Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2009-12

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in December 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Aitareya Upanishad (Sri Aurobindo translation)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept and self-withdrawn--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Publication in unknown year, author died in 1950. Move to Wikilivres?--Jusjih (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The opening to "The Upanishads--Ii : Kena And Other Upanishads" says that his translations were published between 1909 and 1920, though later revisions were made. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei. 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep balance of probability; presumably out of copyright in India. billinghurst (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

East-West dichotomy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept; I'm not entirely convinced it entirely meets all our requirements for peer-reviewed publication, but the copyright is fine, and if someone wants to keep that issue open, it can be taken to Proposed Deletions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
East-West dichotomy is a copy of a website; when I asked the contributor for evidence that it was free to copy, he added "Copyright: This work is in the public domain: Copyright permission" to the talk page, which is pretty clear that it's not public domain or Free Content.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Prosfilaes! Sorry for the delay, just now returned. I asked for permission from the author in advance, who is a diciple of the recently deceased Ji Xianlin, and he placed a permission in form of a public domain release for his work Copyright permission, so I applied the tag category PD-author-release. Is it ok now, or should we ask him for a specific declaration to wikisource? Anyhow, I think this is a keeper. Laters. Hou Yi (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then the copyright is fine, but we also need to know that this was previously published, that this isn't just someone's webpage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi! I found it also published in archive.org with Creative Commons license: CC0 1.0 Universal. But it was self-published even before in China on Peking Uni campus via simple on-campus press [where we print our dissertations] (100 copies, 15 RMB each) and distributed in October 2007 for free, and immediately "disencouraged" by the authorities for its foreign authorship, topic, and quoting Mao, Ji, Gu and Li. But many think it is ok. The cover was transparent, and first page was a Europe-Asia map with two-colored eyes, like a face. Laters! Hou Yi (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about how universities in China deal with dissertations, but if this text is indeed a dissertation, there is at least some implication that it has been (according to my knowledge of how dissertations work) peer-reviewed. While WS:WWI states "published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication", if the text has actually been peer-reviewed, I'm not sure that its self-publication would be an issue. Of course, it would depend on whether or not the text has been peer reviewed. Jude (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in China we have same Masters, PhD and research dissertations and all are peer-reviewed. I put mine up here: http://www.wanfangdata.com/index.asp (over 20 million Chinese dissertations and journal articles). But this one is by a foreigner, so he is not there. Cheers.Hou Yi (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • May I suggest that since we have copyright permission of the author here and another Creative Commons license CCO 1.0 Universal here, and since dissertations at any major university are peer-reviewed, we should keep this one. Any objections? Cheers! ^o^ Hou Yi (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Scheme: An Interpreter for Extended Lambda Calculus[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, {{cc-by-3.0}} -- billinghurst (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this in the public domain? Certainly, {{PD-USGov}} is wrong, as it's written by people working for a private university. The original publication history is too unclear for me to declare {{PD-US-no-notice}} without further information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As the paper says, the research was funded by the US Department of Defense:

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

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

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

Gerald Jay Sussman responds:

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

Confirmation from Patrick Winston:

and from Guy Steele:

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

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

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

Manual for Revolutionary Leaders[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept, published in U.S. before 1978 with no copyright notice. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No mention of publication date, unknown author, no source, no license, etc. Yann (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can find Manual for revolutionary leaders, by Michael Velli. Compiled and edited by Lorraine and Fredy Perlman
Description         Detroit, Black & Red, 1972. 261 p. illus. 23 cm. 
Review
-- billinghurst (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
source given in edit summary. They say "This work has always been completely free." Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The web site cited in the edit summary is not the author of the work, and we have had problems before with hosting sites adding their own (legally meaningless) disclaimers of copyright. For what it's worth, only a snippet view is available at Google Books, signifying that the work may not be PD. I requested a hard copy (OCLC 1204535all editions) via interlibrary loan and will see whether it clarifies things. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Checked against hard copy (OCLC 1204535all editions) confirming publication in 1972 in by Black & Red, Box 9546, Detroit, MI 48202, U.S.A. Published text omits any copyright notice, and work was published at a time when the lack of such a notice vitiated copyright protection. Tagged work {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Also tagged {{incomplete}} to reflect fact that text currently online here includes only through the middle of p. 206 of the 261-page original work. Those with an interest in the subject matter will hopefully try to complete the work. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Unity[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This work is in the public domain. The problem is we don't know when the translation was done or who did the translation. We also know who did the transcription (that is actually what is listed as the translation by mistake right now). We don't know when the transcription was done, however. The work is public domain, so we can definitely add it later, we just might need to add a different version of the text. We just need to know if this version needs to be deleted. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy keep (withdrawn) billinghurst (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I just received this note on my talk page.
Hi, the Chapter 49 of the book Autobiography of a Yogi" is in public domain in the USA. Since 2005 it is part of the book Autobiography of a Yogi: The Original 1946 Edition Plus Bonus Material printed and sold by Crystal Clarity. You can check at [[4]]. The synopsis says: "(...) This updated edition contains bonus materials, including a last chapter that Yogananda himself wrote in 1951, five years after the publication of the first edition. It is the only version of this chapter available without posthumous changes."
Best regards,
--Tat Sat (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

World Community Day[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy keep billinghurst (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
===Women's responsibility in today's world===

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

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


Deleted[edit]

Sir Gerald Kaufman's speech[edit]

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

The following discussion is closed: Imported to Wikilivres:Sir Gerald Kaufman's 15.01.2009 speech on Gaza Strike at House of Commons.--Jusjih (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The following is a speech presented in the UK House of Commons, and it intimated to me that this was a speech of unknown licence. The speech looks to be reproduced from UK's Hansard. There are a number of variations of licence through the website, and nothing that I could find specifically aligned for Hansard. I have dropped an email to the Parliamentary Archives for some clarification on what the copyright and restrictions may be. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hansard means "the official verbatim record of debates in the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, or South African parliament."
Political speeches are freely available via British Parliament Site, and no political public speech has copyright concern as far as I am aware in the history. Like Yasser Arafat's 1974 UN General Assembly speech has full text in wikisource, this important speech by Geral Kaufman also should deserve its own page. Kasaalan (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Being freely available from the source doesn't make it freely distributable or necessarily distributable without conditions that this site can maintain. This site requires abidance with the US laws of copyright, and that is the measure that we need to apply. Please have a look at WS:COPY and note the Fair use part. The discussion needs to be about copyright and which licence applies, do you have information to support your statement about 'political public speech'? -- billinghurst (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement no political public speech has copyright concern concerns me. There are certainly questions regarding whether or not the speech was originally written down in draft form, or whether it was ad-lib. Either way, simply stating that all political, public speeches have no copyright concern does not reflect the reality of copyright law. It definitely needs to be discussed here. Certainly, we have a lot of speeches kept under {{PD-manifesto}}, but in my opinion, some of them are kept erroneously (definitely not all, though). Jude (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the restriction on the electronic reproduction of Crown and Parliamentary copyright material. At present, neither Hansard nor Acts of Parliament or other statutory materials are available on the Internet, except to subscribers to extremely costly commercial services. This is the result of HMSO's policy of not permitting the free electronic reproduction of such materials. Electronic publication is permitted only on normal commercial terms, involving the payment of significant fees or royalties., sadly. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Jung. 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a 1995 letter, and UK Hansard is now available on the web, and there may be waived restrictions. <shrug>-- billinghurst (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well actually the 1995 paper has a title under it as A more recent press release gives details of how the situation has developed.
Ian Church
Ian Church, is the editor of Hansard, the daily record of what is said in Parliament. He was responsible for setting up and chairing a committee of Parliamentary officials, whose report has led to Hansard being published free of charge on the Internet. To its credit, the Cabinet Office endorsed this approach, despite the potential loss of revenue to the Exchequer.
The high cost of the paper version of Hansard has long been criticised, as putting it beyond the reach of many. An annual subscription to the daily version, for both Houses of Parliament, costs £1,185. The annual fee for an electronic version of Hansard, on CDs and through an on-line subscription, comes to £1,997.
However, as a result of Ian Church's initiative, Hansard has appeared in full on the Internet since October 1996, a development which makes Parliament's proceedings more accessible than ever before. All debates, questions and answers in both the Commons and Lords can be read free of charge the next day. The initiative goes beyond Hansard itself. A number of bills and select committee reports are also now available on-line without charge, and it is planned that by April 1998 all Parliamentary papers will be available on the Internet. These include some materials, such as amendments to bills, which are not directly available to the public at all at the moment. Few people will want to study Hansard regularly, but many will have an interest in reading a debate on a particular subject of importance to them - perhaps the environment, animal rights or the NHS - or seeing what their MP has been doing in the Commons.
So reading an article fully instead partly is better. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused. User:Kasaalan's definition of Hansard conflicts directly with w:Hansard, which states: Hansard is not a verbatim account of debates in Parliament. It seeks to eliminate "repetitions, redundancies and obvious errors". One instance of such an eliminated redundancy involves the calling of members in the House of Commons., etc. The public availability doesn't necessarily mean that it's free of copyright, unfortunately...
Well the Hansard logs cut out Madam Deputee parts for example. I have fully checked the transcript with the video. Actually there is a current/present word replacement in the text too.
Either way, I'd be interested to hear what response (if any) has been garnered from User:Billinghurst's email. Jude (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Links
-- billinghurst (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and I hate having to say that. While parts of the licence are lovely, it doesn't allow us to host the work at WS. :-( About the only option available is to ask the author directly whether they will allow the reproduction. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have replied against copyright hansard to the 1995 letter. As a reply to the referred letter, in 1996 hansard logs become publicly available over internet.
Yet putting copyright statement on Hansard logs actually even not limiting the case. Because British Parliement, is not the jobkeeper of MPs their speechs' copyright belonges to themselves, not to the government and publicly speaking makes it available to the public except commercial use, unless they explicitly state otherwise, that is called fair use itself. Calling the speech has any copyright issue is irrational, or all the newspapers around the world, would have to pay license fee to the politicians, but not even a single an example present in the history. The Disengagement Proposal of Ariel Sharon, Letter to George Bush from Ariel Sharon announcing his disengagement plan this letters are publicly available and I cannot find any note on copyright statuts of their work under the letters that Bush or Sharon giving out public licenses. Because it is simply unnecessary for a political speech or writing, unless you use it commercially, and even for a commercial book I am not aware any single objection to the use of a public statement. Since it is about the right of public awareness. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I send the mails necessary for clearing out the copyright issues. But maybe if you people also send letters tomorrow it may also help. Kasaalan (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Permission Granted Thanks for the help and concern people.
Dear ...
Yes, I give you permission to quote my Gaza speech of 15 January 2009 in full in Wikipedia.
Best wishes
Gerald Kaufman
Sir Gerald Kaufman replied kindly in 1 day via mail. Is there any other procedure we should take. Kasaalan (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(An initial note: I'm not a copyright expert. Hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable regarding British Government copyrights and work-for-hire laws will be able to clear this up once and for all). Firstly, "Publicly available" on the internet does absolutely not mean that it is free from copyright. Secondly, on the matter of that copyright, the moment that something is written by something (generally as a creative work that is copyrightable), it is automatically copyrighted. Just because someone reads it in public does not mean that it is free from copyright.
Thirdly, Hansard appears to be a modification of any speech made in Parliament by an MP. Members for Parliament, I would assume, are in the employ of the British Government. I'm not entirely sure what work-for-hire laws there are in the UK, but I guess it can be reasonably assumed that, as they wrote them to be spoken in Parliament, and they most likely wrote them while being payed, as part of their employ, that they become the copyright of the British Government. This means that Hansard has every right to dictate the copyright terms of a text hosted on their website, as they are a part of the Government.
Fourthly, because of this, I'm not sure that Mr. Kaufman has the right to grant us free use of the text. Fifthly, the permission email you have posted here is not usable, unfortunately, by us.
w:Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission has more information regarding requesting copyright permission, and it explains it in complete detail.
Finally, I hope that makes some modicum of sense and helps to clear things up. Unfortunately, not all the concerns addressed have been resolved. Jude (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The logs of the speech is publicly available since 1996, in British Parliament's own page.
Hansard logs only modificated for readability purpose, they remove "Madam Deputee" titles of the speech in written logs.
British goverment or state not employing the parliaments, in the way you think, actually no government does, the respective owners holding the copyrights.
Unless he signes otherwise, even a journalist' articles copyright belongs to him.
The rules of the Hansard is very clear, it says if you want to use the Hansard logs, get a written permission from the MP via mail for the most part, and that is what I did, and posted Sir Gerald Kaufman's answer above. He stated we can use the speech's full text in wikipedia. This is more than fair use. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete.
1. Again, publicly available does not equal a license on Wikisource.
2. There is such a thing as Crown copyright and it might supersede what would ordinarily be copyrightable by an individual.
3. The Hansard rules may be clear that speeches by individual members can be used with permission. But Wikisource only collects texts that can be freely redistributed without further restrictions even commercially redistributed. ResScholar (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Line-Up for Yesterday[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, per ResScholar's seemingly well-reasoned change of mind.Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A poem reputedly written in 1949 by w:Ogden Nash (d.1971). At first glance it would seem to be CopyVio. Does anyone know differently? -- billinghurst (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Were there any renewals on the magazine it was originally published in? I don't have the time to check at the minute, but it would be a start. Jude (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The chain of evidence for this is kind of a long story: The first publication of the story, according to Wikipedia was in SPORT magazine in January 1949. It was then published in an Ogden Nash compilation called Versus in 1949. The copyright notice for that book gives a single copyrighting entity encompassing certain works of the year 1949—Ogden Nash. (the only other copyrighting entity is the Saturday Evening Post publishing company, which encompasses different years.) So I did a search of the "Project Gutenberg copyright renewal registrations: contributions to periodicals" for Jan-Jun 1976; Jul-Dec 1976 and Jan-Jun 1977 for Ogden Nash works, but there was no mention of "Line-Up for Yesterday." There was a mention of a Versus renewal, but it was an NM or new materials renewal which mentioned compiliation and "additional poems"—presumably other poems that were never published in a periodical. So my vote is Keep as the evidence shows the magazine was not eligible to renew, and Nash's estate chose not to renew—if it ever had, as a beginning to the point of this discussion, a copyright. ResScholar (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In that case, kept. Jude (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reopened this discussion. I think maybe I have overgeneralized when I "presumed" the 1949 copyright for Versus didn't cover poems that were published the same year. Nash's heirs could plead redundancy as far as not registering a copyright for each poem in the periodical copyright category written in 1949, but then registering a copyright for the unregistered "additional poems" in the book category months after they were published (unusual, but possibly still permissible).
I had already spent more time than I had wanted to thinking about the work, and might have realized this when I submitted my vote, but time has allowed me to relax my mind's grip on the problem, not think in such rigid categories and come up with a clearer thought on the matter. I had also forgotten about the "reasonable doubt" test mentioned at the top of the page, or at least was reluctant to apply it, partly because I'm reluctant to vote down someone's good effort. With my absence of knowledge of copyright technicalities, I have to claim reasonable doubt and change my vote to delete. ResScholar (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (revised 07:35)

Reply to Microsoft[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Billinghurst's concerns are legitimate, and evidence to the contrary has not been presented for almost five months. I'm deleting this.Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This new page is a combination of works by more than one author, which were included without a copyright statement. While it is a series of letters, there is no evidence that the correspondence is all public, or that the author's have intended for the works for the public in a licence that we can justly apply.

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

Hit Where It Hurts[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted by Ted Kaczinski according to this on page 19: "Theodore Kaczynski retains copyright to this article" ResScholar (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the declaration is there, and without definitive evidence to the contrary, it should be removed. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I cant see that PDF. But if someone else has seen it, then I agree we should deleted it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, after verifying express notice of copyright on the referenced page of the linked PDF. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Memoirs Of Babur[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. ResScholar (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Found a duplicate of this "unknown translator"-marked work at a University of Washington webpage. Apparently it's a revised version of excerpts from a 1921 translation that's copyrighted 1999 by the professor. The 1921 PD translation is at this Internet Archive link. ResScholar (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

}

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

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
Hello, © Clutha Veterinary Association 2008 Published June 2008 by Clutha Print Print run of 500 copies Design & Layout – Paul Bonini ISBN: 978-0-473-13712-0 Yann (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
CommentIt looks as though as contributor pbonini (talkcontribs) has some relationship to the work itself, so it might be worth explaining to them about release with an Wikipedia:OTRS permission statement. If that cannot be received then it looks like a delete IMNSHO.-- billinghurst (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing heard from contributor, so we had better delete. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Quite clearly not acceptable; if we get a free release, it can easily be restored. Jude (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Letters from the Earth[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, no Wikilivres posting through 2012 due to Canadian Copyright Subsection 7(1) for posthumous work: publication + 50 years til year end.--Jusjih (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know this work is still in copyright in the United States, having been first published in 1962. It was not published in Mark Twain's lifetime (certainly not in 1909 as stated).Sbh (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The edition published in 1962 was renewed as RE0000511344, though I don't know what "Basis of Claim: New Matter: changes, additions, revisions." covers. I assume some of it was published elsewhere, but it does seem to have been published as a whole first in 1962.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
"Letters from the Earth" was first published in 1962 in a volume entitled Letters from the Earth. This volume also contained other sketches and unfinished pieces ("Papers of the Adam Family", "Fennimore Cooper's Literary Offenses", "A Cat Tale") that Mark Twain had not published during his lifetime. The volume was prepared for publication in 1935 (I think--this is from memory) by Bernard Devoto, and some portions of it (though not "Letters from the Earth") appeared in magazines at that time. The book however was delayed due to the objections of Mark Twain's daughter, who was worried that the volume would hurt her father's reputation. She relented later on, in part because of Soviet accusations that Mark Twain's works were being censored, and the entire volume appeared in 1962. This was the first publication of the piece "Letters from the Earth," though other items in the volume Letters from the Earth had appeared in magazines previously. None of the material had been published before 1923, except perhaps brief quotations in Paine's biography or some similar source. Sbh (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The copyright status of "Letters from the Earth" has come up before; in fact I brought it up in March of last year, as I see by going through the archives. I'll summarize here what I said at that time:
Twain wrote the manuscripts during the last decade of his life. Bernard Devoto prepared them for publication in the 1930s and they were published in 1962. A second edition appeared in 1973 put out by the Iowa Center for Textual Studies. The Wikisource version reproduces Devoto's 1962 text rather than the ICTS 1973 text. "Letters from the Earth" was copyrighted in 1962 by the Mark Twain Foundation, and the copyright was renewed in 1990. This therefore puts it in the category of works published between 1923 and 1963 with notice and renewal (Help:Copyright and Wikisource), which should mean that the work is still in copyright. As near as I can tell from 17 U.S.C. § 304 the copyright should be in effect either 95 years from the original copyright date or 67 years from the renewal; either way that adds up to 2057.
Now I missed the continuation of this discussion in June 2008; it was argued that "Unpublished works ... by an individual author: public domain for authors who died before 1938 (70pma)" applied, and "On that basis, the letters are PD, and the edition of the book they appeared in is copyrighted." But this applies to unpublished works; "Letters from the Earth" was legally published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and the copyright was renewed; hence, the work is still in copyright and will be until 2057. Sbh (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamaica College School Prayer[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, per Sherurcij.Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Work has appeared without dates, author, copyright status, etc. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, per the latter half of the request. The point of hosting a "half-page" is questionable, and it's not as though the interview is of critical significance. I agree particularly with Billingurst's final comment.Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
While I can understand that the words of the president would be in the public domain, I would have thought that the words of the journalist would still be covered by copyright. That being the case, having just having one side of the conversation may be possible, it doesn't make it much of a work. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I have heard people suggest you can simply "summarise" the question, ie "[question about current economic downturn]", "[question about recent al-Qaeda tape]", etc. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 13:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A summarisation of the question would seem appropriate. Jude (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW... An official government source hosting a transcript of the interview has been linked on the talk page if it matters. George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a fine line here. Obama is still capable of producing works that fall under copyright protection, if he does so on his own time - but is any of his time really his own now? The posting of the transcript on a government website has no effect on its copyright status. The U.S. government could post Harry Potter on one of its websites if it cared to, but this would not eliminate the copyright protection afforded to that work (even if the author agreed to have it so posted). Work that falls outside of copyright as a product of the federal government falls outside of copyright because it is a product of the federal government. BD2412 T 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
While I fully understand that Obama (the individual) may enjoy protections that Obama (the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government) cannot, I believe the question here in favor of removal concerned the "words" of the individual who asked President Obama the questions in the interview, & Not Obama's Replies. Again, fully understanding GPO publication hardly equates to protection either, isn't this a matter of the medium used or one of location. I may be more likely to accept the idea that the actual audio or video of the interview by a representative of NBC News (Matt Lauer) may have some justification for an edit regarding only the questions asked by Lauer of the President -- but NOT so much when it appears in the transcription of the interview (which was a product of the White House Press Office and not NBC). Also, does it not matter where the interview was held and with understanding in place? I'm under the impression that NBC may have a basis to claim protection had the President come to one of their programs or studios to conduct an interview but in this instance, NBC came to the White House and was granted time with the President in the Map Room of the White House, which is hardly part of the First Family's private residence within the WH btw. Finally, the title may betray the actual content of the interview - which covered not only "Presdential Picks" for the Super Bowl but many many other topics that concerned various matters of policy and governance. The sport aspect is very minor compared to the rest of the content IMO. George Orwell III (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
A large amount of the content of the interview appears to be politically or "Presidential" related. I agree with BD2412, though. The Government can post, link to, and do whatever it likes with copyright material on its websites, and that does not automatically make things public domain. Jude (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe anbody has tried to claim government publication automatically meant the content is public domain. The reason(s) for listing the page here concerned the interview questions put to the President and not so much the President's responses. The rationalization then, given that point on assumed partial protection for the interviewer, was that content made up of nothing but replies begged the question of being worth keeping or not.... well at least that is how I interpreted this. George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed the whole thing, I'd have to say that Matt Lauer is the author of the questions, and owns the copyright in those (or the network that employs him does). Although some of the interactions involve very short follow-ups, it is pretty clear that Lauer sketched out his interview beforehand and stuck to that script. BD2412 T 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hold on - are we talking about NBC News' transcription of what aired on their broadcast attributed to the Today Show (Hosted by Matt Lauer) or the White House Press Office's transcription of the interview INCLUDING portions of which were not broadcasted nor transcribbed but the questioning therein is still attributed to having come from Matt Lauer. Does this matter? The 2 transcriptions are NOT the same {do a word search for the term "peanut butter" for example), begging the question of what relevance scripted question plays either way too. Does NBC lay claim portions of a work not aired by them nor transcribbed by them?
In addition to the above, what role does this WhiteHouse.gov {the EOP → White House Staff → Press Office) disclaimer play in all this:

Copyright Notice

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

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

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

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

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

The Lottery[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy delete; 2) reclosed, ResScholar's point to WS:S
I doubt that this story was written pre1923 looking at the year of birth. Needs further investigation. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. The Lottery and Other Stories (Farrar, Straus, 1949)Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 09:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so that will depend on the country of publication, and if US, then on whether it had a copyright notice or not?-- billinghurst (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

In a Grove[edit]

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

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

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

... Experiments with Truth[edit]

An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth

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

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

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

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

As mentioned in the talk page, the copyright owner (Navajivan Trust, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380014, India) doesn't enforce its copyright. It doesn't care about it. While in Ahmedabad, I asked them permission for translating some of Gandhi's works, they said "Why do you ask? Just do it!" For me, it's like they release the works under a free licence or in the public domain. So I think we shouldn't enforce copyright when the owner itself doesn't. Yann 12:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The message on the talk page doesn't come across with as much confidence as you do now (for example, "AFAIK, the Indian publisher do not mind it"), so that's why I posted here. Anyway, I guess it would be a pretty big switch for them to suddenly want to sue us for copyright infringement. However, is it possible to contact them and get them to explicitly release the work? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The postal address is above, but right now, their web site is not available (http://www.navajivantrust.org/). I found a mail on [5]. Mail sent. Yann 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Book is in public domain in India. In fact, the publishers lament that there may not be many takers for the book given the modern Indian society's current favorable disposition with material things, something which Mahatma Gandhi, through this book, forcefully preached as evil. The complete book is scanned and available on [6]. Wikisource should have no hesitation in reinstating the work on its pages. EyeMD 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If the publishers indeed lament that the work has not achieved greater distribution, they'll have no problem releasing it into the public domain in all jurisdictions. It's better to get that assurance first, rather than speculate on their wishes. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If you wish I can volunteer to go to Navjeevan Trust and ask for their permission. I am based in Ahemdabad. But then I don't know exactly how to do that. Is there any template/license letter for that which I can get signed.

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

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

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

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

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

Letter in The Times...[edit]

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

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
Copyright violation. Durova (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

2009 Nobel Peace Prize citation[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted billinghurst (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence that this speech meets the stipulations of {{PD-manifesto}}: there is no evidence that this speech is intended to be released into the public domain by its author, nor is there any clear evidence that a reasonable effort has been made to verify that a work is unlicensed.. Indeed, consider a recent discussion where US State Governor responses to State of the Union addresses were deleted, here:
For one thing, I don't agree that just because a member of Congress makes a speech, even a political one, that he or she is necessarily acting in the course of his official duties. Furthermore, it's simple fact that the law only excludes copyright on work "of the United States Government", not works of the states. States can and often do assert copyright, so even if state governors are government officials speaking as government officials, their speeches still aren't in the public domain--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

billinghurst (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles of Organic Agriculture[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete billinghurst (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be a copy of this web page which says "© IFOAM 2009" at the bottom. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, has been labelled as suspect, though it does predate 2009, that will indicate that it is probably an earlier copy. billinghurst (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

1998 Cornell Senior Convocation Speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete Durova (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This text appears to be from the Cornell Chronicle's website. [7] I'm not aware of nor can I find any free-use terms on the site. --LarryGilbert (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing there to indicate that the work should be in the public domain. billinghurst (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. If not a very "public" speech, even Canadian Wikilivres may be unable to take it, unless any copyright holder's permission to repost is present.--Jusjih (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with deletion. I see no evidence to indicate that this speech was intended to be widely reproduced. Indeed, the speech seems specifically aimed towards those present, rather than the public in general. Regardless, it is still not our decision, and without a clear release, it should not be included on Wikisource. Jude (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Health Insurance: A Criminal Enterprise[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Evidence of release should go through OTRS.Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
First published (according to the contributor) here with an express copyright notice: “Copyright (c) 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.” Paragraph 2(a) of the site's copyright policy also suggests that the publisher ordinarily obtains an assignment of copyright from the original author as a condition of publication (similar to common, although not universal, practice in the offline world).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Java[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete billinghurst (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This document apparently comes from [8] (warning, w:compress'd PostScript) which says "©1995, 1996 Sun Microsystems, Inc. [...] No part of this document may be reproduced in any form by any means[...]".--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: there is no way this could be free. Yann (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete from the evidence provided. billinghurst (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, however, it should be investigated as to whether or not the document has been released under a free license more recently; Sun have licensed several things openly, though I'm not sure if this is one of them. Jude (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nothing from Sun can be used without their permission AFAIK, let alone this. George Orwell III (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

Index:Mystic_Treatises[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted
It's a 1923 work translated by w:de:Jan Arent Wensinck, a Dutch professor who died in 1939. It's under copyright in the Netherlands, now and in 1996, which obliterates any chance that it may be PD in the US. A couple sidenotes off-topic here, but GIFs don't seem to work well in the Index system, and it's important to upload scans of the title page and the back thereof, as that publishing information is critical in understanding the provenance and copyright status of the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No evidence provided to the contrary. Deleted billinghurst (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Various works of Author:Montague Rhodes James[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted texts and transwikied to Canadian Wikilivres--Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This short stories are all listed on the author page as being published after 1922 by a British author.

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

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

Author:James Ussher - biographical notes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No action necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The biographical notes in the history of the page, Author:James Ussher, are included with an e-book of Annals of the World, also contained at this address. The home page of the site that hosts the work contains a copyright notice, although I am informed the e-book notes the entire content as being copyright free. The bio may belong with the work, but I edited the author page to temporarily occlude it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Since this involves removing material from a page, instead of deleting a page, this request is not necessary. The writing style of the bio notes is not of the 1600s. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Futility (Robert E. Howard)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Contributor moved it to Canadian Wikilivres:Futility (Howard)--Jusjih (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This 1926 work, whose American author died in 1936, seems to have copyright renewal registered in the USA [9]. If so, I suggest exporting to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That link just shows as NO PREVIEW in my part of the world. billinghurst (talk)
I don't know enough about copyright law to comment on that (and the google books link doesn't show me any information) but Futility is on Paul Herman's List of public domain works. The list has no legal standing, obviously, but it seems to be researched and accurate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The renewal appears in the Rutgers list with number R369097. It was done by one Mrs. P. M. Kuykendall. Is there some question that she was not authorized to seek the renewal? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Mrs Kuykendall inherited the rights to Robert E. Howard's literary estate, so that makes sense. However, I was under the impression that copyright was generally transfered (at the time) to whoever actually published the work; in this case Daniel Bake Collegian and Daniel Baker College. I tried looking at the renewals through The Online Books Page, which states that 1926 works needed to be renwed in 1953 or 1954; otherwise they became public domain. I can't find either Howard, Kuykendall or Daniel Bake Collegian with the scans on that site. As an added complication, there seem to be two poems by Robert E. Howard called Futility. See: Howard Works and w:List of poems by Robert E. Howard. (I should point out my potential conflict of interest; I upload the poem in the first place (and created that list on wikipedia for that matter). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
But a large part of the point of the copyright renewal is that it returned the copyright to the author or author's family. I'm not sure it's ever worth second-guessing a renewal on the paper, unless we have a court case or similar major clearance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this poem is in the public domain and the other poem by Howard called "Futility" was renewed. However, I cannot prove that so moving it to Wikilivres may be the safest option (which I have just done). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)