Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2012-02

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 February 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

Kept[edit]

File:Jacobs - The Toll-House, 01.gif[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Licensed and moved to commons (Kept), listed in Category:NowCommonsThis where WS version is subject to delete for housekeeping as it now on commons. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlicensed image, source unknown. Up-loader has "no idea what the source is", Tagged copyvio. Jeepday (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I added info to it. The source is here; original source is a 1909 book published in New York called Sailor's Knots, as part of the story "The Toll-House" on page 165. Much better scan here where you can make out the artist's name of Will Owen. PD-1923. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed copyvio tag in anticipation of trying Move-to-commons assistant on the work. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Clinton interview with Israeli television regarding Camp David Summit[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, licensed PD-USGov per GO3. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
From Category:Possible copyright violations, Tagged Copyvio since May 2011. Jeepday (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep -- As I've mentioned elsewhere, ex-Presidents nearly always have every scrap archived sooner or later by NARA. This should be PD-USGov and is available online from the Government Printing Office for further inspection. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

David Cameron: First Speech as Prime Minister[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept with OGL.--Jusjih (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Blanked by an IP who assumed this is under copyright. Is it then? It doesn't seem to be covered by Help:Official texts#United Kingdom --Eliyak T·C 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It is under Crown Copyright in the UK. If it is extemporaneous speech... it would not be protected in the U.S. I don't think. If it was written down beforehand, it would. However... we do have a {{UK-Crown-waiver}} template, which lists a bunch of works which were previously given under a UK copyright "waiver" (and were OK in the U.S. as PD-EdictGov). One type of work which used to have a UK waiver were "Text of ministerial speeches and articles", but since that was not usable under PD-EdictGov, I guess it wasn't listed there. However, the link to that document goes here, which explicitly states that "Crown copyright information previously available for re-use under waiver conditions can be re-used under the terms of the Open Government Licence", and explicitly lists ministerial speeches as included under that. If this is one, then we may very well be able to keep this under the UK Open Government License. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Carl, regarding it being extemporaneous, "written down beforehand" is not the test. An impromptu performance is copyrightable if recorded or written down because the performance is not normally a general publication under US copyright law. Whether this would be a general publication under US law would be complicated, particularly as it occurred outside the United States. I'm not saying the other matters (waiver/Open Government Licence) wouldn't trump and allow use, I am not particularly well versed in UK copyright rules, especially the ones you mention.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The recording would be copyrightable, sure. But multiple people could record an extemporaneous speech, and I don't think they would be considered derivative works of the speaker's work -- they each have the copyright in their own particular recording, that's all. If the speaker had written down the speech beforehand, there may well be a case, per my understanding. Pretty sure that is what the MLK case relied on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the MLK case relied on the fact that a performance is not a general publication. Anyone can't publish most performances precisely because they violate the copyright of the performer in his or her unpublished work. However, you have a point in that (at least under US law as applied to situations in the US) "performance" in a public forum might be a general publication.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If that MLK speech was not "fixed", then it was not copyrightable in the first place, and the recording is not a derivative work (particularly given the law at the time). But, that speech was written down, so then the only other defense was that it had lost its copyright, by virtue of being published without a copyright license, and yes they lost on that account as well since it was deemed unpublished (or rather, restricted publication and not general publication). The performance aspect however is independent of whether it was copyrightable in the first place; U.S. law requires "fixation" in some way to be copyrightable, and extemporaneous speech is usually not one of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • {{ogl}} has been added to the work [1], Are there any challenges to this? Jeepday (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Go Big Red[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, per Inductiveload's original post a renewal is not found. There is little doubt it is a pre 1964 work, hence eligible for PD-US-no-renewal, which is now on the work. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
A fight song from Lamar University, written in 1962 by Ted Skinner. I can't find a renewal on the song lyrics under "Go Big Red", however, I am not sure if that is sufficient to call the song PD-US-no-renewal, since we don't know if that was the original work actually published. I am happy to mark it OK if others are satisfied that is no-notice or no-renewal. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see evidence of its publishing to be able to make that judgement. At this stage there is not even evidence of publishing. In lieu of both evidences, I am favouring deletebillinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Define w:published from the WS perspective please. I can't image a scenario that does not allow this song to meet WS:WWI#Documentary_sources and allows that the some 50 years later it has not been published. It is currently published at http://www.lamarcardinals.com/trads/song.html and presumably has been continually published in one form or another since 1962. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Um... if fans were chanting it during games... it got published somehow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If the post-1962 LU Student Handbook follows the current online version, one can safely assume that song was published in it before 1978. Still don't think we can host it without permission though... as an employee of the University at the time of creation, the author, at best, shares joint copyright of the work with the University. Of course, further investigation would be needed to show sound copyright practices were carried out for the laws in effect at that time to be 100% certain (leaning Delete). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Notice had to be on all copies... and being pre-1964 renewal was also necessary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone looked for copyright renewal? Given we don't have a copy of it published without copyright notice, we have to assume it was published with copyright. If it was not renewed it is PD, if it was renewed it's not. JeepdaySock (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a check for The Adventures of Pinocchio[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep Research indicates PD in US, tags updated and discussion closed. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Would someone with some time please have a look at translation The Adventures of Pinocchio and seek within the registration databases. Our work states that this translation was published after 1923. May need a little formatting too as to me it looks a little light on. I will do some digging on the author. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I started this one. --Mpaa (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
RE-544-960

TITL: The Adventures of Pinocchio.
AUTH: Carlo Collodi, pseud. of Carlo Lorenzini, illustrated by Naiad Einsel, afterword by Clifton Fadiman, translated from the Italian by Carol Della Chiesa, author of renewable matter: the Macmillan Company CLNA: Macmillan Publishing Company (formerly the Macmillan Company) (PWH) DREG: 9Sep91 ODAT: 14Oct63 OREG: A659373 OCLS: A LINM: NEW MATTER: ill. and afterword XREF: Carlo Collodi , SEE Carlo Lorenzini , 1826-1890

http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~lesk/copyrenew.html

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

The Lessons of October[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn after receiving information.--Jusjih (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I just wonder what US copyright licenses this translation and its original version have. Keep it here with proper tag? Export to Canadian Wikilivres? Delete without exporting?--Jusjih (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd say keep as {{PD-Russia}} & {{PD-US-no renewal}}. Trotsky himself died in 1940 and Wikipedia's List of countries' copyright length says Russia's terms are Life+50 if the author died before 1943. So the original has been in the public domain in Russia since 1990 (and, as it was published in 1917, it is now out of copyright in the United States anyway). The translator, Joseph Vanzler, died in 1956. He was Russian (well, modern Uzbek) but emigrated to the United States in WWI. The description says this translation was first printed in 1937. I can find it's registration (Feb 13 1937, reg. no. A102748) but no renewal. I can actually only find two renewals under Vanzler's various names: The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jurenito and His Disciples (1930) and The First Five Years of the Communist International. Vol. 1 (1945). So, it looks like an American publication with no renewal of an original work with an expired copyright term. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your information, but I still wonder whether Joseph Vanzler or John. G. Wright translated the work, before withdrawing this nomination.--Jusjih (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Russia made their 70pma terms retroactive in 2008, though I think only to 1993. Granted, Trotsky's stuff would still be PD under those terms, although I think there was also a section which said the terms are the later of 70pma and 70 years after rehabilitation -- and I think Trotsky was rehabilitated relatively recently. Anyways, none of that affects the U.S. copyright, since the works would have been PD in Russia in 1996 (50 pma terms at the time). I can't find a renewal for the translation either -- same results as AdamBMorgan above. So, the original would seem to be PD-Russia (and PD-1996) and the translation would be PD-US-no_renewal. John G. Wright was the pseudonym of Joseph Vanzler apparently so I'm not sure what your question is... Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your information. I just did not that know John G. Wright was the pseudonym of Joseph Vanzler. I am adding an author page.--Jusjih (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Levon Ter-Petrossian speech at the rally of 15.05.2009[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is a special law for Armenian politicians, Author:Levon Ter-Petrossian, it would seem that this work would seem to be copyvio. I doubt that political speeches of this regard would be declared government edicts. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear billinghurst sDrewth there is no copyvio here, Armenian legislateion defines poitical speeches free of copyright, therefore as a part of public domain. here is the article of armenian Law on Copyright and Related Rights,article 4 "Non-Protected Works->e) political speeches, speeches delivered in the court;". If any other conserns pls do not hesitate to contact me HAKmasnakic (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it - who translated the speech into English? -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
---(to George Orwell III and billinghurst sDrewt)This text were translated by the Political organization Armenian National Congress which publishes all the contents in their official website(www.anc.am) under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, as a result please could you remove or let me remove the notice about the possible compyvio on this page. HAKmasnakic (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
HAKmasnakic, was this speech published in print? I thought that was a requirement for being included at Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - anything translated into English from another language is considered its own work. A CC 3.0 license would then make it possible for that work to be hosted here. Others need to verify that POV before the tag can be removed however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like a keep top me too. Sounds like we need to have something like a {{PD-Armenia-non-protected}} tag, to cover it, or we just create something for the moment with {{license}}. We should properly attribute and source the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I validated the translation source and it is CC 3.0, I used {{license}} to create a license for the work and removed the copyvio tag. Would someone be willing to create the PD-Armenia tag Billinghurst suggested? JeepdaySock (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Silvio Berlusconi's 2003 Speech to the European Parliament plus[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted all three for no evidence of copyright permission. If permission is proved, they can be undeleted.--Jusjih (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
* Silvio Berlusconi's 2003 Speech to the European Parliament

These three works would seem to not be in the public domain. I do not see that copyright is extinguished on Italian government works. The last may get some sort of exemption as it was a speech in the US congress, despite it being by a foreign national. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep — I'd vote keep on all three because these speeches mirror the intended "purpose" of the American President's versions when made to a Joint Session of Congress or possibly even to the General Assembly of the U.N. and mimics it's reasoning -- where it is a matter promoting (Italian) public policy. If I'm in the minority and the link on the talk page to the US Embassy in Italy wasn't enough for the last one, here's the speech in the Congressional Record online. George Orwell III (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We cannot look to analogous purpose, there is no such rule, speeches of presidents to congress are works of the United States and ineligible for copyright by long standing US law that has no application to works of any other government.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the first two are undoubtedly copyright. Speeches in European parliaments are very tightly controlled and cannot be reproduced freely. I am unclear, regarding the third one, whether US law only applies to US nationals.--Longfellow (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no knowledge of the rules regarding European Parliament speeches; however, it is inconceivable that one would even try to claim a copyright on a speech to the US Congress. The claim would have to be that the speaker, as performer, had right of first publication, and that Congress either breached that right or that their publication of the speech was not a general publication or some other strange theory. I am confident that no US court would entertain such a claim.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Epistle of the World Gathering of Young Friends Africa 2005 & Epistle of the World Gathering of Young Friends 1985[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted both unsourced works.--Jusjih (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Two unlicenced works without authors though from more recent times. Possibly collective works, however, both would not seem likely to have a licence that would allow us to host them. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a Quaker and someone who was at the World Gathering of Young Friends in Kanamai in 2005, Quakers write their epistles with the expectation that they be distributed widely. The gathering that wrote the epistle cannot regather, but I hope that you would consider the long tradition of Friends and restore the epistle and consider it to be in the public domain. Shadowfax37 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Added copyvio tag to one of the works (other is tagged). Delete Comment from Shadowfax37 indicates the challenges, work of group, who did not clearly release from Copyright, the authors may never gather again, the authors may never be known as individuals, Assuming the youngest author is 20 in 1985, and giving an 80 year life span, plus a 100 years for {{pd-old}}, it will be about 2165 before we could begin to consider the earlier work PD. Jeepday (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And so his boyhood...[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, not PD in US. Jeepday (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Recently added poem by Robert E. Howard, also known as "Fragment". It was first published in Weird Tales (December 1937), a year and a half after the author's death. The copyright was renewed in 1965 by Mrs. P. M. Kuykendall acting for Howard's estate. Renewal reference number R369098. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added the poem to Wikilivres as Fragment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Internet Classics Archive Euripides works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, not PD in US.
There are a certain number of Euripides works presumably imported from the Internet Classics Archive that match editions of translations by Edward Philip Coleridge (They attribute the translator at ICA) published from the 1890s to 1913. However some of the stage directions either match a 1952 edition (Coleridge died in 1936) or appear to be creative supplementations possibly by the Internet Classics Archive itself.

These works are the following:
Andromache
Iphigeneia at Aulis
The Cyclops
Heracleidae
The Trojan Women

I don't think it's possible to verify if these stage directions were published prior to 1922. There is no record of Coleridge editions published after 1913 at the British Library, The Library of Congress, BookFinder or WorldCat. That's what makes me think the 1952 edition (copyrighted and renewed by Robert Hutchins) stage directions were posthumously added that year, and the Internet Classics Archive editions later, since they seem to try to improve on these 1952 stage directions while borrowing from them in places.

As for stepping on the toes of our contributors, the first three only had substantial contributions by User:SVeach94 as User:Saberwolf116, and, having the situation explained to him by myself, says he wishes to provide new editions.

Heracleidae is a stub which was contributed by User:Graeculus, but he hasn't contributed in 23 months.

But The Trojan Women which is nearly identical to the 1910 version, has been here since September 2005, and has had many contributors. One might argue the differences are negligible, but I thought I should bring it up here if we are to apply a single rule to a number of cases. The differences were so negligible that I labelled it as a 1913 edition years ago by mistake when I was tracing back both the 1952 versions and the Internet Classics Archive versions of Euripides to their original source, but on the plus side it never had a matching inaccurate license template until last month, which template I have already removed.

So to sum up, I think the only condition that would save these translations is if an edition or publication could be found between 1913 and 1922, or a non-renewed publication up to 1952 (including a posthumous one after 1936), incorporating these new stage directions, as the 1952 copyrighted versions seem to be the basis for all five. The renewal record for the 1952 edition at Stanford is RE045404. ResScholar (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

After some digging, I've found new editions for Aulis and Heracleidae from 1892 here, a copy of The Trojan Women from 1915 here, a copy of The Cyclops from 1900 here, and a copy of Andromachae from 1887 here. Assuming all of those check out with our copyright policy, replacing them should be a fairly routine procedure. SVeach94 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, scratch those last two-they're in Ancient Greek! After even more digging, I've found an English translation of the Cyclops from 1882 here and Coleridge's original, copyright-free translation of Andromache here. SVeach94 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Anything published in the USA before 1923, is automatically PD (ok for here). The preference would be to find DJVU scans of the original books if at all possible, to avoid future questions about authenticity. Jeepday (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The last two are scanned originals, and the first three are from Gutenberg, which is usually reliable. SVeach94 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
SVeach, there is a copy of the Coleridge work you found containing the Andromache translation from 1907 already at Wikisource here. If you want to compare the two, it would probably be pretty easy to remove the new stage directions. If you want to start an unannotated version from the OCR pages there or a match and split, it might take a while longer. And if you think you want to include all the notes, free up at least a weekend. ResScholar (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As I indicated on your talk page, I updated the Coleridge Euripides scans to Index:The_Plays_of_Euripides_Vol._2-_Edward_P._Coleridge_(1913).djvu if you want to use them.
If no one has any further objections, I will delete the versions of the five plays in two days. ResScholar (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Adrienne Clarkson's installation speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlicensed Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Gazan Youth's Manifesto for Change[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, questionable copyright status, no support for PD given. Jeepday (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tagged PD-manifesto Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Middle East Policy (Chomsky)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, questionable copyright status, no support for PD given. Jeepday (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tagged PD-manifesto Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom Statement on Taiwan 2007[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, questionable copyright status, no support for PD given. Jeepday (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tagged PD-manifesto Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement of the Dalai Lama on the 51th Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, questionable copyright status, while there was a OTRS pending tag, there was no sign of completion, all related works have been deleted for copyvio. PD status not shown. Jeepday (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tagged PD-manifesto, note also contains {OTRS pending|year=2010|month=March|day=10} in the body of the article. Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Shadow of the Hun[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, copyright shown to exist. Jeepday (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
From Category:PD-US-no-renewal-possible-copyright-violations a work by Robert E. Howard published in 1975. A quick look on gBooks did not find a earlier publication. Jeepday (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete, it was copyrighted: Catalog of Copyright Entries 1976, first column, 4th & 5th entry. (I've checked Howard's Weird Tales publications but not the others. As a cheap chapbook, I thought that this was possibly public domain due to lack of registration. On checking into it, I was wrong about that.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Jaurès final speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, questionable copyright status, no support for PD given. Jeepday (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
From Category:Possible copyright violations, Tagged Copyvio since Aug 2010. Jeepday (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Physics (Aristotle), Metaphysics[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, not PD in US. Work name retained in expectation of future non-copyrighted translation to be added ResScholar (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
From Category:Possible copyright violations, Tagged Copyvio since Dec 2011. Jeepday (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hm. What is the reason for the copyvio tag? The text at first blush seems similar to the version here; I see a translation from those two authors in 1930 and I'm not sure I see a renewal for it... Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Carl, this is the Oxford edition that I thought we assumed was not published simultaneously in the United States while being published in the United Kingdom. The past arguments are listed on the discussion page of Works of Aristotle, the main page conveniently listing the known publication dates and authorship information. ResScholar (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah OK, missed the fact it was a British work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics

The reason I didn't bring Physics (Aristotle) here immediately was that I wanted to check the other Aristotelian works that might have been added recently. I decided to work on updating the publication details for all the works, tonight, not just the newly added ones and noticed that our copy of Metaphysics, which has been here for years, had a question raised about what edition number it was, the first from 1908 or the second from 1928. I remember asking myself about this, but didn't follow up on it, because I thought the 1908 date was assumed to be correct when it was discussed here in June 2006. The discussion is linked to on the discussion page of Works of Aristotle.

John Vandenberg found the catalog record of the 1908 version and noted it differed from the 1928 version back in November 2007. Nobody followed up on it, but there's no longer any need to do a library hunt: Both versions are now at the Internet Archive. The 1908 version here and the 1928 version here here. It turns out that our version matches the 1928 version. For the same reason mentioned above (assumed non-simultaneous publication in The U.S. and the U.K.) this work, because today still copyrighted in the U.K., fifteen years after the 1996 cut-off date to avoid U.S. URAA copyright restoration laws, is presumably still copyrighted in the U.S. ResScholar (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to go back to the 1908 version, or delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pope Paul VI's address to China[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, questionable copyright status, no support for PD given. Jeepday (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
From Category:Possible copyright violations, Tagged Copyvio since April 2010 Jeepday (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:HCI Peshawar.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused and unlicensed letter, probable copyvio, tagged {{copyvio}} and listed at here. Jeepday (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • delete and apart from that it isn't within our remit as it is not in English. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Translations found in Dimitry Pospielovsky works[edit]

Foundations of Scientific Atheism- Course Programme for Higher Education Institutions (Soviet Education system)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. - work contained the following note: Consists of works by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Chernenko, as well as various decrees and official documents and the following texts: Scientific Athiesm, M., 1982; Atheistic Education: Questions and Answers, M., 1983; and Party Organisations and Atheistic Education, M., 1975. - although these relate to works that will be studied within the course, this implies the original publication of the work was not earlier than 1983 at which time the law in the Soviet Union was 25 years pma and freedom of translation had been abolished. (w:Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union#Accession_to_the_UCC_in_1973). Furthermore, the 1993 Copyright law of Russia was retroactive and established a copyright term of 50 years pma. (w:Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union#Transition_to_post-Soviet_legislation_in_Russia). Thus the original Russian text remains in copyright in Russia until at least 2033. As the work is not in the public domain in its home country and was published after 1978 the work is protected by copyright in the United States until the earlier of 70 years pma (or 95 years after publication if this is a work of corporate authorship) or date it becomes public domain in Russia. The translation is thus a copyvio in the United States. And neither Canadian law nor the author's permission are of any consequence. --Doug.(talk contribs) 20:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
1980s document, looks like a course syllabus (so may not pass WS:WWI) and seems to not pass our copyright tests for either the timespan of its creation, and also lack of translator with permissions. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In addressing to contributor, the response is

For the work Foundations of Scientific Atheism- Course Programme for Higher Education Institutions (Soviet Education system) there are some issues that need to be addressed
  1. It seems to have been written by a Government organisation in the last 50 years, which would presumably mean that it is within copyright provisions. Do you have a reason why you believe it is in the public domain?
  2. No translator. I am presuming that it was written in Russian, so we would need to know whom is translator, and it is likely that they would have some copyright claim too.

billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The organization that authored no longer exists and I wouldn't know if its successor retained copyright; if this is an issue, do you know where one could check to see if any body inherited the copyright of the Soviet central administration on the teaching of Social sciences? I don't know who the translator was, but I strongly suspect the person who translated it did not have permission of the original organization, because this was published by a Russian living in Canada in the late 1980s who was trying to attack the Soviet state, and I would presume on good evidence that it was smuggled out of the USSR by Samizdat without the state's permission. God Bless, Reesorville (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Most immediately, we need the permission of that Canadian translator. Secondarily, we need copyright clearance on the original; someone always owns, or claims to own, even or especially Soviet copyrights, and courts have backed them up on that. Soviet copyrights are a mess; unless we can navigate life+50 (+war time extensions) in 1998, then we're up a creek. And like Billinghurst, I'm a little questioning of whether it really does fit our guidelines for inclusion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  • delete to be more specific and looking at Prosfilaes statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Andrew Pospielovsky after he very kindly left his note for us. He says that he does not remember if it was either him or his father, but that he is certain it would have been translated by either his father or him, and that neither have objections to the publication of the document here as long as its properly credited. God Bless,Reesorville (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To update you: I still haven't heard back from Andrew Pospielovsky after I sent another email to him asking about the process that you've outlined. I am telling the truth the he told me that neither he nor his father would have any problem with the publication on the site, but I'm guessing he's probably just too busy to try to go through the details of the licensing and such. If I get a response, I'll post it here. God Bless,

(adding Letters of Metropolitan Sergii of Vilnius to the discussion)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, failed to show PD, discussion stagnated with copyright still questionable. Jeepday (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:This is a source text used by Dimitry Pospielovsky in his book Soviet studies on the Church and the believer's response to atheism (1988), which is volume 3 of History of Soviet atheism in theory and practice, and the believer. Because it is a school syllabus I would vote PD-ineligible or PD-edict, but I agree we ought to get permission from the translator. Reesorville also added another source text used by the same author, this time some letters from the 1940s. I understand Soviet copyrights were very short in those days and these letters would have been in the public domain by 1996; but again it would be important to try to get a translation license. ResScholar (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 05:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I now noticed that the letters were written in Lithuania, but that's still life + 50. ResScholar (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Soviet copyrights by 1998 were life+50, so I don't think that will help. I don't see why a school syllabus would be PD-ineligible. It's possibly PD-edict, but I could also argue that it was purely an internal document. I'm slightly uncomfortable waving this in as a source text; if we were actually putting a published book in, it would be different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll think about it, but practically if a bureaucrat wanted to sue over this, he or she would have to risk being branded a cold war relic as a result of the bad press. (I have contacts, like the author of the Elemoont.) Do you agree with me that the letters are PD? ResScholar (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be far from the first work that we've deleted even though there was virtually no chance that anyone was going to sue over it. I've reread WS:WWI and I've changed my mind on that matter at least: both the syllabus and the letters are documentary sources. The originals of the letters are PD, but we still have the translation copyright to deal with. And I would hope we could get scans, since the formatting on the letters needs cleaned; headings in letters are indistinguishable from breaks between the letters themselves, and there's a 5,600 word paragraph that I hope is missing paragraph breaks in our edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I was joking about the Elemoont author. Along with people like John Vandenberg, I helped him acquire and submit permissions for Elemoont, and I think I drove everyone at WS:COPYVIO crazy due to the problems the language barrier caused.
The currently-absent devotee of Pospielovsky probably personally transcribed the letters from Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions (1988). Those errors are probably an artifact of the transcription, and if we got permission, someone near one of the 264 libraries listed on WorldCat that have the book, could fix it. I will reformat this WS:COPYVIO entry to include both works. ResScholar (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I realize I am very late to this discussion, but I didn't realize this page existed until last week, as I have very little experience with wikimedia. Here is the results of my search: I have attempted to try to contact Pospielovsky and even to get in contact with the university of western ontario (where he retired from) if they could help me, but I have not (yet) had any success. Pospielovsky would be I think in his 70s if he was still alive. If he is dead, then that will probably make this even harder. I have determined that the school text was in fact translated by Dr. Pospielovsky's son Andrew, although I have not succeeded in locating this Andrew Pospielovsky to know what copyright permissions he has on the translation he gave to his father; I am still trying though. The letters of the Metropolitan I would guess have also come from his son, or I would at least strongly suspect that they did not come from another source (beyond either him or his son) because there is no attribution of this in his work.

Both of the sources I transcribed from two of Pospielovsky's titles which are no longer in print and which he is obviously not losing any royalties over by a copyright violation. I think the paragraph spacing may be a result of my typing the letters in MS word and then putting them in wikimedia and not realizing that the format of the page was going to delete the spaces.

Pospielovsky of course didn't have any legal permission to publish documents written by the soviet government, but I don't think that that should have stopped him.

I would like to make a case that while these may potentially be copyright violations, that I think this site should consider altering its policy in this instance. Here is my case: I live in Beijing, and tons of people and chinese companies use pirated books, music, videos, cds, etc. The chinese economy is partially being fuelled by stealing the ideas of western countries. There are stores on the street you can walk into that have racks filled with pirated material, and I think this is wrong, because people are making their living off of selling these things that they create and it is not as though the material is going to disappear from history if the copyright isn't violated. I disagree with what's around me, but my conscience doesn't bother me about publishing this, because there is no one who is losing money from the potential violation (it is no longer in print), there is a high probability that the translator(s) (considering who Pospielovsky was and the years of labour he did in collecting information from emigres and anonymous sources in order so that people would know what was happening) would not have been opposed to this kind of publication, it may in fact be impossible to figure out if the translator(s) place a copyright on the translation or if it is creative commons, etc. the original government that made the school source no longer exists and the government that has replaced it does not have the same reservations against publication that the original one would have had, the school curricula text may be public domain (I could be mistaken, but I suspect this was not an internal document; the wording especially wherein the seminar topics are listed and it is said to focus on religions in the particular area, makes me think it was perhaps intended to be given to public school students) anyways. Perhaps most importantly, these sources are not available elsewhere in English except in these titles that are no longer in print and which only a handful of used copies are still being sold over the internet, and it would be a shame I think for these things to be lost to history and public knowledge, because of a fear that the copyright could be violated through making them known.

If you still wish to delete it, I understand though. Thank you for the work you do and God Bless,Reesorville (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

From Andrew Pospielovsky,

I apologise in advance as I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with its workings.

I can confirm that my father, Dr Pospielovsky, is still alive, however, due to his advanced age he is unlikely to be able to contribute to this discussion. As I can not see the actual text of the documents I can not shed much further light on this discussion. Generally my father did not use the services of translators and would probably have translated these documents himself, if no translation existed. I sometimes helped him with translations, but I can not recall if I was involved in the translation of these specific documents. If soemone can send me the documents referred to, I can try and clear this up with my father. I can be reached at (email redacted Jeepday (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

  • Comment- Copyright on these works is quite complicated.
    • Contrary to what Prosfilaes is saying, the 1980s dates relate to the Canadian translations, not the originals in Russian which were apparently all published in the 40s. The problem, however, is that the 1993 Copyright Law of Russia was retroactive and established a term of 50 years pma, meaning works by authors who died after 1962 are still under copyright. Moreover, there is a twist, works which had gone into the public domain under the Soviet law and were restored by the retroactive Russian law were sometimes (in the event of posthumous publication) recalculated to run from the date of publication. Furthermore, there was a wartime extension of four years for certain authors during the Great Patriotic War. At least one author who died in 1940 had his works published in 1966, at which time they were in the public domain under Soviet law, in 1993 the copyright was not only restored but was calculated to run from 1966 and thus the works are still in copyright. This is not solid copyright ground by any stretch.
    • Letters of Metropolitan Sergii of Vilnius appear to have been published in the 40s; however, for some of the letters, publication is questionable as they were reports to the German authorities, not general publications. There use may mean that they were ineligible for US copyright; but this is not clear.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • While archiving, I choose to leave the related closed argument in place. Seemed best to keep them together. Jeepday (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    I agree, I only did the partial closure to note the deletion decision for that part. The reasons didn't hold for this part, but they should remain together.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • the letters were not written in Russia. Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania, which separated from Russia at the end of communism. Wouldn't that mean that a 1993 Russian Federation law would not affect it therefore? The author was murdered by Soviet partisans before the war ended, and was not alive after 1962. The letters, if I remember or understood right, were things written to the German authorities, which they used for propaganda purposes by publishing so that people could read it-not really reports meant for an audience in camera. God bless unsigned comment by Reesorville (talk) .

Russell-Einstein_Manifesto[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Hi. My understanding from logs of this page is that it was already deleted before as there is no evidence this is PD. I do not know if I should delete this right away or not, so I post this here. --Mpaa (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This falls under criterion for speedy deletion G2: "Reposted content" (explained at WS:DP). That is the speedy deletion reason you should select after you press delete and you bring up the deletion menu. ResScholar (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chairil Anwar works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted all five for no translation license provided.--Jusjih (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Works listed:

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

Delete from the evidence provided. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Raffel (the translator) appears to have done a work called "Selected Poems" from the same poet,[2] published in New York in 1962 or 1963, which does not seem to have been renewed. If any of these poems (with the same exact wording) were in that volume, those might be different. However, I'm sure any of these poems are in there at all. Secondly, the Indonesian author died in 1949, so his works became PD in Indonesia in 2000, which was after the URAA. While it sounds like he died with no heirs, it's possible the copyright on the originals still exists. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Indonesian copyright information. Chronologically the colonial 1912 Act was in play until the 1982 Act was put into place, and it seems that the 1982 Act only gave 25 years protection post death, which would have had the work come out of copyright in 1974 in Indonesia, so to me it seems that the original work was not in copyright, so it comes down to when the translations were done. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Their term was expanded to 50 pma in 1987, but you're right, that change may not have been retroactive, meaning the cutoff date would be people who died in 1961 or before, for URAA purposes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have access to the 1962 book? Noting how he mistranslated "Nenek" as "Grandfather" in his 1970 book, I'd expect there to have been some mistranslations in the 1962 work; conceivably some could have been fixed in the 1970 work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Other[edit]

request to restore[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Restored Jeepday (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
request to restore the article. Permission is obtained and can be found here. Eli-Tude (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is the deletion discussion. Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2011-10#On_some_controversies_regarding_origin_and_nationality_of_Nezami_Ganjavi the OTRS is for the Russian (AGF) version. The translation would be subject to it's own copyright, unless published in both languages by the same source the same OTRS is unlikely to apply. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
See. page 130. Eli-Tude (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything addressing copyright of the translation. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
On the sub-page of the Russian version of the article is clearly indicated "Правообладатель согласен с публикацией этого произведения на условиях свободных лицензий CC-BY-SA и GFDL. Разрешение на использование этой работы хранится в архивах системы OTRS. Его идентификационный номер 2011050210008342. Если вам требуется подтверждение, свяжитесь с кем-либо изучастников, имеющих доступ к системе." that means that Mr Mamedov, the author gave his agreement for the publication under CC-BY-SA & GFDL. It seems to me the translation is made by the same people of closely connected to them. If there is no any objections from the translator, I can’t see reasons for the deletion. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • undelete on the explanation from Dmitrismirnov, and look to use the indicated licences if it is undeleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


Author:Robert Ervin Howard/Letters[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Tag was not removed when the previous discussion closed, tag now removed. Jeepday (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
From Category:Possible copyright violations, Copyvio tag potentially applies to all the listed works? Appears to have been a review in progress, last edit August 2010. Jeepday (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think all the offending letters were removed. I remember rechecking everything and adding all the publication dates at the time. The past discussion is here: /Archives/2010-12#Author:Robert Ervin Howard/Letters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Address on the National Security Plebiscite[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Address on the National Security Plebiscite.--Jusjih (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Work published in 1942, author died in 1950. Unlikely to have been formally published in the US, and would not seem to be a government edit. Tagged with {{PD-Canada}}

That would put the Canadian copyright expiring in 2001 (post-1996), published in before 77, so it would seem to have a 95 year copyright, and still under copyright in the US. If it is found that we cannot host, it should be moved to Wikilivre. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Works that may not be Edicts of Government[edit]

Given the recent clarity brought to what is and is not an Edict of Government, I have started a review of where the tag is used and have tagged and hidden the works in discussion (this list may grow). The reason in each case for why I have tagged and dragged them is because the work states that it is an "Edict of Government" when it is not an "Edict of Goverment" and therefore may be a copyright violation. Formosa (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC):

Nelson Mandela's address on his release from prison[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Exported I am an African and Valentines and STI/Condom Week to Canadian Wikilivres as PD-SA-speech but neither PD-EdictGov nor PD-1996. Kept Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the Rivonia Trial and Nelson Mandela's address on his release from prison as PD-1996. Upheld the deletion of Nelson Mandela's address on the unveiling of his statue in London as a British speech in 2007 without evident copyright licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This tag says the work is copyright free in South Africa (which it may well be). However, it also states that it is an "Edict of Government" in the U.S. which it is not. Therefore I think it is copyright-protected in the U.S. Formosa (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this a challenge on the wording of the tag, or the correct application of the tag used. The tag seems appropriate, and would presume that Htonl has got the legal position right. Htonl has uploaded numerous pieces of SA copyright legislation. If it is made PD by SA legislation as a Govt work, then it would be PD. I am presuming that it is the right assumption. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears to be PD in South Africa because it is a political speech, but not necessarily a government work (i.e. it is ineligible for copyright there). The U.S. copyright status is far thornier though, I think... it may be deemed copyrightable in the U.S. and may have had its copyright restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's 1990, so restoration isn't an issue. I think it would have gotten copyright in the US, whether or not it was PD in South Africa (which I'll take your word on.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on my netbook at a conference right now, but when I get home this evening I'll comment more. Briefly, though, you're right that it's not an "edict of government" and that was a mistake on my part. As a "speech of a political nature" it's definitely PD in South Africa; I don't know about US law. - Htonl (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. There should really probably be two separate templates, {{PD-SAGov}} for "official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or official translations of such texts", which qualify for {{PD-EdictGov}}; and something like {{PD-SA-speech}} for "speeches of a political nature or speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings" which are presumably not "edicts of government" for the purpose of US law. Sorry about the confusion; most of my work has been on Acts of Parliament which are of course legit PD-EdictGov and I didn't notice that that part of the template is wrong for speeches. (I was not the uploader of the speeches, I should point out.)
Anyway, there are quite a few speeches by South Africans that we need to take a closer look at:
Works? What works? I was pointing to one single speech that served as a proclamation to a recognized annual Goverment observance. The fact the 'p'roclamation was delivered in the form of a speech is irrelevant if its compared and thought to be governed by the Copryright Office Compendium akin to the function such 'P'roclamations enjoy here in the U.S. (Federal government). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
plural or singular makes no difference here. The speech is not a work of the United States. A proclamation of the United States Gov't is PD under two theories: 1) it's a public act analogous to a law or court case and not eligible of copyright, 2) it's a work of the United States federal government and not eligible for copyright. The first principle does not necessarily apply to works of other (non-US) governments and the second on is peculiar to the United States federal government.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
you are correct that this may qualify under the US rule of "gov't edicts" but this is not the rule that the work you cite falls under. The rule for edicts of foreign governments is purely a rule of the copyright office, unsupported by cases or statutes. The speech by Pres. Bush you cite is a work of the United States and ineligible for copyright by statute.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no delusions about the U.S. Federal gov't works such as Bush's proclamation so stop trying to to paint it like I ever did. What I asked (intially open ended to foster debate months ago btw) was if that speech squares with Compendium II's section 202.03's stipulation that they are subject to "registration if they are otherwise copyrightable".... yet somehow they're probably PD-(SA?). Plus, the pProclamations are horatory in nature and NOT legally binding in any way shape or form. It must be published in the Federal Register by law but the courts are not required to make notice of it. Had it been a Proclamation granting a nation copyright status and or relations with the U.S. and not celebrating condoms or what ever your Title 17 points might have made more sense. I am no fan of the Compendium myself but the last I checked it still part of the concensus framework used by the community for judging such works. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to paint anything like anything, I was attempting to answer what I saw as your question, even if it was rhetorical. I understood the question to be "how is the proclamation in SA different from a proclamation in the US?" the answer is that an official speech of a president of the United States is a work of the United States (albeit theoretically, and "hypertechnically", an "unpublished work" until it's printed in the federal register). I'm not saying that the work isn't PD under another theory and that's what I try to acknowledge, that it appears to fall under the edicts of foreign governments theory, which I initially missed in my first comment. I know the community accepts that rule, but I feel it's important to point out that it is not on the same level as works of the US Gov't. If you felt insulted by my comments, I sincerely apologize.--Doug.(talk contribs) 09:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
To answer the original question that was posed, in SA there are actual presidential proclamations which are published in the Government Gazette (see this category for examples) - and there may have been such a proclamation declaring "STI/Condom Week" - but the speech in question is not such a proclamation. It is certainly PD in South Africa, under the "speech of a political nature" clause, but I don't think it is covered by the "edict of government" theory. The theory behind the "edict of government" exemption (and the "official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature" clause in SA law) is that the people must freely be able to read the laws that they are required to follow. It doesn't seem to me that this speech in any way establishes law which the public must follow. - Htonl (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The point I was trying to bring to light (before it was side-tracked months later) was that if you read President Bush's Proclamation on a similar subject matter & ignore the fact it was formally published before read (if at all), you'd realize there is absolutely no laws or similar being promulgated by the Proclamation. I dare to say it reads much like any speech proclaiming a policy, an opinion, a political position, etc. or the other would. It clearly does not function as an edict of [the U.S.] Government in the defined sense - no citizen must follow any part of it or the "advice" given within nor is it legally binding in any court. Its complete fluff if you get right down to it but its still considered an edict so much so that Proclamations are the only form of Presidential directive that regularly appears in the Statutes at Large, the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulation even when they are horatory/proclatory in nature.
So the nuances here are two fold - first that we can't measure the U.S. form against any potential foreign counterpart because whenever the content doesn't mesh with the "official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature" rule we [the U.S.] can always fall back on good old "product of a government official created in the course of official duties" as means to justify copyright exemption. Second, can the same apply in reverse in those cases where an edict of government has not been met, no promulgation is taking place but the work still mirrors the proclamatory nature of the U.S. work though generated by some member, person or organization of a foreign government? (Hope that made sense). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we agree, then. The US proclamation is only dubiously an actual "edict", but is clearly PD because it's an official work of a federal officer. The SA speech is not even an edict in "form", let alone content, and SA doesn't have a similar provision for official works of government officers, so the copyright situation is questionable. - Htonl (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are on the same page too. The core of my doubt rests with the untested definition that 'edict' falls into or under. While its nice to fall back on the 'Federal officer' copyright exemption, its also my view that we are doing so only because its easier to accept that logic than it is to confront the fact that there are instances where "fluff" technically meets the edict standard. If that is true, then it should be extended per Compenduim II, 202.03 to all levels of government, foreign or domestic - not just Federal. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much about US copyright law, but: Mandela's speeches in 1964 and 1990 predate the URAA. They were PD in the source country, South Africa, in 1996, so does that not make them PD in the US? I think that the others, regrettably, will have to go. Can they go to Wikilivres? What is Canada's stance on works that are PD in their country of origin? - Htonl (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
As Prosfilaes pointed out above, in 1990, copyright notices were no longer required in the U.S., so any copyright would have still existed and would not have needed to be restored in the first place. For others, the URAA stuff only avoided restoration if the work was not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection[3]; i.e. I'm not sure if that would apply to works merely ineligible there (as the U.S. would use its own rules to determine eligibility within its borders). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, well then I guess they all have to go. Except maybe Mandela's speech from the dock; is court testimony eligible for copyright in the US? - Htonl (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My comment would be that statement to a court would be {{PD-ineligible}} as it would be considered lacking artistic merit in that it is statement of fact. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Note I have written to the Nelson Mandela Foundation enquiring of the copyright status of these works, and whether there could be the consideration to applying a Creative Commons licence to the works at our site. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This can be copied to Wikilivres. I think it is in the public domain in Canada as it is in the public domain in the country of origin. Yann (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • To the extent that all of thesesome of these are published prior to 1996 and are PD in their country of origin and were not published prior to 1977 in the United States less than than 30 days after first foreign publication, they are PD in the United States for failure to comply with US formalities. The Berne Convention only (arguably) requires the United States to overlook the formalities for works that are still in copyright at home. Publication in the United States without license from the author would not likely effect publication for this purpose, though I know of no cases on this point.--Doug.(talk contribs) 07:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Remaining Works of Aristotle works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: U.S. Copyrighted versions and/or copyrighted material on subpages deleted. ResScholar (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
On the Heavens (1930)

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

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

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