From Wikisource

←Community pages

Possible copyright violations

Discussion archives→

Shortcut: WS:COPYVIO This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. You may join any current discussion or start a new one. Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted. When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions. If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, the Rutgers copyright renewal records and Stanford Copyright Renewal Database 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.

Contents 1 Discussions 1.1 Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization) 1.2 Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address, Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Seventh State of the Union Address 1.3 Go Wash in the Beau­ti­ful Stream 1.4 How to Become a Man of Genius 1.5 The National Question and the Class Struggle 1.6 Sir Gerald Kaufman's 15.01.2009 speech on Gaza Strike at House of Commons 1.7 What Is Lojban? 1.8 Hacktivismo Declaration 1.9 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions 1.10 The Instruction of the Sea-Parade of the Operation Sail 1974 1.11 Apache License Version 2.0 1.12 Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial 1.13 Leaked classified documents like Downing Street memo 1.14 Ecce Homo 1.15 Be Ye Men of Valour 1.16 Line-Up for Yesterday 1.17 Oratio Imperata for A(H1N1) Virus 1.18 The Apocryphal New Testament, by Montague Rhodes James 1.19 Pickman's Model 1.20 Thine Is the Glory 1.21 Builder of Deserted Hearth 1.22 Borderland 1.23 Aitareya Upanishad (Sri Aurobindo translation) 1.24 Demons of Disaster 1.25 Have I Not Seen 1.26 A Texan Rides the Trouble Trail 1.27 Frank Spencer's Lullaby 1.28 Complete Works of Author:Fyodor Tyutchev 1.29 The Trial (Kafka) 1.30 The Netherlands and Flanders belong together 1.31 Your Mother

[edit] Discussions

[edit] Quran (Progressive Muslims Organization)

[edit] Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address, Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Seventh State of the Union Address

It is fairly clear that the Presidential speeches are public domain, however the opposition speeches are on behalf of a private entity (political party) not the federal government and would be copyrighted either by the individual or by the party. No copyright release is referenced here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Show me an instance of an opposition response that was not made by an elected official in the opposition party. To the extent that such addresses are delivered by sitting members of Congress they are certainly expressions of a federal government official speaking in the course of their government service. Might be dicier with state governors, but they are still government officials speaking as government officials. BD2412 T 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Regarding the members of Congress, their speeches are no different from the President's when it comes to copyright. Public statements on matters of governance enter the public domain. Regarding the governors, well, that's why I described the proposition as dicier. BD2412 T 05:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a workable argument that probably won't get us sued, but I'd still argue that it's a overly broad interpretation of a "work of the Federal Government" (which is all the text of the copyright law says). The president, as head of state, has his acts most tightly merged with his official duties, but I still find uncomfortable the concept that an employer can claim copyright on every speech someone makes about a general concept, especially one like politics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep, leaving state governors aside, anybody who is a Federal employee, whether FBI, Senator or President, who speaks in front of the House/Senate is doing so in commission of their Federal duties; and their works are thus Public Domain. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe.} 14:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the opposition response to the State of the Union is "typically broadcast from a studio with no audience." I would argue that one could come before Congress, while being a Federal employee, as a private citizen, but it's a moot point here. If it were before Congress, I wouldn't argue against labelling the Seventh State of the Union here with PD-USGov.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A private CBS Studio, or a federal studio used for that purpose? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe.} 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's being done by a private organization? Almost certainly private. This is not an official act of government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address; whatever the pro and con of the Seventh, the Sixth was done by a state governor, and hence is not eligible for PD-USGov.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. From the information provided, State Government official, not US Government official. State Government officials seems to what is quoted retain their copyright, and I have not seen evidence to the contrary provided. Note unless there is a legal definition (legislation or court ruling to the contrary) that I would consider anyone in one of the federal houses to be in government, they are involved in the governing of the US.—unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
  • The seventh was by Jim Webb, who was a US senator at the time. I don't think there's argument about whether he's in government, but the question in my mind is whether the speech was done in the course of his official duties and hence the property of his employer and not himself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It is the content of the speech, and not the circumstances of the broadcast, which brings it within the public domain. Suppose Bush delivered the State of the Union from a private studio and had it broadcast only over HBO? It would still be PD. Webb's speech (like most responses to the State of the Union) concerned the general course of governance of the nation. BD2412 T 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It is being an official act in the course of his duties that brings it within the public domain, not the content of the speech. The same rules here apply to what an employer could claim of an employee's work. The State of the Union is mandated by the Constitution; if it were another speech, for the sake of a third, private party, in a private studio, as Barak Obama and not the President of the United States, broadcast over HBO, there could very well be a case for copyright. I would argue that senators aren't as merged with their jobs as the President is, and thus wouldn't have to go as far to make the claim that the speech was not done in the course of their official duties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Except that he's doing it as part of his duty as a party official not as a government official - as noted, the 6th response to Bush was by a governor, as will the 1st response to Obama. I just can't see how the response is being done as part of a government duty. The actual State of the Union is different, of course, as some form of it is mandated by law; the response is a purely partisan (i.e. non-governmental) affair, however. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific definition from the Copyright circular 92 is

A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.

--billinghurst (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Adding Republican Response to Barack Obama's First State of the Union Address; since Author:Bobby Jindal is a governor, it's a clear copyright violation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) and Democratic Response to George W. Bush's Eighth State of the Union Address, again from a state governor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. In a parliamentary system this would be a no-brainer because "official" responses would be presented before parliament. I don't think that Jindal's status as a governor is a big factor here. The Republicans chose him to represent a national perspective, not the more limited state perspective, perhaps as an early shot in the 2012 presidential campaign. If only a state perspective were desired, why would this need to be so widely broadcast outside of Louisiana? In these circumstances a too rigid application of the letter of copyright law (or our rules) leads to an absurdity that is contrary to the public interest. An overriding "public interest" argument should not be used too lightly because it is too easily abused. It would not be in the public interest to treat all the commentaries on news talk-shows as in the public domain. Jindal's response was not the work of a single TV series nor of a single TV network, but one provided for all broadcasters by the Republicans in general. Allowing the free use of the official views of the governing party while at the same time using copyright law to constrain the official responses of the minority party strikes me as undemocratically contrary to the public interest. Eclecticology (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a parliamentary system; the State of the Union is not the official views of the governing party, it's the views of the President of the United States, and him alone. The copyright law doesn't constrain the official response at all, merely our right to reprint it as free content. You're more than welcome to ask Bobby Jindal, et la, to release their speeches as Free Content, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they aren't appreciative of the concept that anyone can translate and reprint them, in part or in whole in whatever context, without further permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree with Prosfilaes. It is not a rhetorical discussion about democracy, it is a legal discussion about intellectual property. If there is a relevant demonstration of case law to support the position, then let it be heard, even on a what constitutes "official duties", however, to this point, I haven't heard a convincing argument. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have searched diligently, and am unable to find an instance in which a member of Congress (or a governor, for that matter) has attempted to assert copyright over a public speech made by them. To the contrary, there are plenty of cases where members of Congress seek to shroud themselves in the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause for their public comments, which is essentially a concession on their part that such comments are made pursuant to their offices. BD2412 T 01:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly these fall under {{PD-manifesto}}. This is speech which is intended to be public. And at least in Jindall's case it was publically released to the press.[3] -- Kendrick7 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • PD-manifesto says "This template should only be used after a reasonable effort has been made to verify that a work is unlicensed." The people behind this speech are contactable by email, so unless someone has emailed them and waited a reasonable time for an answer, I don't see how that could apply. I doubt the premise behind PD-manifesto altogether; just because they want their manifesto widely distributed, doesn't mean that they want derivative works to be created at anyone's whim. Freely distributable, probably, but actual Free Content, much less Public Domain? I seriously doubt it. And in these situations, where asking is trivial, I think it's our responsibility to do that first.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• All that is required is a reasonable effort to ensure that these were indeed speeches intended to be public, which is indisputable. Public speech is in the public domain, no bureaucratic finagling is needed. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's a failure of copyright law 101. There's a whole website devoted to material that's public, but not public domain; I think it's called Wikipedia? While I'm sure the Republicans have encourage reproduction of the speech, I'm more sceptical that they encourage translation by party or parties unknown, and doubt that they accept its use with the complete freedom that public domain means. Verbal material becomes copyrighted when placed in a fixed form, and it's entirely likely that this was written down before being performed publicly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm forced to agree - neither the Speech and Debate Clause nor the general release of government works applies to state governors. Barring a state law prohibition in their assertion of copyright, it attaches to their speeches every bit as readily as to Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Please note also that a speech that is broadcast over the airwaves need not be written down beforehand to fall under copyright - the speech is recorded (thus reduced to tangible form) at the time of the broadcast (which is why the NFL owns the copyright in live football games, for example). BD2412 T 15:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• But were they speaking as governors, or as representatives of the party who happened to be governors. Nobody has suggested suppressing Sarah Palin's speeches in the election campaign on the grounds that she is governor of a state. Eclecticology (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Given that the Republican Party is not an arm of the government, I don't understand the relevance of that question. Sarah Palin's speeches in the election campaign should not be posted here, as they aren't Free Content, but that's not the argument we're having at this moment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Ditto Kendrick. 70.29.76.121 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Given the above, I'm willing to accept that when a member of the United States Congress gives a political speech, that we can assume it's a work of the US government unless there's a clear claim of copyright. My opposition to the speeches of governors stands.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's relevant to the discussion but CSpan is running the Jindal response on YouTube: [4] Abbarocks (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re all the commentary, it would seem that an email to the offices of these people stating that the work is in the public arena, and ask which licence applies to their work that has been released (send them the info). This task would be incumbent on those who wish to have the material available. Go through the attempt, keep copies of the email. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best idea because the encyclopedia will freeze up if we get paranoid about this. Let's just go with the majority view here, at least that's my opinion. Abbarocks (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedia, and there are literally millions of documents we can profitably host that are clearly in the public domain. It's more likely to freeze up from legal action then from reasonable concern about copyrights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Go Wash in the Beau­ti­ful Stream

[edit] How to Become a Man of Genius

[edit] The National Question and the Class Struggle

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

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

Hansard means "the official verbatim record of debates in the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, or South African parliament."

Political speeches are freely available via British Parliament Site, and no political public speech has copyright concern as far as I am aware in the history. Like Yasser Arafat's 1974 UN General Assembly speech has full text in wikisource, this important speech by Geral Kaufman also should deserve its own page. Kasaalan (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Being freely available from the source doesn't make it freely distributable or necessarily distributable without conditions that this site can maintain. This site requires abidance with the US laws of copyright, and that is the measure that we need to apply. Please have a look at WS:COPY and note the Fair use part. The discussion needs to be about copyright and which licence applies, do you have information to support your statement about 'political public speech'? -- billinghurst (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement no political public speech has copyright concern concerns me. There are certainly questions regarding whether or not the speech was originally written down in draft form, or whether it was ad-lib. Either way, simply stating that all political, public speeches have no copyright concern does not reflect the reality of copyright law. It definitely needs to be discussed here. Certainly, we have a lot of speeches kept under {{PD-manifesto}}, but in my opinion, some of them are kept erroneously (definitely not all, though). Jude (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the restriction on the electronic reproduction of Crown and Parliamentary copyright material. At present, neither Hansard nor Acts of Parliament or other statutory materials are available on the Internet, except to subscribers to extremely costly commercial services. This is the result of HMSO's policy of not permitting the free electronic reproduction of such materials. Electronic publication is permitted only on normal commercial terms, involving the payment of significant fees or royalties., sadly. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Jung.} 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a 1995 letter, and UK Hansard is now available on the web, and there may be waived restrictions. <shrug>-- billinghurst (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well actually the 1995 paper has a title under it as A more recent press release gives details of how the situation has developed.

Ian Church

Ian Church, is the editor of Hansard, the daily record of what is said in Parliament. He was responsible for setting up and chairing a committee of Parliamentary officials, whose report has led to Hansard being published free of charge on the Internet. To its credit, the Cabinet Office endorsed this approach, despite the potential loss of revenue to the Exchequer.

The high cost of the paper version of Hansard has long been criticised, as putting it beyond the reach of many. An annual subscription to the daily version, for both Houses of Parliament, costs £1,185. The annual fee for an electronic version of Hansard, on CDs and through an on-line subscription, comes to £1,997.

However, as a result of Ian Church's initiative, Hansard has appeared in full on the Internet since October 1996, a development which makes Parliament's proceedings more accessible than ever before. All debates, questions and answers in both the Commons and Lords can be read free of charge the next day. The initiative goes beyond Hansard itself. A number of bills and select committee reports are also now available on-line without charge, and it is planned that by April 1998 all Parliamentary papers will be available on the Internet. These include some materials, such as amendments to bills, which are not directly available to the public at all at the moment. Few people will want to study Hansard regularly, but many will have an interest in reading a debate on a particular subject of importance to them - perhaps the environment, animal rights or the NHS - or seeing what their MP has been doing in the Commons.

So reading an article fully instead partly is better. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. User:Kasaalan's definition of Hansard conflicts directly with w:Hansard, which states: Hansard is not a verbatim account of debates in Parliament. It seeks to eliminate "repetitions, redundancies and obvious errors". One instance of such an eliminated redundancy involves the calling of members in the House of Commons., etc. The public availability doesn't necessarily mean that it's free of copyright, unfortunately...

Well the Hansard logs cut out Madam Deputee parts for example. I have fully checked the transcript with the video. Actually there is a current/present word replacement in the text too.

Either way, I'd be interested to hear what response (if any) has been garnered from User:Billinghurst's email. Jude (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Links

• Parliamentary copyright
• Click licence
• Full terms Parliamentary licence

-- billinghurst (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and I hate having to say that. While parts of the licence are lovely, it doesn't allow us to host the work at WS. :-( About the only option available is to ask the author directly whether they will allow the reproduction. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied against copyright hansard to the 1995 letter. As a reply to the referred letter, in 1996 hansard logs become publicly available over internet.

Yet putting copyright statement on Hansard logs actually even not limiting the case. Because British Parliement, is not the jobkeeper of MPs their speechs' copyright belonges to themselves, not to the government and publicly speaking makes it available to the public except commercial use, unless they explicitly state otherwise, that is called fair use itself. Calling the speech has any copyright issue is irrational, or all the newspapers around the world, would have to pay license fee to the politicians, but not even a single an example present in the history. The Disengagement Proposal of Ariel Sharon, Letter to George Bush from Ariel Sharon announcing his disengagement plan this letters are publicly available and I cannot find any note on copyright statuts of their work under the letters that Bush or Sharon giving out public licenses. Because it is simply unnecessary for a political speech or writing, unless you use it commercially, and even for a commercial book I am not aware any single objection to the use of a public statement. Since it is about the right of public awareness. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I send the mails necessary for clearing out the copyright issues. But maybe if you people also send letters tomorrow it may also help. Kasaalan (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Permission Granted Thanks for the help and concern people.

Dear ...

Yes, I give you permission to quote my Gaza speech of 15 January 2009 in full in Wikipedia.

Best wishes

Gerald Kaufman

Sir Gerald Kaufman replied kindly in 1 day via mail. Is there any other procedure we should take. Kasaalan (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(An initial note: I'm not a copyright expert. Hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable regarding British Government copyrights and work-for-hire laws will be able to clear this up once and for all). Firstly, "Publicly available" on the internet does absolutely not mean that it is free from copyright. Secondly, on the matter of that copyright, the moment that something is written by something (generally as a creative work that is copyrightable), it is automatically copyrighted. Just because someone reads it in public does not mean that it is free from copyright.

Thirdly, Hansard appears to be a modification of any speech made in Parliament by an MP. Members for Parliament, I would assume, are in the employ of the British Government. I'm not entirely sure what work-for-hire laws there are in the UK, but I guess it can be reasonably assumed that, as they wrote them to be spoken in Parliament, and they most likely wrote them while being payed, as part of their employ, that they become the copyright of the British Government. This means that Hansard has every right to dictate the copyright terms of a text hosted on their website, as they are a part of the Government.

Fourthly, because of this, I'm not sure that Mr. Kaufman has the right to grant us free use of the text. Fifthly, the permission email you have posted here is not usable, unfortunately, by us.

w:Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission has more information regarding requesting copyright permission, and it explains it in complete detail.

Finally, I hope that makes some modicum of sense and helps to clear things up. Unfortunately, not all the concerns addressed have been resolved. Jude (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The logs of the speech is publicly available since 1996, in British Parliament's own page.

Hansard logs only modificated for readability purpose, they remove "Madam Deputee" titles of the speech in written logs.

British goverment or state not employing the parliaments, in the way you think, actually no government does, the respective owners holding the copyrights.

Unless he signes otherwise, even a journalist' articles copyright belongs to him.

The rules of the Hansard is very clear, it says if you want to use the Hansard logs, get a written permission from the MP via mail for the most part, and that is what I did, and posted Sir Gerald Kaufman's answer above. He stated we can use the speech's full text in wikipedia. This is more than fair use. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What Is Lojban?

[edit] Hacktivismo Declaration

Anyone want to try and work out this work. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is certainly something that could be considered a 'manifesto'. I'm not entirely certain though--that's just based on the wording and a quick glance over it. Jude (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete On looking again, I am not even sure that it is published, or can be regarded as a serious work. billinghurst (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions

Documents of the Author:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not seem to have any exemption attached to them re copyright, and they are not necessarily going to fall under {{PD-EdictGov}}, so they are sitting there looking need some licence, and I cannot see one that would give it exemption from copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. Unless there is a means to specifically exclude the OECD's copyright] would seem to exclude us housing the document. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Instruction of the Sea-Parade of the Operation Sail 1974

A work from 1974 in Polish. Quotes an official translation, though no translation details. Either way it would seem that the work is Copyright being 1974, and not a government edict, nor manifesto. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be something organised by w:Operation Sail, which is a not-for-profit organisation founded in the US. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to conflate with the idea that this is a Polish Sea-Parade. Also, there was no Operation Sail, at least according to that page, in 1974. The only one in the 70s was 1976 (though there appears to be a Polish stamp dated 1972 relating to the Polish ship that was involved in the race. Perhaps the dates are all wrong?).

Either way, indications appear to be that this is not a government-run event, merely a government-sponsored event (certainly not an edict). There's also no translator information, so I'm leaning towards Delete unless someone manages to dig up something. Jude (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apache License Version 2.0

What copyright applies to a software License? If it is the work of an organisation, and has specific wording, then wouldn't it have some level of artistic merit, and hence copyright? -- billinghurst (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial

Re-listing to gain proper consensus. Quotes:

Some exhibits may be found from page 51 onwards, and they were "ordered into the record." (John Vandenberg)

Copyediting: A Practical Guide, by Karen Judd (ISBN 1560526084) p. 202 it says:

“

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

”

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

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

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

[edit] Leaked classified documents like Downing Street memo

[edit] Ecce Homo

[edit] Be Ye Men of Valour

This work of Author:Winston Churchill would seem to be a copyright violation. Author died 1960s, and about the only thing that might save it from US copyright is if it is considered Template:PD-EdictGov. I don't know that definition sufficiently intimately to make that determination. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Line-Up for Yesterday

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

[edit] Oratio Imperata for A(H1N1) Virus

[edit] The Apocryphal New Testament, by Montague Rhodes James

[edit] Pickman's Model

1926 publication, 1937 death, no US license. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep It's a 1926 writing but a 1927 publication. HP Lovecraft's copyrights are an evil, evil mess, and this is one of the Weird Tales publications, which are messier, but there's some good information linked to from the bottom of Author:Howard Phillips Lovecraft. Going off [7], there's a good argument that the work is now in the public domain because of a failure to renew, and even if a judge doesn't buy that (and mind you there is no clearly correct answer from the information now available) there's the backup argument that Arkham House, who claims the copyrights, disclaimed the copyrights in an earlier case over royalties, and thus estoppel comes into play. On the good side, nobody can say we should just have looked harder; we know what the best scholars on the subject have to say; the answer is just inherently fuzzy with existing information. We have a good 97% claim here, I think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per argument above. billinghurst (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thine Is the Glory

Publication in unknown year, 1932 death, no US license. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The translator, Hoyle, actually lived 1875-1939. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it doesn't look to be a US work. billinghurst (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Builder of Deserted Hearth

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

[edit] Borderland

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

[edit] Aitareya Upanishad (Sri Aurobindo translation)

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

The opening to "The Upanishads--Ii : Kena And Other Upanishads" says that his translations were published between 1909 and 1920, though later revisions were made. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep balance of probability; presumably out of copyright in India. billinghurst (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Demons of Disaster

[edit] Have I Not Seen

Publication in unknown year, author died in 1937. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me smack you into Google...anyways, published in DM's 1922 "Poems and Portraits" according to entering a random line of the poem into Google Books :P Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried Google but sometimes got no result. I first tagged No US license late last year but no one cared.--Jusjih (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see "Have I not known ......" in a 1922 poem through Google but it looks different. The problem is that we have too many pages without clear sources indicated to allow verification.-Jusjih (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Texan Rides the Trouble Trail

[edit] Frank Spencer's Lullaby

The work was deleted by me, and subsequently restored today as the contributor Phantomsteve (talk • contribs) requested it as such. The contributor has been asked to provide a copy of the permission to reproduce to info@wikisource.org and I will allow that normal process to occur. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note applied to Talk:Frank Spencer's Lullaby billinghurst (talk)

Have yet to receive anything, as far as I can tell. If the user has already received a response, can they provide the ticket number? (Found in the Subject line of the email.) Jude (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Works of Author:Fyodor Tyutchev

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

• Translations by F. Jude. As that website indicates, that's a 2000 publication, and I see no evidence that they were released under a free license, so these should be clear deletes.

• • Feasting finished, choirs quiet, Madness, Oh, my prophetic soul, and The Twins (Tyutchev).

• Translations merely attributed to Tiuticheviana. The website might give a friendly copyright status somewhere, and we might be able to get permission to use them, but we have no free license noted on Wikisource or obvious to the English reader on Tiuticheviana.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• • As is the globe embraced by ocean, Cicero, How tuneful is the voice of sea, On the Eve of the Anniversary of August 4th. 1864

• Attributed to V.V. Nabokov, details unknown, and in this mess I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt

• • Silentium!, Last Love (Tyutchev)

• Attributed to 1d35crewman, a good target if someone wants to ask for a free license.

• • My friend, I so adore your eyes; original source says "перевод мой (с)2005.", so it appears to be copyrighted.

• Attributed to w:Anatoly Liberman (Russian/American professor, 1937- ) without license

• • You will not grasp her with your mind

• Attributed by User:Yann to Author:Clark Ashton Smith

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

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

I know that copyright is quite complicated thing and nobody can understand it. We can leave here the stuff printed before 1932. But if this is still questionable, we can consider before deleting of them to move at least part of them into Wikilivres... It would be safer there under CC-BY-NC licence. What do you think? --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright isn't that hard in this case; if it's recent and you don't have a clear license from the translator, you can't use it. That goes for Wikilivres as much as us; unless we know that these translations have been released by their translators under CC-BY-NC, they can't host them under that license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just wrote to 1d35crewman, let see what he will answer... --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Trial (Kafka)

I considered putting this up for speedy deletion, but I decided that it was just over the line. This page is merely a table of contents; apparently someone had planned or started to put up David Wyllie's translation, but David Wyllie wasn't interested in licensing it to us. Moreover, Der Prozess (The Trial) was filed for US copyright ©1Jan25, received US copyright registration AF12080, and was renewed 28Apr52, registration R9470528. It, Ein Hüngerkunstler, Das Schloss, and Amerika (and the full text of Der Prozess, not published until 1935) are all under copyright until at least 2025.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete, If the German is copyrighted, so are all possible derivative translations, even if we made our own. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, unauthoritative, just following the cases proposed. billinghurst (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• That this is just an undeveloped table of contents is reason enough for deletion. There is nothing there to transfer to Wikilivres. I also express no opinion at this time about the translation.

  As to the original, Kafka has been dead for more than 70 years, so the work is out of copyright in most countries other than the U.S., notably in the Czech Republic. The U.S. copyright remains questionable. How did Schocken Books get the right to renew? They weren't established until 1931. Kafka himself wanted the manuscripts burned, so it seems that whoever registered the U.S. copyright in 1925 did not have the right to do so; if so, the 1925 copyright is invalid, and perhaps fraudulent. Die Schmiede, the original German publisher went out of business in 1929; it's not clear who produced the U.S. version in 1925 as was required for a valid copyright. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As Der Prozess is a German book, no US edition was necessary; US editions were only necessary for English-language books. The literary executor of his estate would have had the right to file for copyright, and Schocken Books is listed as PPW, which means proprietor of a posthumous work, which seems reasonable at first glance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I can concede the point about a US edition not being necessary for foreign language books. How is it reasonable that Schocken would be proprietor? Max Brod was still alive at the time of the copyright renewal; he was the one with the right to renew, not Schoken. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

While that may be the case, I am not sure that it is our concern or pertinent to the situation, and would be a matter for the author or their estate. billinghurst (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The pertinance relates to why renewals existed in the first place. They were there to give the author and his descendants a second chance in the case where the original contract with the publisher took undue advantage of the author. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• What is the date of death of David Wyllie? It might be possible to copy this text to Wikilivres if he died before 1959. Yann (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He made this translation for Project Gutenberg in the 21st century; as far as I know, he's still alive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Does PG recognize the copyrights of its translators, or does it treat everything so contributed as having been put in the public domain? The strongest argument for delete, in my mind, is that the page is an empty shell. There are no contents there, so there is nothing to transfer to Wikilivres, even if it is legal to do so. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gutenberg book [8] has a clear copyright on the top.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Netherlands and Flanders belong together

Recently added work, though no licence. It mentions Leterme, which I can only presume is w:Yves Leterme which seemingly would make it a contemporary document, with no evidence of authors, source, or licence to allow us to site the document -- billinghurst (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mother

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

The original German is in the public domain because the US did not extend the copyright term for enemy works from 50 to 70 years. We cannot decide that the translation is PD unless we know where it came from. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand what you're talking about in the first sentence; the only time non-US copyright terms have mattered for copyright law is what they were when the URAA took effect on January 1st, 1996. As for enemy works, the law says "Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work." If Hitler's copyright is owned by a government--which is possible, but debated--it still wouldn't apply unless it was owned by the Alien Property Custodian, which I find unlikely, but I guess is possible, and I wouldn't know how to check that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)