Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-05

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

Index:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, {{PD-EdictGov}} applied. Leaving the question of move to commons for some other time. Jeepday (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

 Keep as PD-EdictGov. I'm not entirely sure if that template would apply on Commons; they would probably respect whatever copyright laws there are in the country of origin (whichever that would be). The UK and Malaysia both have a 50-year governmental copyright; this may be OK on Commons in 2014. Unless {{OGL}} would apply now... I suppose that is a possibility. Although, some of the other annexes are constitutions from the Malay states, and would probably not be considered UK works. There is also a date of 1970 in there instead of 1963... not exactly sure when all the text is from. But PD-EdictGov is certainly valid for wikisource, I'd think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Index:Austen Sanditon and other miscellanea.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, {{PD-US-no renewal}} for the book here and {{PD-US-not renewed}} for the images on Commons. Jeepday (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• From a quick look at the talk page it looks like {{PD-US-no-renewal|1934}}, I am unsure what to put for the author DOD. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can't find a renewal for the book in the Stanford database and, while there is a 1962 copyright entry for Maximilien Vox, it was for Nus de Harlem not this book. The latter was only from a basic search using Google but it should be correct. Therefore, as per Jeedpay, {{PD-US-no renewal}} for the book here and {{PD-US-not renewed}} for the images on Commons (which already hosts the images as part of the DjVu, just link the images back to the DjVu to keep everything clear). As the book was published in the US I don't think the URAA should affect the copyright (the artist was French and his works are still under copyright in France). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the publisher/country is wrong, which might effect things. While I was looking at the Commons file I decided to update it to the Book template, correct licence, creator templates etc. When I checked the scan to get the publisher, it claimed to be J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd (London) rather than E.P. Dutton & Co, Inc. (New York) as stated in the original description. (Maybe I missed something and this is the US edition.) I think this might still be OK if there was an American edition; the same illustrations would be included in that edition and so be in the public domain under United States law due to non-renewal. If it is a British-only book, Vox probably retains copyright of his illustrations as he did so in the UK as of 1996, which would be restored by the URAA. If the illustrations are not in the public domain then I don't think the entire book is in the public domain - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The scan is confusing. This page Page:Austen_Sanditon_and_other_miscellanea.djvu/11 states E.P. Dutton & Co, Inc. (New York), while the page after Page:Austen_Sanditon_and_other_miscellanea.djvu/12 states J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd (London). On the other hand, Worldcat point at this scan as the New York edition: see [1], section "Find a copy online"
      • Given everything pointing to the US version, I'm back to PD-US-not renewed being correct, for both the book and any derivatives (and I'll change the details on Commons again). Possibly the New York printing just added an extra title page or the reference to the London publisher was a (confusing) acknowledgement of the reprint. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted

Manmohan Singh speech at Cambridge

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as Indian governmental works are copyrighted since publication for 60 years until year end and the United Kingdom does copyright governmental works, while this speech does not seem to be an "edict of government.--Jusjih (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Work by a prime minister of India that was added a few years ago, a speech to a university which would not seem to have any specific provision that would exclude from copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Christianity and Liberalism

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted by nominator as an unambiguous copyright violation

Copyright renewed in 1950: Stanford search result. Registered 20Feb23 as A698374 and renewed 18Apr50 as R61343. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Archy and mehitabel

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy delete by nominator as an unambiguous violation. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This book is listed as renewed on the Stanford database of copyright renewals. Registered 4Nov27 (A1010937); renewed 10Nov54 (R138753). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This looks like it qualifies for speed deletion under G6, per http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm copyright on would be 1927 + 95 years = 2022. Jeepday (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course! I have been focussing on this page so much, I forgot about speedy deletion for unambiguous violations. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Jaroslav Seifert

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, Probable copyvio, no license. Jeepday (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oswald

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, Oswald's items as copyvio, Russian response as out of scope. Jeepday (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Barack Obama's prayer at the Western Wall

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, copyvio. Jeepday (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how this one could qualify as PD. It is a 2008 work of a living person, which was not published by them or under any license, it is not edict of a government, nor the official act of a government employee. It is stolen ("letter was later stolen and sold to Maariv.") & the image includes letter head ("stationary from the King David Hotel") which is most probably copyrighted. Tagged {{copyvio}} (rather then speedy delete) to provide opportunity to see if it was released as PD after being stolen. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete — for the reasons given above. So much for for being a closet Muslim though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hand of Nergal

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, no indication of PD status. Jeepday (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a posthumous collaboration first published in 1967; see w:The Hand of Nergal. I see no reason this should be out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete—I didn't even notice we had this but it's definitely still under copyright. Even the incomplete version was published in 1976, which makes this under copyright until either 2062 or 2071. Actually, there's a chance of {{PD-US-no-notice}} but I doubt it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Cebu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, no indication of PD status for the translation. Jeepday (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Where does this translation come from? We drop the first line into Google Books and up jump three hits. Unfortunately, the 1906 hit is clearly not what we're looking for; it has the words, but not the content. So we have a hit in Looking for the prehispanic Filipino: and other essays in Philippine history‎ (1992), William Henry Scott, page 50, which looks to be the content as per the snippet view, as does Philippine quarterly of culture and society (1986), volume 14‎, page 24. No in-depth information as to translator or copyright is available from either, as all we have is snippet view, but best guess is that it was translated for the quarterly in 1986 and reprinted in 1992. Barring better information, we should delete this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Final Interview (Solzhenitsyn)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, Copyright exists. No indication of release. Jeepday (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would this be public domain ? First published in 2008, Solzhenitsyn's works won't be in the public domain for decades. --Aplomb (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: According to the notes, it was an interview with The Independent (British newspaper), so it would be their copyright and probably not in the public domain until next century. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Delete Not positive that the Independent would be the copyright owner for Solzhenitsyn's words (though they would for the questions), but someone is -- definitely not PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Salvador Allende's Last Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, per the articles talk page the translation is/would be GFDL, but the original has a valid copyright, so the translation is not eligible for release. Jeepday (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Chilean copyright appears to cover oral speeches (Ley N° 17.336 I.I.3.2 "Las conferencias, discursos, lecciones, memorias, comentarios y obras de la misma naturaleza, tanto en la forma oral como en sus versiones escritas o grabadas;"). Berne would place it out of in
^ copyright in the United States I guess. Prosody (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC) (corrected 18:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

Politics as a Vocation & Science as a Vocation

The following discussion is closed:

Delete both, translations are copyrighted. Jeepday (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Stanford copyright renewal database has a renewal for the translation. Prosody (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Science as a Vocation from the same work, same problem. Prosody (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Horst Wessel Lied

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, Orginal copyright until 2024, no release (or source for) translation. Jeepday (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The national anthem of Nazi Germany. It has been tagged as unlicensed for a while. There appear to be two licensing problems: 1) The original lyrics were written by Horst Wessel (died 1930) and first published in September 1929. As such, this was still in copyright in Germany in 1996 and, although it is now in the public domain in Germany, it will be under copyright in the United States until 2024. 2) Even if the original lyrics are in the public domain, I can find no source for a public domain translation of those lyrics. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' lecture at Stanford University on 2/9/2005

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, No release of copyright. Jeepday (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed lecture/speech. Jeepday (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the matching video on Commons. I guess somebody should leave a note pointing him here (notme). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per w:common sense. Really? 75.166.199.125 01:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The works of prominent people in the free culture movement don't automatically have permissive copyright licensing. Prosody (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been brought to Jimbo's attention. Jeepday (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't seem interested. Delete. Prosody (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Obituaries in The Times

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, copyright until 2035 and 2043 respectively. Jeepday (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Two obituaries from The Times (British newspaper):

1. Caleb Williams Saleeby (12 December 1940)
2. John Alexander Herbert (14 December 1948)

Unless I've missed something, I think these are still under copyright. According to Commons, in the UK works with an unknown author published before 30 August 1989 have a copyright period of 70 years from publication. In these cases, 2010 and 2018. The first is therefore now in the public domain in the UK but it wasn't in 1996, so the period is actually 95 years from publication. In these cases, 2035 and 2043. The first is based on a scan on Commons with a {{PD-old}} licence. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Other

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

The following discussion is closed:

Previously deleted content was copyvio, a PD source has been found and is being used to replace the previously deleted works.

Deleted in 2009. Same translation republished in 2012. Marc (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Re-Open - I closed this as "Deleted per WS:CSD G6 Copyright violation: content previously deleted as a copyright violation." but on deletion I found Index:Wittengenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu, which has an english introduction and some German, I have not reviewed it all. Printed in 1922 London. I will create a list of pages I just deleted for restoration should this actually be PD. Jeepday (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Introduction

Talk:Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition 7

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition 6

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition 5

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition 4

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition 3

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition 2

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition 1

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Proposition

The translation that you deleted was published in 1961. The new one is a translation by Ogden, published in 1922. Tell me if there is a problem. Marc (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks correct right now. Just caused me to stumble when I found the 1922 work, while cleaning house on the previously deleted. I would wait a couple days for more input from the community before creating new work on the pages I just deleted above. But there is lots of work to do the djvu pages to keep you busy. Jeepday (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Marc (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a problem if the book I imported is a reprint published in 1960. If so, I have found a 1922 edition. Marc (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem re-publishing in 1960 does not effect PD status, To the best of my knowledge anything published before 1923 is always PD for WS (US Law) [2]. Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)