts". PD

    • any 1 of the 50 States & every level of government within that State
      • all levels of State government covered by Wheaton v. Peters [8 Peters 591] vein of U.S. case law.
        • any government work generated during official proceedings that ultimately factors into the establishment of a recognized "Edict". PD
        • all government works outside of the scope outlined directly above. ©
        • any historically significant government work inside the scope outlined directly above.  ?

  2. Governments outside of US Law.
    • Any type or level of government not mentioned in #1
      • an inferred association with "public policy" principle set up in Wheaton found in Compendium II
      • no known statute, case law, proclamation, etc. supporting that association has been found.
        • any government work generated during official proceedings that ultimately factors into the establishment of a recognized "Edict".  ?
        • all government works outside of the scope outlined directly above.  ?
        • any historically significant government work inside the scope outlined directly above.  ?

Edict of Government
  1. no known U.S. statute, case law, proclamation, etc. formally defining the term has been found.
    • loosely based on usage found in Chapter 2 of Compendium I/II

Edicts for Governments outside of US Law[edit]

Barring a successful argument in #Source_of_Law that changes #Bullet_item_guideline the current licensing of these works with {{PD-EdictGov}} is in question. At Wikisource we have a history of leaning to delete where there is questionable copyright status. In this case though we have multiple unrelated works of some notability (where notability indicates opportunities for notice, not to grant any special status), and there are no known challenges to the common interpretation. Does silence grant copyright prohibition on these works? Jeepday (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Wikisource continue to host Edicts for Governments outside of US Law, based only on PD-EdictGov?

Note:If the community decision is keep, we can add a country parameter to the template to facilitate future issue resolution.
  • Absolutely we should. Laws are laws. It is the proper application, and in earlier days it is fairly apparent that there was less rigour in the application of the licence. PD-USGov is about anything from a public servant of the United States. Edict of Gov is about official declarations of state from the Government, which is a smaller set in that it is not anything from a public servant, and addresses something that is a public release that specifically addresses legal requirements. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Assuming that the template, based on Compendium and practise/case law, is deemed good enough for the needs of Wikisource (and I assume it will), or some case law regarding foreign laws is added to this debate, or some evidence 'foreign' is commonly used as a euphemism for 'territories of the U.S.', I see no reason to exclude edicts of foreign governments in their official form (I am less sure about translations not issued by a foreign government). The Compendium is merely stating that case law indicates there is an incredibly high bar for edicts to obtain copyright - so high that the Copyright Office will go to court instead of registering the copyright of an edict. The Compendium is clearly aware of other nation-states, and liberally used 'foreign' for a range of purposes (use browser find tool on http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/), and never appears to use it in a sense that is limited to the governments of U.S. territories and other strange cases within the United States. Most of the recent case law in the U.S. has reiterated that a) edicts are authored by the people, and b) a law is a fact, and not an expression - it is the only valid expression, and therefore becomes fact once enacted. (Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, Inc.) John Vandenberg (chat) 02:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Low hanging EdictGov fruit[edit]

While the debate about foreign laws seems to have got bogged down, I can't find any any support for speeches and government miscellanea under these terms. Their continued presence is likely to encourage the addition of more works under this licence. Should we at least (a) delete all such works, and (b) remove PD-EdictGov from any author pages (except for those of judges and similar officials)? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

or; (c) put off making any sudden moves or permanent changes until this October (the month that a little birdie has told me the finished revisions become released as the Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, III to the public). In my view, we would be doing more harm than good by changing what we've been doing until now in light of the possibility of more clarity being provided by this new edition either way (though I agree this [sticking] point has been lingering a bit too long now for my own comfort too).
fwiw... I've suggested a sub-title to help promote the coming edition and while they found "new & improved!!! INTERNET now included..." funny enough to warrant a reply from an actual human being instead of the typical government BOT, they said it didn't have a chance of passing the preliminary submission stage :( George Orwell III (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘

UPDATE:  It seems the U.S. Copyright Office did not escape the recent government shutdown & budget cuts - missing the original October 2013 release date for the new Compendium in the process. I've been searching almost daily for any new information since. Today, I found some.

According to this recap of a November 20th, 2013 event, the new target date for the revised 1st draft of the Compendium of Copyright Office Practices has been "set" for January 2014.

... [Maria] Pallante announced that the beta version of the new Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, a project managed by Legal Advisory Board Member Mary Rasenberg, will be available for comments in January 2014.

Better late than never? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am concerned about the confusion that is existing around this proposal. The confusion seems to be whether this is an existing licence, and whether the licence is being appropriately applied. From what I am seeing, we look to identify from authoritative sources the scope of the licence, and explain the use of the template, and then review its use appropriately. Works where it has been misapplied can then be deleted by grouping if that is clearly determined. Summary ... Keep the licence, review the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    Seems like you did not follow the logic-tree above outlining why this license never should have been created in the first place and why its application since that mistake has largely been an over-reach in interpretation (plus it's authority was never based on actual U.S. law - neither by case law nor in codified statute, again, as outlined above). Hopefully the next Compendium will provide further clarity here, but even if the parts mentioning this area remain exactly the same as they are now - there is no lawful basis to keep the license. Works by foreign governments or their officers are no different in the eyes of U.S. law than the works created by other foreign organizations or individuals. Period. After Title 17, either the treaties with the nation/nationality in question & the U.S. dictate copyright protections or any waivers from such protections (CC-By-, etc.) do -- not the Copyright Office's internal practices on copyright registration. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of any mention in this discussion that the various Compendiums must cite some legal authorization for their publication before they can be published by the U.S. Government Printing Office. That legal authorization should shed some light on the origins of current copyright law in the U.S. I'm also puzzled by the lack of analysis by legal scholars in this discussion, as there appear to be several who have edited in Wiki. This discussion appears to involve only a very small number of well-intentioned persons who do not appear to be particularly well informed about U.S. copyright law or the U.S. court system, and that seems dangerous. For example, there does not seem to be any appreciation here of the legal status of U.S. territories like Guam (they have been described as "foreign" governments, despite the fact they have U.S. courts resident, which have much broader powers than do most local government courts). Isn't there some way to broaden the discussion and invite persons with copyright law expertise into it before a momentous decision is made, possibly in error? I came to this page via the Mt. Laurel doctrine decision, which is still identified as a candidate for deletion from Wikipedia as a copyright violation, which is utterly preposterous! Labeling American court decisions as candidates for deletion while this discussion continues does a great disservice to Wikipedia and to its readers. With all due respect, it appears you folks are in way over your heads. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's just it - the sections in the Compendium refereing to edicts do not cite any authorities based in the Copyright Law. Yes the compendium itself exists because of regulations in the CFR authorized by law - but the question here is limited to the narrow scope of a section or two within the compendium.

    And to be clear, if your article was really a candidate for deletion, the deletion notice would be at the top of the article. The only thing pending deletion is the Edict of Government banner itself - not the articles that have applied it to date. We'll straighten the license situation out once a consensus has been reached. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    One more thing - you didn't link the court decision that brought you here but if it is indeed a U.S. court decision & not a court exclusive just to territory of the U.S. you should be using the {{PD-USGov}} license anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is an analogous case to the one described in [2] (Dreier, Thomas. Overview of Legal Aspects in the European Union. Pp. 21 (last paragraph)–23), which states that legal texts deemed free in Germany are still copyrighted in France. --Eleassar (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Still Pending[edit]

It looks like the "Compendium II of Copyright Office" http://www.copyright.gov/compendium/ is still pending release. Closure of this topic is in some part dependent on the guidence offered by the US Copyright office. Jeepday (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

President Kocharyan's interview to Armenian National TV 02/11/2000[edit]

and President Kocharyan's interview to Armenian National TV 03/06/2000

Two television interviews with the president of Armenia. Commons has {{PD-AM-exempt}}for works of folklore; communications on daily news or on current events that are press information; official documents (laws, decisions, decrees, etc.) as well as their official translations; state emblems and signs (flags, coats of arm (armorial bearings), medals (decorations), monetary signs, etc.); results obtained by technical means without the intervention of human creative activity.Commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Country.2FRegion_specific_tags which may be relevant and if others think that it is we will need to add the licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation[edit]

So the original is totally {{PD-KRGov}} and {{PD-JapanGov}}. The translation, though, appears to be the work of a law specialist with the Library of Congress, presumably acting in a private capacity?, commissioned by the private journal International Legal Materials. Prosody (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect I'm not sure why I assumed that the translation would have been done in the translator's private capacity. I guess that's the sort of thing Library of Congress researchers do. So do we assume that's the case? And can someone who's more knowledgeable about US copyright stuff confirm that this kind of work on request would fall under {{PD-USGov}}? Still kind of a bummer that we couldn't use the ILM scans either way. Prosody (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • comment: with all due respect, there's no way this translation was comissioned by "ILM" as a "private work". a) that would cost money, which such thin-profit-margin journals are DEEPLY loathe to spend. & b) the us gov would have needed an engish translation of the text, for their own purposes (for the state dep't, etc.). since it was done by a l.o.c. translator, the overwhelming likelihood is that this was THE translation prepared for us gov't use. Lx 121 (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It does say on the page
[Translated for International Legal Materials
If it were done for government purposes and the translation simply supplied to ILM I would expect a different wording. Still leaning keep and tag {{PD-USGov}} without more information. Prosody (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • comment:
  1. The Copyright Law of Japan[3] doesn't protect any copyright of the government. So anybody can translate the documents published by Japanese government into any other languages for fair use or something like that, e.g. quotations in a report. If an idiot translates a text of Japanese government and insist his(her) copyright, all we have to do is to request him(her) to show us the official permission of Japanese government that admits him(her) to pay acceptable use fee to Japanese government. I have never seen such a greedy and irrational government's permission. First of all, it is impossible for Japanese government to do such an illegal permission.
  2. Both governments of North and South Korea, however, seem to have concealed the existence of "Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation" from Koreans for a long time on purpose. It seems to be the heart of the matter. I mean that THIS IS NOT OUR LEGAL MATTER and that THIS IS ONLY KOREANS' POLITICAL PROBLEM that only Koreans can resolve.
  3. No matter what Korean governments' real purpose is, I think, even Koreans need not respect the intention of Korean governments, because any copyright law doesn't exist to make people ignorant slaves. Therefore, what WE can(should) do for poor Koreans at first is to let them know the truth of their governments, even if some of them managed to conceal it from the world. -- Beaver Mochimochi (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 03:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I do not understand what the comments on Korea are supposed to mean; I suspect they're irrelevant to our goals as a neutral source of documents. If the law of Japan puts the document in Japanese into the public domain, then like any other public domain work, a translator is free to pick it up and translate it, at which point they or their employer will get a copyright on their translation. I doubt Japanese law says otherwise, but in any case as done by an American translator, American law says that the translator gets a copyright on the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DeGaulle's Veto on British membership of the EEC[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted for no clear license.--Jusjih (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Original might be {{PD-ineligible}}, but the translation is copyright-encumbered by the Western European Union Secretariat General (presumably now transferred to some body of the EU?). Prosody (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct. The WEU is today part of the EU, and so is its Secretariat General. Having dealt with copyrights and EU institutions in the past, it is in practice unthinkable that they would ever enforce their copyright. Can you think of the headline? EU goes after Wikipedia. No way! To be more, copyright in my case was a tricky issue. The EU claimed not to have it because it was the work of an external consultant. Contacting the consultant, he claimed not to have the copyright because he was paid to do it by the EU. The upshot was that nobody wanted to have the copyright! I used the material for free. If you want to be super-secure, simply write a message and ask if it is ok for them to use it on Wikipedia: http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm unsigned comment by 2A02:8109:8680:21C:4122:EA7D:A35A:A0AB (talk) .
Hello A0AB welcome to Wikisource. We can only host it if the work is public domain in the US or if there is a creative commons release. If you want to learn more Wikisource:Copyright policy is a good place to start. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Transitioning the Respiratory Therapy Workforce for 2015 and Beyond[edit]

Seems to be a refereed paper, though no evidence that it has been released to the public domain. The contributor has not replied to a ping, and I will be trying again with information about OTRS. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Civil marriage act[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a speech as part of a debate in the Canadian House of Commons. I am unaware of any law that puts Canadian legislative debate into the public domain. Being a debate, it certainly couldn't considered by considered a government edict, and I believe that it should be deleted as copyvio. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Tears (Tyutchev/Ashton Smith)[edit]

Translation is incorrectly attributed to Author:Clark Ashton Smith. According to vnbiblio.com (blog by Michael Juliar, the author of the standard bibliography on Vladimir Nabokov: "Vladimir Nabokov: A Descriptive Bibliography", New York: Garland, 1986) this is translation by Vladimir Nabokov, first published in 1945. Still in copyright. Captain Nemo (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC).

Nabokov's book was indeed renewed in 1972 (see here) -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Tale of Genji[edit]

It's asserted that this translation is {{CC-by-3.0-au}} on the basis of a claim on the web page it was copied from. This claim appears to be a boilerplate covering all the digital editions of eBooks@Adelaide. For this text, it goes on to say "To the best of our knowledge, the text of this work is in the “Public Domain” in Australia." which is probably the more applicable. But it gives no explanation as to why this would be the case. The translation is by an American author who died in 2007, it was published in the United States (probably first so far as I can tell) in 1976. Can't find partial scans to see if there's a notice, but as it was published by Knopf I can't imagine that was neglected. Prosody (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of those works at that site are replicated from elsewhere, so it may be worth spreading tentacles to Gutenberg, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not in the public domain in Australia as the translator didn't die before 1955. Moreover, the website says that the licence is CC-BY-NC-SA, not CC-BY. I think that it is very unlikely that this would be in the public domain or freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah I can't see how this is PD. I did find something on Google Books where Seidensticker said he got more money (in royalties) from this translation as all his others combined. I can't imagine that Knopf would have forgotten a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nile Kinnick's Commencement Speech and Nile Kinnick's Heisman Speech[edit]

Two post 1923 speeches by a private US American in the US which were not spontaneous and therefore probably shouldn't be assumed not to have had some fixed form before delivery. Prosody (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the Heisman speech at least was published at the time (found an excerpt here; they must have had access to the full text somewhere) and thus would need a renewal. Good odds on the other one as well. Although, the earliest I see the full text on Google Books is a 1991 volume. (If they remained unpublished into 2003, they'd also be PD now as 70pma has passed, but... that's not the case.) Neither was likely spontaneous though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing with Clindberg that unless there papers are in an archive, or with family, that it is most likely that they were published at or about that time, though presumably as news pieces. Unless evidence to the contrary, they would seem to indicate that they are not in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Except if they were published at the time, they would have needed a U.S. copyright renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Common Weaknesses Illustrated[edit]

This is a modern work by a modern author, and there doesn't seem to be any release of his work copyright-wise. Also, the contents of this page seem more to be the ToC of his work than any of the actual poems.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there are few works posted at Author:Carson Cistulli all are potentially CV. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
A claim has been made at Author talk:Carson Cistulli that anything published in The New Enthusiast has been released into the public domain. I have made no attempt to verify that claim. Angr 15:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I read the statement differently. To me it says that there has been use of Creative Commons licensing for some/all of these works. So for me, that changes nothing in our evidence-based approach in that we still need for people to demonstrate that a work has been released under a licence that allows republishing. Point to the release, otherwise no demonstration, no copy. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • looks like a delete — no source, no evidence of licence, or exemptions — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf Incorrect Copyright Info[edit]

After going through much of this month's proofread, I decided to hop on over to Virginia Woolf's author page. I noticed that many of the books are marked "Under US copyright until X" by the {{copyright until}} template. However, this isn't correct for the few I checked. While true that works made before 1923 are in the public domain in the US, this does not mean that works after 1923 are not. All of her works published before 1964 are now in the public domain. I searched the US Copyright Office to check some, such as Mrs. Dalloway and A Room of One's Own. There are recent versions under copyright, but the originals were not renewed and do not fall under the post-1964 automatic renewal umbrella. The recent versions are under copyright because of new material (forewords, etc.) and edits to the original material, but the original text does not actually fall under the banner of copyright.

"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party.

As a result, it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work. A work that has fallen into the public domain, that is, a work that is no longer protected by copyright, is also an underlying “work” from which derivative authorship may be added, but the copyright in the derivative work will not extend to the public domain material, and the use of the public domain material in a derivative work will not prevent anyone else from using the same public domain work for another derivative work."

United States Copyright Office (Oct. 2013), “Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations”, <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf> 

Also see the Commons page which has a good summary of why the original text is now public domain.

Of note, the 70 year after death rule would apply for Britain, which means the copyright on the original works expired in 2011. I do not know about renewals on these works for Britain, but I'm referring to US copyright overall in this post. It seems that we're blocking ourselves from working on some great texts. As it stands, I haven't changed any of the page as I wanted to point this out first. If I have made a mistake, please feel free to point it out. The Haz talk 18:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through them and all the renewals seem to be valid. I can't tell if they were initially registered within the required thirty days but the years match. Without further information, I would say they are all under copyright, although the specific licence is not correct (they are under copyright due to renewal, not the 1923 cut-off). I might be wrong. I've added the renewal numbers for the moment if anyone wants to double check. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just looked at the renewal you gave for Mrs. Dalloway. It was in 1953 which means it would have been valid for 47 years (until 2000). I'll add that the new, longer copyright term (95y total) does not apply as it was published before 1964, so the term still remains 75y if the renewal was filed in the 28th year which it was. Circular 15 The Haz talk 19:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
URAA renewal complicates matters, and as they were UK published works, unless we can demonstrate that they are published within 30 days in the US, then they will remain foreign works, and pretty much out of bounds until 95 years post-publication`. How existing renewals and and URAA are going to interplay is just another nightmare, and just going to be too hard for base amateurs like us to resolve. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Edit conflict Virginia Woolf was an English writer. Thanks to w:URAA, all of her post-1922 books are copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from publication regardless of whether they were renewed or not, since they were copyrighted in the UK in 1996.
You also seem to ask whether the books were renewed in the UK or not. The UK abolished renewals quite a long time ago (in the w:Copyright Act 1842 I think), and renewals have not been needed in the UK since then. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
According to the copyright office, URAA doesn't apply here because they were already registered in the United States. If they had missed the original renewal, the URAA wouldn't have allowed them to renew because it was already registered under US copyright law. My original issue was that they had 75 year terms (even if URAA), not 95. However, while those recent publications discussed the 75 year total term for anything before 1964, the next part states that all works published after 1922 and renewed before 1978 automatically had the renewal extended 20 years to be 95 years total. This summary of a part of the 1998 act has cleared it up for me:

Copyrights already in their second term on January 1, 1978: The duration of the copyright term has automatically been prolonged to last for a total of 95 years. No further renewal registration is necessary.

Thanks for the info, everyone! The Haz talk 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, but URAA does restore the copyright to non-US works which weren't renewed, even if they were registered for copyright in the US. This does at least happen if the US registration was more than 30 days after publication in the UK. I'm not sure what happens if the US registration predates that, though, as some parts of US law consider registration to count as "publication". --Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Judgment[edit]

Original published in 1913, translation by Willa and Edwin Muir and Clement Greenberg published in 1948 seems to have been registered and reregistered (A29410, R622896) in compliance with US formalities. Prosody (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Can you please tell me where you're getting this information from? I have tried numerous searches but none of them spit out any useful results. S33L (S33L) 15:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't sweat it, it happens to all of us.
So, first I wanted to figure out who the translator was and where and when and in what text it was first published. I take a few lines and search for them in Google Books. There were a lot of results that didn't provide the translator, so I went to search tools and I changed it from search by relevance to search by date. It's ordered newest to oldest so I went to the last result. After a few different lines the oldest one I found was an anthology of translations by Willa and Edwin Muir titled The Penal Colony: Stories and other Pieces, published in 1948 in New York. I look up the translators and find out they're British and died in 1970 and 1959 respectively.
Now I go to Help:Public domain. It was published in the US between 1923 and 1963/77. I'm going to assume that it has a copyright notice because I think Schocken Books is a big enough publisher to do that kind of thing by default (they might not, in which case the text might be public domain, this might be an avenue worth looking into if you really want to make sure).
So now it would only be public domain if the copyright wasn't renewed. At the top of this page there are links to copyright renewal search databases. I fire up a few of them and start searching for 'Muir Penal Colony' and 'Muir Kafka.' I find searching for Muir Kafka on Stanford's search the record 'R622896 The Penal colony NM: translation Franz Kafka, edited by Max Brod, translated by Willa & Edwin Muir & Clement Greenberg A29410 Long record.' When I click the Long record link it has the information that corresponds to the book and it confirms that there is a renewal on record.
So now I know that whatever newly translated material was in that book has its copyright renewed. This translation of The Judgment might have been published before, this might be another avenue worth looking into.
But I've got to the point now where I have serious doubts about the copyright status of the work, so I tag it and post my findings here. If someone else does some research and finds something out that would make it likely public domain, they'll share it here and we'll close the discussion and restore the text. If after a few weeks no one comes up with anything we'll conclude it's probably copyright and delete it. Prosody (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I see, well I thank you very much. This info will most definately help me in the future when researching copyright status. I'll keep digging around because I am sure this work is in the Public Domain but if not then I am glad that someone did point out my errors. After all, I want to make sure that the content I contribute is A-okay. S33L (S33L) 23:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The old man at the bridge[edit]

A Hemingway work published in 1938 in the periodical Ken. Original registration B377646 with Hemingway as claimant, rereged by his widow 1965 R361175. Prosody (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Transcripts of "The Basement Tapes" of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted for questionable licenses.--Jusjih (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of any reason why this would be {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-release}} as asserted by the contributor. Contemporary authors, shouldn't enter public domain for a good long while. Prosody (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Should leave copyright in 2070.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ceaușescu's final speech[edit]

Seems like the original would still be in copyright in its home country, speeches are covered and only official texts are excluded. Prosody (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Index:Heralds of God.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Querying why this is on Wikisource given the author was not dead until 1990.

According to Wikipedia , the work itself was published originally in 1946 by a British publisher (Hodder and Stoughton), So by 70 pma rules ( Scottish author) , this is still in copyright and should be removed, notwithstanding that it's a US edition that wasn't seemingly renewed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional.- The author was still alive in 1990, This means that the work may have been subject to a URAA restoration as it was still in copyright on the 1996 date, despite the dates in the US edition presented here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good catch. It would have been pretty frustrating if it had slipped through and we let User:SandTransformed put more time into it. Assuming we can't prove it was published within 30 days of the British version (which seems a high bar), delete. Prosody (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
URAA has got nothing to do with it, and should not be brought into the argument. I have moved the file to enWS, and deleted it at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Published UK ... October 1946 (The Times); published US November (NY Times). Due to the nature of the work, I am comfortable calling it a month, and will comply with any takedown notice, especially with how the copyright notice has been written on the work. keepbillinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this - I got the scan from Internet Archive. It's also listed on HathiTrust as public-domain. Of course that is for the US edition. I guess I made a beginner mistake uploading it to Commons rather than enWS. SandTransformed (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

High bar leapt. Nice sleuthing, Billinghurst. I'm happy to see it kept and noone's efforts gone to waste. Prosody (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Testament (Shevchenko)[edit]

The translation of the work is listed as being undertaken in 1961, with the translator seemingly dying in 1967. From a look at the source cited, there is no evidence of whether the translation was published, or not. So to be able to keep these, we need to know whether published or not, and if published the copyright status of the work. Author won't have released translations under a CC licence, and likelihood of a copyright free status is also slim. I have notified the contributor, and pointed them here for the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Himne del Barça[edit]

Original should still be in copyright, at least one author still living. Prosody (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Apocalypse of Adam and Prayer of the Apostle Paul[edit]

Translated by George W. MacRae and Dieter Mueller respectively in the The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 1988. Can't think of any reason for them to be copyright unencumbered. Prosody (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton works[edit]

While cleaning up Author:Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, after having my attention drawn to it by a message on Scriptorium, I noticed a few works I think are copyright violations:

  1. There Is Only the Fight (1969)
  2. Address to the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women (1995)
  3. Hillary Clinton's Decision to Form a Presidential Exploratory Committee (2007)

Number 1 is her senior thesis and I see no reason why this would be anything other than under copyright (definitely by Clinton, possibly by the college as well). It is also incomplete. Number 2 is a speech while First Lady, which is not an official position as far as I am aware and wouldn't be covered by PD-USGov. Number 3 was published while she was a Senator but to produced during the course of her official duties, so it also shouldn't be supported by PD-USGov. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I was about to haver about publication, but the first one has a copyright notice on it, which makes it almost certainly copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

L'après-midi d'un faune[edit]

From Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help:

I am confused about the US copyright status of the English translation of the poem L'après-midi d'un faune by Bloomsbury Group artist Roger Fry. Would someone with clearer understanding of US law please review the tags I posted there, and come up with a suitable US tag? Although it became public domain in 1984, I think the URAA might have put it back in copyright in the US, and it may have to be taken down from Wikisource. --Hroðulf (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is complicated but British law might be the main problem rather than American. In 1995 UK statutory instrument SI 1995/3297 harmonised British copyright with Europe, which both extended the copyright period to 70 years pma and retroactively revived copyrights that had entered the public domain. So Fry's work The Poems of Mallarmé would have been in the public domain in 1985 but back under copyright from 1995 to 2005 in the UK and the rest of Europe. That's when the URAA becomes an issue. The URAA would only have brought the translation back into copyright if it was in copyright in its home country in 1996 (the URAA was the US response to the international community pressuring them to get into line on international copyright law, similar to the British SI). If it had been in the public domain in the UK in 1996, it would not have been affected by the URAA. However, as it had been brought back into copyright in the UK one year earlier, the URAA also brought it back into copyright in the US. Then a completely separate US law extended the copyright term to 95 years from publication, so it is probably still under copyright in the United States. The posthumous publication would have probably only affected the copyright if it had been published after 2004 (70 years pma). I'm not sure if I've got all of that right, so Im going to attach a {{copyvio}} and copy this thread to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Please note that the original French version is in the public domain so, if your French is up to it, a Wikisource translation is still possible. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, I not 100% sure about my summary. Several different laws are interacting here and I'm not sure if I got them all straight in my head. If I did get them right, then I think this is is a copyright violation in the US but could be ported to Wikilivres (and, as mentioned, would not affect a different, even user made, translation). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Works by British authors who died after 1925 published after 1922 that weren't published in the US within 30 days are going to be in copyright in the US. (With the exception of Crown Copyright.) (In 2019, 95 years from publication will be the prevailing rule, but due to grandfathering it's easier to remember before 1923 is in the public domain.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Law Professors Brief MN Voter ID lawsuit.pdf[edit]

Unsure where it was from, does it judicially qualify as {{PD-EdictGov}}?--Jusjih (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a document produced by the court, but a document produced by private parties petitioning the court for some relief. That said, it follows a format mandated by the court and contains information mandated by the court, so there really isn't anything copyright-eligible in the presentation. BD2412 T 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mao Zedong's work[edit]

Hello all,

Mao's work here all have the {{PD-CN}} tag. However, some of them (e.g. On Guerrilla Warfare) were not created on the behalf of Chinese government nor translated on the behalf of which. Since Mao's copyright is not expired before 2026 (50 years from 1976) or 2046 (70 years from 1976), should {{PD-CN}} still apply to those? -Mys 721tx (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please specify which works you are questioning.--Jusjih (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Basically all his early works before 1949. I have made a list of texts I went through so far that need attentions. I will check the rest later.
Please also refer to a early discussion on Chinese Wikisource.-Mys 721tx (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)