Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2019

Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

The Elephant Man and other reminiscences

The following discussion is closed:

kept as PD —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Is this work in PD?— Mpaa (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It is PD in the UK & Canada, but not PD in the US until Jan 2019. There is no copyright renewal that I can find (which is good), but the work was published simultaneously in the US & UK, so copyright law for works published in the US in 1923 still applies. We'll have to wait a few months before hosting it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If there's no copyright renewal and it was published simultaneously in the US, it should be (under US law) a US work and thus out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In the interests of laziness, I volunteer to take the appropriate action after a suitable discussion period of, say, five months. :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

The following discussion is closed:

kept; translation is official and therefore covered under {{PD-EdictGov}}

The original German text is obviously PD per {{PD-EdictGov}}. The English translation is by w:Christian Tomuschat and w:David P. Currie, with revisions by Tomuschat and w:Donald P. Kommers "in cooperation with the Language Service of the German Bundestag". The published 2010 edition claims explicit copyright to the translation belongs to the German Bundestat. Can it be considered PD in Germany and/or the USA, either as an "official" translation or otherwise? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

IANAL, but so long as this is the actual publication of this law in English by the Bundestag, I don't see how c:PD-GermanGov could not apply; it doesn't matter how they produced the translation, only that it is a law published by the German government. I think this is a situation directly comparable to PD-USGov documents that include a (mistaken) "All rights reserved" text. In any case, the consequence of which would be that the translation too is {{PD-EdictGov}} here. --Xover (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are some reasons I think it might be copyrighted in the USA:

None of Tomuschat, Currie, or Kommers appear to be in the employ of the German government. The fact that the German government is publishing their translation (9+ years after the translation was first issued, mind you) might not make their translation "official" within the context of German copyright law. You will note that {{PD-DEGov}} explicitly excludes third-party translations.
The US copyright law referenced in {{PD-EdictGov}} does not mention translations, official or otherwise. Translations are like any other derivative work, and do not automatically inherit the copyright of the translated work, so it seems to me that the translation would need to be exempted from copyright separately from the original edict.
Even if the translation were in the public domain in Germany simply by virtue of being published by the Bundestag, this would not on its own put the translation in the public domain in the USA, since being published by a foreign government is not sufficient for exemption from copyright in the USA.

I am not a lawyer either, but that makes me more hesitant to assume PD on a work whose status is not clear-cut. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with all those points as points of concern. But, by analogy, the EU, for example, publish their laws in 27+ languages, and all of them are official: all of them are the law. The "official work" (amtliches werk) copyright exception is not limited to works in German; it carves out all works in which the public interest is strong, typically because they have some form of legal or regulatory effect. What licensing or work for hire agreement the Bundestag had with its translators or the graphics shop that produced the cover page is not our concern: it is a work with regulatory effect (strong public interest) published by the German government. If they failed to obtain the necessary rights prior to publication that is the Bundestag's problem, not ours. But to your specific points...

Is there any reason to assume the translation was made by Tomuschat et al, as opposed to them being credited with helping "the Language Service of the German Bundestag" with the official translation? They might have merely provided advice rather than any actual text for all we know. The document credits everyone who contributed to it, but only non-government entities are called out by name. The Bundestag eagle logo, for example, was created by Ludwig Gies, who gets credited, along with a graphics shop that touched it up later on. They tell you who printed the thing, and the lunch lady that catered the committee meeting (I kid of course). For this concern to be an issue the translation would have had to have been made independently by Tomuschat et al and then later adopted by the Bundestag. Not impossible, but absent indication that this is the case, Occam forbids us from assuming it to be so.
I agree that {{PD-EdictGov}} does not have special provisions for translations. Its applicability depends entirely on the copyright status of the translated document in Germany, not the original German document.
If the document is PD in Germany it is PD in the US, absent any complicating factors like the URAA. Further, the determining factor for whether the work is PD in Germany is its "officialness": if it is PD in Germany then {{PD-EdictGov}} applies for the same reason.

Bottom line is that we have no direct guidance on the legal status here (that I have found), so we have to rely on our own legal analysis. And your conclusion will essentially depend on where on the scale of precautionary-ness you fall down. --Xover (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether a document is PD in its home country has no effect on its status in US law, barring the URAA. I don't know if it is covered by PD-EdictGov as a translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I think that you have convinced me that the German understanding of "official work" covers this official revised publication of the translation, as per {{PD-DEGov}}, regardless of whether Tomuschat and Currie were independent third-party translators when they first published their translation. So the translation must be PD in Germany despite the copyright notice in the text. Unfortunately Prosfilaes is correct; PD in Germany does not imply PD in USA. I don't think {{PD-EdictGov}} can be reasonably used for the translation unless this English text is also officially promulgated as law. I hope we can find some precedent or legal something-or-other in US law that will allow us to host official translations, otherwise we may have several other works to delete as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, @Beleg Tâl: Government Edicts (which is defined widely), explicitly including translations, are ineligible for copyright in the US. Thus: if it is PD in Germany, through being an edict of government, it is PD in the US, by being an edict of a (foreign) government. The notice you see on the template about "not including translations" refers to independent third party translations (which would indeed have their own separate copyright), not any limitation on what is covered under the Edict of Government exception. --Xover (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me give you a different scenario:

The Government of Canada issues copies of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in dozens of languages.
The Charter and all its translations are explicitly copyrighted in Canada.
The English and French versions are authoritative legal documents, and are clearly "edicts of government" according to American copyright law.
Fortunately, the copyright status in Canada does not affect the copyright status in the USA, and so the English and French versions are in the public domain in the USA as "edicts of government".
The versions that are neither in English or French have no legal status in Canada. Do they count as "edicts of government" under American copyright law?

The document we are discussing is the same.

The Bundestag of Germany issues copies of the Basic Law in several languages.
The Basic Law and all official translations are explicitly in the public domain in Germany.
The German version is an authoritative legal document, and is clearly an "edict of government" according to American copyright law.
Unfortunately, the copyright status in Germany does not affect the copyright status in the USA. However, the German version is still in the public domain in the USA as an "edict of government".
The versions that are not in German have no legal status in Germany. Do they count as "edicts of government" under American copyright law?

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I found this relevant piece of information: "Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties" (from the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). So this brings us back full circle: it looks like it is PD in the USA if the translators were hired by the Bundestag to prepare the translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of (and haven't found) any precedent or direct guidance on whether force of law is actually required to qualify as an edict of government. On the one hand, Government Edict is defined widely (and the exceptions very narrowly), on the other the underlying principle is the principle that all men are presumed to know the law (in the term's widest possible sense) so the written law must be made available to them. On the third hand "the law" includes all sorts of things that are not, strictly speaking, a law. I'm currently doing some digging into the German end of this (the German framework for copyright is… weird). --Xover (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have just found that the 1991 hard-copy publication listed at Talk:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as the source of this text is actually a completely different translation than the one made by Tomuschat and Currie which is currently under discussion. Which of course means that this translation does not necessarily predate the Bundestag publication, and further research suggests that the 2008 publication by the Bundestag is the original publication. This makes it rather unlikely that this is a third-party translation reprinted by the Bundestag, as I had previously suspected; it's now almost certain that this was prepared for the Bundestag directly. I am inclined to leave it at that, allowing this work as a "translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just about ready to tear my hair out looking for something definitive that addressed our questions directly, when by pure happenstance I ran across c:COM:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Official works which says "By German law, documents are in the public domain (gemeinfrei) if they have been published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information." (my underline). Based on that, the translation should be public domain as "official work" regardless of force of law in Germany: if the definition is wide enough to cover "public information" then this translation of a law certainly falls within it. And if it matches the public domain exception of PD-GermanGov it would, in my opinion, be unreasonable to assume that it would not fall under the PD-EdictGov exception in the US (they are complementary in purpose). In other words, unless we run across any directly contradicting guidance, or evidence that undermines the work-for-hire assumption, I conclude that we can lean on Commons having figured this out previously. I could have wished that they had included their legal analysis that led to that conclusion so I could check that it holds up, but I am perfectly well prepared to trust that they know what they are doing on this. --Xover (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Idealistic Reaction Against Science (1914).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

kept, file moved to local —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't be hosted on Commons, original author died in 1964, so it's not PD in the EU. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the underlying file here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn as linked source (via Wyayback) confirms CC release, and uploader is the author submitting his own paper.

Where is the evidence of a Creative Commons release? The source links given don't seem to work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The uploader of the file is the author Lyubomir Ivanov himself. The linked source gives CC-BY claim at bottom of page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn - OTRS Ticket?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The Life of the Spider/Preface

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Determined to be US edition pre 1924, compliant with policy so discussion resolved.

Specfically - The Life of the Spider/Preface , The author Maurice Maeterlinick died in 1949, so in respect that section may be an issue outside the US (at least for a few months). It's clearly PD in US, as a pre 1924 publication. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

1949 means PD in pma. 70 countries, or near enough anyway. And since this was first published in the US that is the country of origin. But we could delete it now and tag it to be undeleted 6 months from now if needed. --Xover (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I hid the content, anyway.. The original author is French, so I'm not sure if the Preface in this work is the original or a Translation from the French, I can revert based on the discussion here. It is ONLY this section that is affected. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that it's Maurice Maeterlinck, not Maurice Maeterlinick (the typo is in the original scan). I've deleted the typo version. Whoever restores the Preface should SIC the name at the end of the Preface (it's spelled correctly elsewhere in the work). --Xover (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It's PD in the US, so it's not really our issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have unhidden the content since it is PD in the USA and therefore 100% compliant with our policy. Since the US is the country of origin, it is also compliant with the policy at Commons. If anyone wants to stick a {{PD/1923}} tag on that page, that would be ok as a courtesy, but nothing more than that is needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The header needs adjusting, so that it credits Maeterlinck, as well. I'm not sure how to do this as the header seems integrated with the pages tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn/ resolved per User:Beleg Tâl ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

On Commons and tagged as PD due to lack of renewal. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Published in Baltimore in 1957. Is this edition in PD in the US? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Commons page claims it's not renewed, and https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals doesn't turn up a renewal for it, so I don't see why not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It says that now, but didn't before. I have been in conversation with the person who uploaded the file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Tetrabiblos

The following discussion is closed:

Text is public domain as a US work with no-renewal. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This work is identified as translated by "J. M. Ashmand", which seems to be the result of copying from a website that makes that claim.

However, the text seems to be the translation by Author:Frank Egleston Robbins for the Loeb Classical Library. The date I have for that text is 1940, though it might have been published earlier.

Can I get confirmation of my suspicions? This may need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the advertisement and proem is from Ashmand's, then it restarts with the proem of Robbins' through to the end of the text, judging from some randomly selected passages. Prosody (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is volume 435, first published in 1940. The start of Book 2 is the same, so presumably it's mostly or completely derived from the Loeb. I don't see copies available online as public domain, but it was not renewed, and has no copyright notice on the "Printed in Great Britain" 1964 edition I'm looking at. It's generally believed that all the early Loebs are PD, but IIRC, WWII complicated the both sides of the pond printing and thus the PD status. I really don't know; @Clindberg:, are you more familiar with the legal issues here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I don't see a renewal for the Robbins work, published in 1940 apparently by Harvard University, and as an American (living in the U.S.) there are no possible URAA issues even if first published in Great Britain. So it would seem that text is in the U.S. public domain either way (Ashmand's translation being from 1822). I don't think that WWII would have any bearing. There may have been some forgiveness for renewals which needed to be filed during the war, but those would have all been pre-1923 works in the first place, and the original publication appears to have been in the U.S. (before the war started there) anyways. The renewal would have had to be filed by Robbins' estate in 1967 or 1968. It appears Robbins lived from 1884 - 1963. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a page for clean-up? This text does look copyright-free, but is a mix of sources and needs some work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Prince (Marriott)/Introduction

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn. --Xover (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Being:

per the concern raised here - Wikisource:Scriptorium#The_Prince_(Marriott), given a lack of clarity about the status of the introduction which is credited to w:Herbert Butterfield (d. 1979) . Given that the latest the scans can be is around 1926, and Butterfield later wrote a work on Machevelli, I don't find it implausible that he could have written an introduction for a 1920's reprint ( Albiet uncredited in it.).

The actual translation (Marriot) is not affected. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevant Index would be Index:The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott).djvu, and I'm certainly tempted to separately nominate that for deletion as well ( despite having set up the index page), to ensure the version on Wikisource is KNOWN to have an unambiguous status.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Curioser and curioser - https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Search/Home?lookfor=%22Marriott,%20W.%20K.%22&type=author&inst=

The Butterfield credit doesn't appear until post-war editions.. Hmm...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering the quote 'In translating "The Prince" my aim has been [...]" on the second page of the introduction, I would assume that the introduction is by Marriot. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about a work that says it's a 1926 printing of a 1908 edition. It's clearly PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn but will reinstate if new information comes to light. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Non-Mathematism The Origin of the Mind and Concept of God.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Incompatible or unclear license, This says copyright, the transclusion says CC-SA. They can't both be correct, unless there is an OTRS for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: It's OTRS ticked #2011030810007603. It's documented on the File's info page, which is the usual place for such info. --Xover (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Thanks. 15:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thailand PD Exempt and speeches

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as exempt official work. --Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:

News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain

Constitution and legislations

Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports

Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.

It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I have no idea, but I'd wager that speeches don't count. It might depend on how the transcription of the speech was first published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The work is a report of a paper delivered at a SEAMEO symposium. "The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) is a regional intergovernmental organization established in 1965 among governments of Southeast Asian countries to promote regional cooperation in education, science and culture in the region". The Ministers of Education of the members sit on its council, and it appears to be hosted by Thailand. The working language is almost certainly English (the members have no other language in common that I can see), so the translation is by the Minister or his Ministry. In other words, you can probably take your pick of the three possible reasons for copyright exemption in 7.2(3).
So, unless anybody wants to argue otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and close this as Keep fairly soon. --Xover (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Complete Lojban Language (1997)/Chapter 1

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn. --Xover (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-free work. (But The Complete Lojban Language (1997)/Chapter 21 is in public domain.) --神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is it non-free? The license says "Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this book, either in electronic or in printed form, provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this book, provided that the modifications are clearly marked as such, and provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one." That sounds perfectly fine; e.g. the CC-BY-SA says "to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work."--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; if the only restrictions are attribution and share-alike, then it is acceptable under our copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, @Beleg Tâl:User:Jcb deleted most of the images in this work and c:Template:CLL on Commons, so I asked this question:-)(Also asked at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Are_images_in_s:The_Complete_Lojban_Language_allowed_to_be_uploaded_here?.)--神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn. It is free, and related files in Commons were restored. --神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Socialism and the great state.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Simultaneously published in the UK and US, so country of origin is US for copyright and Commons policy purposes. --Xover (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Work is PD-US, However it's not PD-UK in respect of Cicely Hamilton's contributed chapter, she died in 1952.

I would suggest localising the scans/file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

See also - Index_talk:Socialism_and_the_great_state.djvu for the other authors not already linked from the Index page itself. There were some I couldn't identify without more reserach. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to delete it from Commons. It seems the publisher published it simultaneously in UK and US, so US is considered the country of origin. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Selected Essays by Karl Marx translated by Henry James Stenning

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as concurrently published in the US and without renewal. --Xover (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Set of translated works by Marx that have been held by us for a long period. They are noted as the translations being published in 1926, and confirmed as first published, and the author having died 1971 (FreeBMD date). Author is British, and the linked archive.org reprint was during the life of the author, so not a sign that the reprint was able due to no copyright. Archive.org has numbers of Stenning's works[1], though they would all appear to be in copyright.

It would appear that unfortunately that these works are copyright in UK, and US and not out of copyright until at least 95 years after publication (2021). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the 1926 edition was a US publication (New York, International publishers, 1926); was its copyright renewed? Or, maybe, there wa an older British-only publication? Ankry (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I can see a book review in Marxian Essays. — Aberdeen Press and Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland), Thursday, April 01, 1926; pg. 3; Issue 1040. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @Ankry: So the conclusion is delete as copyvio then? --Xover (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion was that this work could be simultaneously published in UK and US due to this US edition (URAA does not apply then). However, we do not know the exact dates of both editions, so we cannot be absolutely sure if this happened during the following 30 days. As HathiTrust+ claims this edition copyrighted in US, this may be a doubt. Summarizing, I neither support nor oppose the deletion here. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I did a little digging… The 1926 US edition is by International Publishers, a publishing house set up in 1924 by Alexander Trachtenberg (among others), to publish various socialist material. They were associated with the Socialist and Communist Party USA, and were at times considered the party's publishing arm (Trachtenberg denied this vehemently). They published new translations and editions of the standard socialist texts, but were on launch warned (by the party, from whom they had requested a list of socialist bookstores in the US) that another publisher had already covered the market for Marx, and it would not be economical to commission new editions of his works. The name, however, reflects their market position: as much as 80% of their print runs were sold to Europe and the Soviet Union, and they frequently bought titles published outside the US for resale domestically. It thus seems overwhelmingly probable that this what happened with this work: it was uneconomical to commission a new translation, but to republish the then-new UK translation would let them publish something by Marx.

The UK edition was received for review (probably before actual publication) at The Guardian on 26 February 1926. The US edition was announced in the Chicago Tribune on 20 March 1926 (probably already on sale then: it's not "books received for review" it's a list of new books for sale). I'm going to go ahead and call that "published within 30 days", or near enough for any reasonable assessment.

The work is thus first published in the US in 1926, and is not subject to the URAA. A search of the copyright renewals turns up nothing related to this title; but it does turn up renewals for others works by Marx that Trachtenberg edited or translated himself (20 years later). In other words, I conclude that this work is out of copyright in the US due to expiration in 1954 (first publication + 28 years), and can be kept here (or on Commons if we can find a scan). @Billinghurst, @Ankry: Do you concur? --Xover (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Copyright expired due to lack of renewal. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Whose edition and when? If 1963 did someone check for a renewal because the author page for the nominal editor claims most of the editors works are still copyright? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What isn't clear? It says "From Kant: On History, edited by Lewis White Beck (1963)." right on top. There's a link at the top of this page to where you can check renewals; I see none for "Kant: On History" and don't see any that would cover this by "Lewis White Beck".--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep I concur with Prosfilaes. I haven't been able to track down a scan of this so I can't tell whether there was a copyright notice, but there is certainly no renewal for it under any reasonable search term, so its US copyright expired at the end of 1991 (1963+28). Outside the US it may very well be in copyright, but in this context it is only the US status that matters. Internationally it may be relevant that while Beck is listed as editor and wrote the introduction, the NLA also lists Robert E. Anchor and Emil L. Fackenheim as translators. Depending on how precise the IP who added the text was, this particular text may have been translated by any one of them (and term of copyright might thus be relative to their death dates). --Xover (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:Natural History (Rackham, Jones, & Eichholz) - Vol 05.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

kept; public domain in US, and publishing in UK simultaneously

Could I have confirmation that this book's copyright has not been renewed before I put it on my to do list, please? Cheers Zoeannl (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I can find no renewals for this work under title, author, or translator. --Xover (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zoeannl: The mentioned author is British, so we would need to check for first publication in the UK, it is not going to be US publication alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The series was published in both the US and the UK at the same time, and the introduction makes it clear the translator was working on this translation for this series when he died, so this is obviously the first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So good to go? Zoeannl (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. The work was first published in 1950; concurrently in the UK and US; does not contain a copyright notice (so was never protected by copyright, strictly speaking); and there was no renewal. Its US copyright, to the degree it had such in the first place, thus expired after 1978 (1950+28). In the UK the term is pma. 70, so the majority of the work entered the public domain after 2014 (1944+70). Note that since Rackham died before finishing this volume and it was completed by w:E. H. Warmington, those parts are in copyright in the UK until 2058 (1987+70). Since those parts do not appear to be distinguishable in any way, and the introduction implies they are relatively minor, I do not think we need to worry overly much about them even in a UK copyright context (and UK status is not relevant to policy neither here nor on Commons for this work).

Note that I have corrected the date of publication for the file on Commons. 1938 is the first printing of the first volume in the series. The 5th volume was first printed in 1950, so that is the relevant date for copyright purposes. --Xover (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A fraternal greeting from the free Macedonian state - 1944 and other works

The following discussion is closed:

Copyright issues resolved.

Contributions by GStojanov (talk • contribs) from a work published in 1985. The issues that I need to see resolved are

The original works are from the 1940s, and the original authors are not dead by 70 years. Examples.
- w:Vera Aceva, died 2006
- w:Ljupčo Arsov, died 1986
The translator in the 1985 work has no indication that these works are out of copyright for the translator.

We need to know the copyright status of the work, and did it have any copyright notice? Full name of the work, where it was published, was it co-published in the States, and if yes, was it registered in the years following publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The full name of the book is: "Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State", There are two publishers: Kultura and Makedonska Kniga. The main editor is: Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. It is published in Skopje, Macedonia (still in Yugoslavia back then) in 1985. It was not co-published in the States. I'm not sure if it was registered? How would I check that? The ISBN for the book is: CIP- NUB "Kliment Ohridski", Skopje 949.717.02/.07(093.2). The book does not have any copyright notices associated with it. GStojanov (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As I am reading this page, it seems that most, if not all, of these documents fall under: {{PD-EdictGov}} GStojanov (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of works that were not published in the USA does not require registration, so in general a work published in Macedonia/Yugoslavia in the 1940s will be automatically copyrighted in the USA. Even if {{PD-EdictGov}} covers the original documents, it will not cover the English translation unless the English translation is officially issued by the Macedonian government. It will also not cover any editorial content, including the choice and arrangement of works included in the collection. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I checked in [2] and I didn't find the book. So it isn't registered in US. According to: [3] the book is in public domain since it is published between: 1 January 1978 - 1 March 1989 and "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996". So I think that the book is in public domain. GStojanov (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, but to be "public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996" it would be necessary for all authors, including the translator and editor, to have died before 1926, which we know is not the case; or, for the work to be an official translation issued by the government and therefore ineligible for copyright in Macedonia. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Both publishers: Kultura and Makedonska kniga were government run and government owned. The translator was contracted by them to do the translation. Both the Macedonian and the English edition of the book were published by these two government run publishers. GStojanov (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, excellent! In that case, it seems very likely that this work is in the public domain. Do you have a scan of the entire publication that you can upload? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a scan. I have the actual books. But that is a good idea, I will make a scan and upload it. GStojanov (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
@Billinghurst, @Beleg Tâl: Are we then in agreement that the copyright issues are resolved? --Xover (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion the copyright issues are resolved, and the only outstanding issue is the sourcing. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Then, absent objections, I propose we close this since the copyright issues are resolved. @GStojanov: Please don't forget about the scan just because the copyright issue gets closed. We strongly prefer scan-backed works here. Drop a note at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help if you need assistance with creating a DjVu or similar. --Xover (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Cordelia's Song

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn, as discussion and further research indicates the initial analysis was flat out wrong. Work is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

Poem by Vincent Starrett (1886–1974) first published in Weird Tales in April 1938, and thus in US copyright until 2033 (pma. 70 is 2045). --Xover (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom Neutral since the nom may not be correct —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment The renewal records for 1966 (28 years from first publication) do not appear to mention either the author or the periodical in which this work appeared, which would make this {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, as automatic renewal does not apply to pre-1964 works, and PMA is irrelevant to pre-1978 published US works (barring URAA problems, which I gather are not present here). But more research may be in order. Not all 1938 works are in US copyright until 2033; only those whose copyrights were validly renewed are. Tarmstro99 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tarmstro99: AIUI, Weird Tales was generally renewed, and some (but not all) individual authors also renewed their own contributions. --Xover (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, now I'm confused…
Up until 1961 (renewals for original issues up to 1934), various companies file renewals for all issues of Weird Tales. From 1962 (1935- issues) I stop finding renewals for Weird Tales. I do, however, find registrations—by Ziff-Davies—for new issues of Amazing Stories, which were previously renewed by the same companies that renewed Weird Tales. This holds true up to 1966 (last one I checked), when Ziff-Davies begins renewing issues of Amazing Stories for 1939–1940 but stops registering new issues. I surmise that a change of ownership took place in 1961 and the new owners failed to renew any further copyrights, at least for the five years following.
And unless there are yet more weird exception rules in play here, this should mean that anything from 1935–1940 that was not individually renewed by the author is definitely PD-US-no-renewal! Issues post-1940 need to be checked to see if this holds true for later years.
In any case, I'm close to concluding that "Cordelia's Song" is PD-US-no-renewal and that this nom was in error. I'll need to have a closer look at the other Weird Tales related noms here as well in light of this. @Beleg Tâl: It seems the analysis in my nom was misleadingly incomplete, if you want to reassess… --Xover (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep User:AdamBMorgan did a lot of work in finding renewals for Weird Tales, both issue and contribution. Weird Tales/1938#April shows no issue renewal and no renewal on this work, so this should be clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Mrhrmph. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" It's not enough to note renewals found, we need to document renewals not found but actively checked for; and, not least, add the relevant license tag to the text itself so some overeager gnome doesn't sweep through and needlessly nominate it for deletion. :) --Xover (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Dark Eidolon

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn, as discussion and further research indicates the initial analysis was flat out wrong. Work is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

Short story by Clark Ashton Smith (1893–1961), first published in Weird Tales in January 1935, so in copyright in the US until 2030 (pma. 70 is 2031). --Xover (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep User:AdamBMorgan did a lot of work in finding renewals for Weird Tales, both issue and contribution. Weird Tales/1935#January shows no renewals, so this should be clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Per the discussion above (Cordelia's Song), this issue of Weird Tales is after renewals appears to stop for the magazine, and a search of the records for 1961–1964 revealed no individual renewal for this story. With no renewal by either the magazine or the author, this story should be definitively PD-US-no-renewal. --Xover (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Apostille Convention

The following discussion is closed:

Discussion concluded that as an international treaty it is covered by {{PD-EdictGov}} and has been re-tagged accordingly.

A Convention published (corporate author) by the w:Hague Conference on Private International Law (an IGO), whose general statement on copyright is:

Reproduction of the information is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is duly acknowledged.

That is, it is an -NC limitation incompatible with our policy.

Alternately, at the time of signing the following countries were members of the Conference (and must be considered co-authors in this scenario): Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. All these except Portugal and the UK have PD-*Gov copyright exemptions that could possibly be argued to cover an international convention signed by the respective country (which gives it "edict of government"-type authority), and that it is covered by PD-EdictGov in the US. This would still leave us with copyright in Portugal and the UK, but could be considered sufficient to be able to host it on Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an international treaty, isn't it? I'm pretty sure international treaties are covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't checked on the exact legal definition of a "Convention" vs. a "Treaty", but intuitively I would have said it qualifies as an "international treaty". It certainly functions as one to a layman's understanding. --Xover (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article starts out thus: "The Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, the Apostille Convention, or the Apostille Treaty, is an international treaty" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

do you have any evidence they have enforced an NC? because institutions have a history of putting NC on PD works. and UN is complicated, and conflicted. we could also contact the WiR at UN. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 01:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in!

Their enforcement or lack thereof should be immaterial; this issue falls under copyright, not trademarks (where enforcement matters). The -ND limitation is clearly stated in their published license terms and—on available information—not in question. I also do not think the UN is relevant to this particular case, as the HCPIL is an independent IGO and not a part of the UN (except that they seem to have observer status in the UN).

That means that as best I can tell, our only avenue for "country of origin"-PD would be if the community's consensus was that the Hague Conference on Private International Law is not actually the author, for copyright purposes, of the treaty. If the signatories rather then HCPIL are the authors we can apply "government work"-type copyright exceptions where they exist. My initial (superficial) check indicated that this was all the signatories except Portugal and the UK, but if we go that route we would need to check that international treaties like this are actually covered by the respective countries' "government work"-type exceptions.

However, I believe Beleg Tâl's point above was that as an international treaty (which nobody yet has questioned) it should be covered by the US "Edict of Government" exception (PD-EdictGov), making it public domain in the US, and thus within policy on Wikisource on those grounds alone. Unless we see a very good chance that this would actually meet the more stringent Commons standard (US+country of origin), relying on PD-EdictGov would seem to be the sensible path forward. Iff the community agrees that that is the proper application of our policy in this specific case… --Xover (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Letter to Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff, August 12, 2019

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn, kept as {{PD-USGov}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Does whistleblowing count as falling under official duties for the purposes of {{PD-USGov}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think there's quite a bit of bias speaking, but a government employee is supposed to uphold the law and reporting violations of that is with in their official duties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Absent case law anywhere, I'd be sceptical of that. Acting within the law is an implicit part of the duty for all public employees; but the whistleblower institute is a safety mechanism to allow a safe way for employees acting in their personal capacity to report misconduct, including possible violations of the law, that the normal organisational mechanisms have been unable or unwilling to address. I would think whistleblower reports are ipso facto not part of their regular duties. Public records, yes; public domain, no. --Xover (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Then again, there's Garcetti v. Ceballos, where SCOTUS held that for 1st Amendment purposes there is a distinction between speech (whistleblower reports) that falls within the employee's duties and that which pertains to other matters. The Court was divided down the middle, and was addressing 1st Amendment issues rather than the issue we're facing, so there's limited applicability. In the case, the test the majority applied was Ceballos' "interest" in the speech: as a government employee Ceballos by definition had no personal interest in speech related to matters that fell within his official duties, and thus could have no 1st Amendment interest in such speech that merited protection.

As a precedent it is weak, but it does suggest there might be grounds for using subject matter that falls within the official duties rather than acting as part of their official duties as the determining factor for a copyright (exemption) determination. --Xover (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:Canadian Singers and Their Songs.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

kept, published more than 95 years ago, so PD

A 1919 work, but some of the poems/songs featured are not necessarily out of copyright...

such as those by Author:Mary Josephine Benson 1965+50= 2015 (which is after the 1996 date for URAA)

A fuller review is requested. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also Author:Arthur Stanley Bourinot (1893-1969) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep It was published before 1924, and thus is PD in the US. At this point in time, the URAA doesn't matter for works that old.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Household Law (1889)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Text was migrated to 1904 edition that is unambiguously in the public domain, scan-backed, and hosted both as a stand-alone edition of the law and within the context of the larger work in which it (our translation) was published.

Sourced to http://core.ecu.edu/hist/tuckerjo/1889law.html, which copied it from http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/3953/, which is clearly labelled "Copyright (c) 1998 by Jeffrey W. Taliaferro. All rights reserved.". --Xover (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep The work's talk page links to this 1904 edition of the translated English text in question. Suggest to move to Japan by the Japanese/Appendix A and scan-back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see. First published in the UK in 1904, with no concurrent US publication evident. Editor is Alfred Stead (1877–1933). So UK copyright 1933 + 70 pma. = 2003. US copyright is pre-1923 / publication + 95. URAA would have theoretically restored the (already expired) US copyright. So far so good.
BUT… this a compendium of works by various prominent Japanese authors, so we need to look at Japanese copyright too. Prior to 30 December 2018, Japan was pma. 50, and the change was not retroactive for already expired works. 2018 - pma. 50 = 1968, so any author who died before 1968 will be PD in Japan. Given they were eminent men in 1904, one may presume they were not entirely spring chickens at that point. Assuming nobody was under 30, and add a further 64 years, we're at 94 years old even for the worst plausible case… Hmm. Yeah, I think it is reasonable to presume all of them were dead before 1968 absent indications to the contrary.
That'll work. --Xover (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted

Letter of loaning a statue of the goddess Ishtar to Amenhotep III

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Translation from here, originally from a geocities website that is not available even via wayback machine. Cited authors are Hanson, whose web publications are explicitly noncommercial; Moran, whose work is almost certainly copyright; and Mercer, whose work is also almost certainly copyright —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The Exilarch's Letter

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any source for the English translation (Sod Ha'ibur by Richard Fiedler (2014) copies Wikisource). The Aramaic text should probably go to the main Wikisource, though it would be nice to have a source for that, too. We could make a local translation, if necessary; it's pretty short, but Aramaic is not a widely-known language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile wrote on my talk page that "The Aramaic comes from Mann in 1922:[4]. Published in the UK, and confirmed as being out of copyright by IA / Cornell. The English translation is from the same time period but I can’t find the source online (I think I took it from a library); this was five years ago." I wasn't truly worried about the Aramaic, but given that one year later is still in copyright, "from the same time period" isn't much help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, unfortunately, since there's no way to verify —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of Mao Zedong's work

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted all but Communism and Dictatorship (1921). The burden of proof rests upon anyone seeking to undelete. Similar to Chinese Wikisource, PD-PRC-exempt does not always apply to Mao's works.--Jusjih (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello all,

There are a few Mao Zedong's work on English Wikisource citing the Article 5 of Chinese copyright law, which exempts all Chinese government and judicial documents, and their official translations, from copyright. However, Mao did not hold any government office after he left the office of the Chairman of the People's Republic of China in 1959. Further more, there is a report that royalties was paid for the translations of Mao's work published outside of China.

Granted the separation of party and state was unclear at time, does Article 5 applies for Mao's work in his capacity as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China? Furthermore, many of Mao's essays were written in his personal capacity, does Article 5 applies to these? -Mys 721tx (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, Article 55 of the 1990 copyright law states that "[t]he rights of copyright owners, publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations as provided for in this Law shall, if their term of protection as specified in this Law has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law, be protected in accordance with this Law." If Article 5 does not apply, then Mao's personal works will not enter public domain until 2027. -Mys 721tx (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many, if not all, unsourced translations of Mao Zedong's work were sourced from "Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung". I was previously transcribing it before it was deleted due to copyvio on both here and Commons. -Einstein95 (talk)

So, Article 5 would exempt anything Mao wrote -- including their translations -- while he was in office. According to the wikipedia article, that would be from 1949 to 1959. I'm not sure if his chairmanship of the Communist party (1943-1976) or his chairmanship of the Central Military Commission (1954-1976) count as government posts. So pretty much anything we have from 1949-1959 is probably covered by Article 5; anything outside of that date range, unless it was prior to the '20s, is probably not.

Unfortunately his author page does not list dates directly. I think it would be most useful to actually identify which of these many works are actually potentially copyright violations. Most of the works that I've looked at linked from that author page seem to be from the 1930s, which predate his holding government officeship, and which thus preclude the use of the Article 5 exemption. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There's also this, which is marked for cleanup, to consider at the same time: Index:Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung.djvu. Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The followings are on Wikisource:

Communism and Dictatorship (November 1920. January 1921)
The Second Anniversary of An Wu-ching's Martyrdom (1929)
On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party (December 1929)
A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire (January 5, 1930)
Oppose Book Worship (May 1930)
Decree Regarding Marriage (January 28, 1931)
A Letter from the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army to Our Brothers the Soldiers of the White Army on the Subject of the Forced Occupation of Manchuria by Japanese Imperialism (September 25, 1931)
The League of Nations is a League of Robbers! (October 6, 1932)
Preliminary Conclusions of the Land Investigation Campaign (August 29, 1933)
The Land Investigation Campaign is the Central Important Task in the Vast (Soviet) Areas (August 31, 1933)
Report to the 2nd National Congress of Workers and Peasants Representatives (January 23, 1934)
Pay Attention to Economic Work (August 20, 1933)
How to Differentiate the Classes in the Rural Areas (October 1933)
Our Economic Policy (January 23, 1934)
Be Concerned With the Well-Being of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Work (January 27, 1934)
Proclamation on the Northward March of the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army to Fight Japan (July, 15 1934)
On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism (December 27, 1935)
To Lin Piao (1936)
We Are Not Going to Turn the Country over to Moscow! (July 23, 1936)
Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War (December 1936)
A Statement of Chiang Kai-shek's Statement (December 28, 1936)
On Guerrilla Warfare (1937)
To Hsu T'eh-li (February 1937)
The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance to Japan (May 3, 1937)
Win the Masses in their Millions for the Anti-Japanese National United Front (May 7, 1937)
Letter to the Spanish People (May 15, 1937)
Inscription for the Founding of the North Shensi Public School (1937)
Speech at the Meeting Celebrating the Completion of the Building of the Anti-Japanese Military and Political University (1937)
On Lu Hsun (1937)
Basic Tactics (1937)
On Practice (July 1937)
On Contradiction (August 1937)
Policies, Measures and Perspectives for Resisting the Japanese Invasion (July 23, 1937)
For the Mobilization of All the Nation's Forces for Victory in the War of Resistance (August 25, 1937)
Combat Liberalism (September 7, 1937)
Urgent Tasks Following the Establishment of Kuomintang-Communist Cooperation (September 29, 1937)
Interview with the British Journalist James Bertram (October 25, 1937)
The Situation and Tasks in the Anti-Japanese War After the Fall of Shanghai and Taiyuan (November 12, 1937)
Dialectical Materialism (April - June, 1938)
Proclamation by the Government of the Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia Border Region and the Rear Headquarters of the Eighth Route Army (May 15, 1938)
Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan (May 1938)
On Protracted War (May 1938)

The following are published while Mao was in office (1 October 1949 to 27 April 1959) and may be considered for inclusion.

Proclamation of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China (October 1, 1949)
Reply to the Provisional People's Government of Xinjiang (October 21, 1949)
Reply to the Xinjiang League for the Defence of Peace and Democracy and to People of the Tacheng-Ili-Ashan Regions (October 21, 1949)
Preface to The Victory of New Democracy in China (October 14, 1949)
Telegram to the Insurrectionists on the "Hailiao" (October 24, 1949)
Inscription for the Inaugural Issue of Renmin Wenxue [People's Literature] (October 25, 1949)
Telegram to Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions (October 26, 1949)
Always Keep to the Style of Plain Living and Hard Struggle (October 26, 1949)
Telegram to Stalin (December 19, 1949)
Address at Birthday Celebration Meeting Held for Stalin (December 21, 1949)
Telegram to President Prasad of the Republic of India (January 28, 1950)
Speech on Departure from Moscow (February 17, 1950)
Request for Opinions on the Tactics for Dealing With Rich Peasants (March 12, 1950)
Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in the Nation's Financial and Economic Situation (June 6, 1950)
Don't Hit Out in All Directions (June 6, 1950)
Be a True Revolitionary (June 23, 1950)
Reply to Ambassador of the Republic of India
You Are Models for the Whole Nation (September 25, 1950)
Order to the Chinese People's Volunteers (October 8, 1950)
Comment on Hearing of Mao Anying's Death (November 1950)
Letter to Huang Niantian (December 2, 1950)
The Chinese People's Volunteers Should Cherish Every Hill, Every River, Every Tree and Every Blade of Grass in Korea (January 19, 1951)
Main Points of the Resolution Adopted at the Enlarged Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (February 18, 1951)
The Party's Mass Line Must Be Followed in Supressing Counter-Revolutionaries (May 1951)
Strike Surely, Accurately and Relentlessly in Supressing Counter-Revolutionaries (December 1950-- September 1951)
Pay Serious Attention to the Discussion of the Film The Life Wu Hsun (May 20, 1951)
Great Victories in Three Mass Movements (October 23, 1951)
On the Struggle Against the "Three Evils" and the "Five Evils" (November 1951--March 1952)
Take Mutual Aid and Co-Operation in Agriculture as a Major Task (December 15, 1951)
Letter to Li Shuqing (October 16, 1952)
New Year's Day Message (January 1, 1952)
On the Policies for Our Work in Tibet -- Directive of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (April 6, 1952)
The Contradiction Between the Working Class and the Bourgeoisie is the Principal Contradiction in China (June 6, 1952)
Let Us Unite and Clearly Distinguish Between Ourselves and the Enemy (August 4, 1952)
Inscription on the Arts (September 26, 1952)
Reply to Ambassador of the Republic of India (September 26, 1952)
Inscription for Inauguration of the Tianshui-Lanzhou Railway (September 28, 1952)
Toast on Third Anniversary of Founding of the PRC (September 30, 1952)
Telegram to the Peace Conference of the Asian and Pacific Region (October 2, 1952)
Letter to Qi Baishi (October 5, 1952)
Telegram to the German Democratic Republic (October 5, 1952)
Talk with Tibetan Delegates (Excerpts) (October 8, 1952)
Letter to Song Qingling (October 10, 1952)
Letter to Tan Zhenlin (October 15, 1952)
Hail the Signal Victory of the Chinese People's Volunteers! (October 24, 1952)
Combat Bureaucracy, Commandism and Violations of the Law and Discipline (January 5, 1953)
Inscription Awarded to Soviet Troops in Lushun (February 23, 1953)
Telegram to Inquire after Stalin's Illness (March 4, 1953)
Telegram to the USSR on Stalin's Death (March 6, 1953)
The Greatest Friendship (March 9, 1953)
Criticize Han Chaunvinism (March 16, 1953)
Solve the Problem of the "Five Excesses" (March 19, 1953)
Liu Shao-chi and Yang Shang-kun Criticized for Breach of Discipline in Issuing Documents in the Name of the Central Committeee without Authorization (May 19, 1953)
Refute Right Deviationist Views that Depart from the General Line (June 15, 1953)
The Youth League in Its Work Must Take the Characteristics of Youth Into Consideration (June 30, 1953)
On State Capitalism (July 9, 1953)
The Party's General Line for the Transition Period (August 1953)
Combat Bourgeois Ideas in the Party (August 12, 1953)
The Only Road for the Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Comme (September 7, 1953)
Our Great Victory in the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea and Our Future Tasks (September 12, 1953)
Criticism of Liang Shu-ming's Reactionary Ideas (September 16-18, 1953)
Two Talks on Mutual Aid and Co-Operation in Agriculture (October and November 1953)
I. The Talk of October 15
II. The Talk of November 4
On the Draft Constitutionon of the People's Republic of China (June 14, 1954)
Strive to Build a Great Socialist Country (September 15, 1954)
Letter Concerning the Study of The Dream of the Red Chamber (October 16, 1954)
The Chinese People Cannot be Cowed by the Atom Bomb (January 28, 1955)
Speeches at the National Conference of the Communist Party of China (March 1955)
In Refutation of "Uniformity of Public Opinion" (May 24, 1955)
Preface and Editor's Notes to Material on the Counter-Revolutionary Hu Feng Clique (May and June 1955)
On the Co-Operative Transformation of Agriculture (July 31, 1955)
Rely on Party and League Members and Poor and Lower-Middle Peasants in the Co-Operative Transformation of Agriculture (September 7, 1955)
Editor's Notes from Socialist Upsurge in China's Countryside (September and December 1955)
Request for Opinions on the Seventeen-Article Document Concerning Agriculture (December 21, 1955)
Talk at the Conference on Intellectuals Called by the Centre (January 20, 1956)
Speed up the Socialist Transformation of Handicrafts (March 5, 1956)
Contradictions Under Socialism (April 5, 1956)
Stalin's Place in History (April 5, 1956)
Speech at Expanded Meeting of CPC Political Bureau (April 25, 1956)
On the Ten Major Relationships (April 25, 1956)
U.S. Imperialism is a Paper Tiger (July 14, 1956)
Chairman Mao's Talk to Music Workers (August 24 1956)
Strengthen Party Unity and Carry Forward Party Traditions (August 30, 1956)
Some Experiences in Our Party's History (September 25, 1956)
In Commemoration of Dr. Sun Yat-sen (November 12, 1956)
Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (November 15, 1956)
Talks at a Conference of Secretaries of Provincial, Municipal and Autonomous Region Party Committees (January 1957)
On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957)
Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957)
Persevere in Plain Living and Hard Struggle, Maintain Close Ties with the Masses (March 1957)
Things Are Beginning to Change (May 15, 1957)
The Chinese Communist Party is the Core of Leadership of the While Chinese Party (May 25, 1957)
Muster Our Forces to Repulse the Rightists' Wild Attacks (June 8, 1957)
Letter to Zhou Enlai (July 7, 1957)
Comment on Class Education with Leaders from Shanghai Motor Power Institute (July, 1957)
Comment to the Loatian Patriotic (Liberation) Front Representative on Education (1957)
Wen Hui Pao's Bourgeois Orientation Should Be Criticized (July 1, 1957)
Beat Back the Attacks of the Bourgeois Rightists (July 9, 1957)
The Situation in the Summer of 1957 (July 1957)
Talk at the Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the 8th Central Committee of the CCP (October 7, 1957)
Be Activists in Promoting the Revolution (October 9, 1957)
Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the People (October 13, 1957)
No Power on Earth Can Separate Us (November 2, 1957)
Speech at Moscow Celebration Meeting (November 6, 1957)
The East Wind Prevails Over the West Wind! (November 17, 1957)
A Dialectical Approach to Inner Party Unity (November 18, 1957)
All Reactionaries Are Paper Tigers (November 18, 1957)
Talks at the Nanning Conference (January 11, 12, 1958)
To the Kwangsi Regional Party Committee on Newspapers (January 12, 1958)
Speech at the Supreme State Conference [excerpts] (28 January 1958)
Sixty Points on Working Methods - A Draft Resolution from the Office of the Centre of the CPC (February 2, 1958)
Talks at the Chengtu Conference (March 1958)
National Minorities (March 1958)
Speech at the Hankow Conference (April 6, 1958)
Introducing a Co-Operative (April 15, 1958)
Speeches at the Second Session of the Eighth Party Congress (May 8-23, 1958)
Speech at the Conference of Heads of Delegations to the Second Session of the 8th Party Congress (May 18 1958)
Speech at the Group Leaders Forum of the Enlarged Meeting of the Military Affairs Committee [excerpts] (28 June 1958)
Instructions (June-September 1958)
Communes Are Better (August 9, 1958)
Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958)
Interview with a Hsinhua news Agency Correspondent (September 29, 1958)
The Masses Can Do Anything (September 29, 1958)
On Huan Hsiang's Comment on the Disintegration of the Western World (November 25, 1958)
A Letter to Chou Shih-chou (November 25, 1958)
Speech at the First Chingchow Conference (November 1958)
On the Question of Whether Imperialism and all Reactionaries are Real Tigers (December 1, 1958)
Talks with the Directors of Various Cooperative Areas (November, December 1958)
Speech at the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee (December 19, 1958)
Reply to Article "Tsinghua University Physics Teaching and Research Group Inclines Toward the 'Left' Rather Than Right in Handling Teachers" (December 22, 1958)
Speech At Conference Of Provincial And Municipal Committee Secretaries (February 2, 1959)
Talk At Symposium Of Hsin, Lo, Hsu And Hsin Local Committees (February 21, 1959)
Speech At Cheng-chow (February 27, 1959)
Intra Party Correspondence (March 1959)
Comment On T’ao Lu-Ch’ieh’s Report On The Five-Level Cadre Conference (March 30, 1959)

-Mys 721tx (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The followings are Mao's early work published before 1922 and may entered public domain in the United States.

A Study of Physical Education (April 1917)
To Hakuro Toten (Miyazaki Toten) (Apri1 1917)
To the Glory of the Hans (July & August 1919)
Miss Chao's Suicide (1919)
Communism and Dictatorship (November 1920. January 1921)

-Mys 721tx (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that only one essay was published before 1922. Should we clean up those that are not in PD as of 2018? -Mys 721tx (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. When doubting copyright status, better delete, but please specify which ones.--Jusjih (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Everything we have between 1922 and 1949 (i.e. all listed with links except Communism and Dictatorship) are not in public domain. -Mys 721tx (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; not explicitly released under a license compatible with our copyright policy —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Despite the contents of this work, it does not contain a free license or a copyright release. Internet Archive claims that it is public domain, but IA is frequently wrong on this subject. I can find no other authoritative source for considering this document to be in the public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I absolutely guarantee that Aaron (aka. AaronSw, and a friend and long-term collaborator of Brewster Kahle) intended the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto to be licensed under the CC public domain dedication. In fact, I feel confident asserting he would have been hopping mad at the very idea that it might be deleted here for licensing reasons. --Xover (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I am aware of that, and it would be unfortunate if we had to delete it because he inadvertently neglected to release the work from the automatic copyright imposed upon it by the USA Copyright Act -- and yet, if he did not release it, and I see no evidence that he did release it, then we cannot host the text on Wikisource (which is bound by American copyright legislation). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Legally speaking, there is absolutely no chance Aaron did not intend to release the manifesto in such a way as to permit the widest possible reuse. See for example the "(cc) share and enjoy" text on the original guerillaopenaccess.com website, or the unlicense public domain dedication on the manifesto's current git repo, or, indeed, the PD license tagging at IA, which is unlikely to be incorrect given his connections with both Kahle and IA in general (and the IA copy is pretty prominently linked and PageRanked: it's not some obscure PDF with bad metadata going unnoticed). This is precisely the reason why enwp has IAR as a policy: it would be ridiculous on its face for Wikisource (of all places) to delete Aaron Swartz' (of all people) Guerilla Open Access Manifesto (of all things) for not sufficiently jumping through the hoops. And you know what, if push comes to shove, and we actually managed to squeeze a statement out of them, I'm pretty well certain WMF Legal would agree. --Xover (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Policy, precedent, and consensus gathered in previous discussion on enWS all favour deleting works that are obviously intended to be PD, but aren't actually PD. I'll happily undelete a dozen or so such works if WMF and the community sense for IAR indicate that this is no longer the feeling of this community. However, given the new information at guerillaopenaccess.com (is that Swartz's own site?) we may be able to keep it without violating the above anyway. Does "(cc) share and enjoy" match any of the CC licenses at the time, which Swartz would obviously have been aware of, having been involved in their creation?—And yes, I am aware of the ridiculous irony of this discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, works on his website https://aaronsw.com are CC BY-NC-SA, and the NC restriction is both consistent with Swartz's vision and incompatible with our policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

guerillaopenaccess.com was set up by Aaron to host the manifesto, yes, and he then linked to it from his blog. In 2008, the then-current set of CC licenses was 3.0 (and, iirc, what Wikipedia used then too), and "(cc) share and enjoy" is a pretty clear intent to apply CC(-BY)-SA (3.0). The -NC flag on aaronsw.com would perhaps have been concerning had the manifesto been published on his blog, but he just linked to it from there. And besides, the -NC bit wasn't added until 2016 (I'm trying to find out by whom and why), so it doesn't at all reflect any explicit indication of intent by Aaron. --Xover (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the NC clause was added by his estate for this exact reason, namely that Swartz's website and blog was copyrighted material and the estate was pressured to release it under an open license due to the obvious intentions of Swartz himself. Doesn't apply to the Manifesto though, as you pointed out. — I'm willing to accept "(cc) share and enjoy" as CC BY-SA 3.0 if this is supported by consensus here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've also emailed Creative Commons to see what their interpretation of "(cc) share and enjoy" might be —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Even acknowledging who he was, I'm still uncomfortable without an explicit license, especially given the estate has give us an explicit license we can't use. RMS is one of the leaders in the open content movement, and he very clearly releases his essays under licenses that don't permit general derivatives. It's one thing to release code under a free license, it's another thing to release an opinionated essay under a license that lets people edit their own opinions into it. I'd note that one of the taboos on Wikimedia projects is editing other people's comments, no matter how legal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"Policy, precedent, and consensus gathered in previous discussion on enWS all favour deleting works that are obviously intended to be PD, but aren't actually PD" - good faith license error uploads are kept at commons if it is US government saying "all rights reserved", but not if PD Mark, or custom attempts to invoke public domain (as from before CC licenses). the "actually PD" presumes a lot; it is more the ideology of the deletionist, than a standard of practice. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 14:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Is there a OTRS ticket for that? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the latest? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: OTRS ticket for what? For my email to Commons? I emailed Commons, not OTRS, and I never heard back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Page:American Seashells (1954).djvu/1 and others

The following discussion is closed:

Pages have been deleted, so no need for discussion Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The work these where nominally transcribed was deleted on Commons (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/American seashells (1954), and the index file here was apparently also deleted. However the individual pages https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?search=prefix%3APage%3AAmerican+Seashells+%281954%29.djvu&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go seemingly got missed.

If the file was a copyright violation, then the pages need to go as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

IA said "no known copyright." may be PD not renewed, not here [5]; [6]; [7]; [8] -- good one for a DRV. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 16:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've checked Stanford, and it doesn't turn up there, so it should be PD. I've opened up a request for undeletion on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

thank you. i would suggest not taking deletion at commons automatically; they in general do not do the research for renewals. when they are deleting archival material, it should go to a workflow for more research. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 14:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ICD-11 MMS

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under WS:CSD#G6 as clear copyvio. --Xover (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The World Health Assembly that is happening this week has endorsed the final draft of ICD-11 MMS for use in member countries from 1 January 2022. Shortly after the announcement of the endorsement, this page was created. At present it is a simple list of chapter titles. However, based on the pdf at this link the WHO will need to license the text to us before we can host it. Although the WHO is a part of the UN, the PD-UN licenses don't carry forward because the critereon "not including public information that is offered for sale" is not met. I modified some of the text in the header 24 hours ago knowing that I would need to come back and examine in more detail. I'm aware that we do host a copy of ICD-10-CM (2010), but this is the US national modification (and an old version at that) which was licensed to the US Govt by WHO for modification and distribution. WHO is not expecting member countries to need to make national modifications of ICD-11 MMS and therefore I think it unlikely that we would be able to host this. Disclosure (and the reason I'm not deleting this outright): I use the various revisions of ICD in my day job and will be involved in developing education material for ICD-11 MMS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I see no indications that suggest any part of ICD-11 might be covered by a compatible license, but do see a lot of evidence that the WHO do, intentionally, use copyright and licensing to maintain control and restrict uses and derivative works. In particular, they require that reusers apply for a license; differentiate (separate licenses, separate application) between commercial and non-commercial use; and prohibit sub-licensing. My conclusion is that ICD-11 MMS (and the rest of it) is not compatible with hosting on Wikisource, or any other Wikimedia project. --Xover (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Semper Fidelis

The following discussion is closed:

Delete as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This page has two separate works on them:

First, who is Charles Barr and when was this written? I can't find any sources; problematically, some of the webpages are just citing us. http://www.josephsons.org/slmtc/m32298.htm actually offers texts for many of his works, but still no dates or sources.

Secondly, there was more recent words for same song. However, it says "Copyright by Don Farrar 2009 | All rights reserved | Permission granted for use in Wikipedia by Don Farrar 5/12/09". That technically doesn't even give us the right to host it, but it clearly doesn't offer the type of Free license that Wikimedia demands for works. Nor does it seem to fit in our scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I think it's the same Charles Burr who apparently co-wrote an English stage version of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg in 1979. I managed to track down some of the lyrics on the webpage you linked to a review here (snippet view on Google Books), dated 1973, which matches that timeframe. Without further info I think it's probably a copyvio. —Nizolan (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete for both works as well as Author:Charles Burr —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Promised Key

The following discussion is closed:

Delete work as copyvio; keep author page. --Xover (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a 1935 work by a Jamaican author who died in 1981, published in Jamaica which had in 1996 and has life+95 copyright laws. I don't see any way it's not copyrighted in the United States (as well as every Berne Convention country).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom, along with Author:Leonard Percival Howell —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about deleting the Author page; there's potentially some pre-1923 work that's hostable (and Jamaica is an Anglophone country and Howell wrote in English, so no translation worries) and it's only 12 years until this work is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lady Chatterley's Lover

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion here Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2007-10#Lady_Chatterley's_Lover, but I see no discussion that goes to the point that it's a British novel by a British author not published in the US for years after first publication. That means the URAA restored its copyright, and it doesn't enter US copyright until 95 years after publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur. There's some question over where "first publication" took place: there were private editions in Italy, France, and Australia in 1928–1929, and a different edition in Germany in the same time frame. But there's a "strong national ties" standard at work that suggests the work as such should be considered to be a UK work. And since the UK is pma. 70, the UK copyright lasted until 2000; meaning its US copyright (if previous copyright formalities were not observed and the previous copyright lapsed) was restored by the URAA in 1996. It is thus in copyright in the US until 2023 at the very earliest; and in practice probably for much longer because there are at least three authorial versions of this work as well several editions of various degrees of expurgation, so any actual text we host is likely to have a much later terminus (1950s/1960s + 95 years) for copyright calculation.
To me this is sufficiently clear cut (though complicated) that if nobody objects in the very near future I'm going to go ahead and speedy it under WS:CSD#G6. We're strictly speaking just past the suggested 2-week minimum, but there's been little discussion and it's summer so best to give it a little extra time IMO. --Xover (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Essays in Persuasion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Keynes died in 1946 , so the work IS PD in 70 year pma countries, however the publication is after 1924, so URAA may apply in relation to the US, clarification needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Original upload said "copied from Gutenberg" but that is probably in reference to this version on www.gutenberg.ca, which is explicitly just PD under Canadian law, not U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

UK copyright term ended in 2016 (pma. 70 → 1946 + 70), so in copyright in source country on the URAA date (1996); and so covered by US copyright until 2025 (pub. + 95 → 1930 + 95). Absent other complicating factors, I'd say this is clear-cut copyvio under our policies and should be speedied. --Xover (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Fields of Athenry

The following discussion is closed:

speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This was tagged as copyvio by Charles Matthews on 2 September 2012, but no thread was ever opened here that I can find, so I'm dumping it here to get the issue resolved.

The Fields of Athenry is w:The Fields of Athenry, which essentially says this was written in 1970(-ish) and doesn't even mention Edward Bellamy (to whom it is attributed here). It also contains what it describes as an excerpt from The Glasgow Herald for 10 April 1996, which would also be a copyvio. No real source is given, but it looks like something cut&paste'ed from a web page somewhere. All in all I would have called it speedy-level obvious copyvio, but don't want to wade in there when a more experienced admin has previously declined to do so (even though it was 7 years ago ;D). --Xover (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, go for it. I can't recall the occasion, but it was obviously a drive-by moment by me. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedied, obvious copyvio of both the Herald article and the quoted song lyrics. I checked the "links to this page", there were no discussions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

National Pledge (India)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Published 1962, author Pydimarri Venkata Subba Rao died 1988. I see no reason to consider this PD in either the USA or India. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete Yeah clear copyvio imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete Clear enough that I would have speedied if I ran across it unprompted. The other works by this contributor also merit scrutiny: several were added without license or source information, and this obviously inapplicable license tag was added after prompting on their talk page. --Xover (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

PrabuddhaBharata and PrabuddhaBharata/November 1930/The Economic Views of Swami Vivekananda

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The only content on Wikisource was published 1930, author w:Swami Ashokananda died 1969, seems to me that URAA would have restored copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete India is pma. 60, and has URAA date 1 January 1996. In general, all works published by authors who died after 1936 were affected by the URAA. The work in question is copyright in India until 2030 (1969+60), and in the US until 2026 (1930+95). --Xover (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Per the Scriptorum Disscusion, where there as a claim of a renewal for one of the editions used.

Firstly which edition do we ACTUALLLY have, as opposed to what the texinfo etc. claims?

Secondly, Is it an out of copyright edition, if not then it should be deleted, in respect of the new material which postdates 1924? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Just repeating what I said at Scriptorium:) This is a 1952 edition per the text itself. The IP (according to their statement on the talk page) seems to have only used IA's 1916 edition as an aid to transcribe the 1952 edition, which they presumably had a physical copy of. The 1952 edition was renewed and is not PD. —Nizolan (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we then conclude that this is not PD and should be deleted? --Xover (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would be better to delete and start over with the IA version. —Nizolan (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

With "a version" from IA , the google scans linked aren't the best... Someone might need to do some digging, There are also 2 editions, (1883 and 1888) as I can determine, with slight differences between them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Since the text was originally pulled from the 1916 edition, I think we should replace our copy with the 1916 edition. We can add the 1883 and/or 1888 editions as well if desired. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting that the foreword of the 1952 edition was renewed and is copyvio; the bulk of the text is PD, but in my opinion we should delete the whole thing anyway since there are multiple editions that are 100% PD that we can use instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Triton Fight Song

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I can find no information about authorship, nor any indication that this work is PD or freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete I concur. While the style is pretty old fashioned, UCSD was founded in 1960, so it can't be older than that. And no UCSD website hosting the lyrics give any sort of indication of a free license. --Xover (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The Language of the Gods

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Which edition? Credit line says London: Macmillan and Co. (1918) Ed. moonth (2016)... So is this the 1918 edition or a 2016 reprint? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete and burn with fire. It appears to be some sort of backwards or mixed-up version of Candle of Vision/Chapter 14 (1918), re-assembled and (possibly) editorialized by someone called "moonth" in 2016, with no specified source or license. There's a "title page" of sorts here which suggests the work is from sacred-texts.com, but I can only find the 1918 version there. @Calebjbaker: you added this text, do you have any insight as to where this weird edition came from and what the licensing on it is? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Constantinople Agreement

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvio in 2016 by Billinghurst, but never discussed here. Superficially it looks like speedy-candidate copyvio, but I haven't looked at it in any detail. Just dumping it here to get it resolved. --Xover (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Source. Collection of translations of relevant historical documents; translations are European in origin and date from 1928 to 1952. Copyright is almost certainly provided by URAA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete Having looked closer I concur with Beleg Tâl. Not quite speedy material though. --Xover (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence of Catalonia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as third-party translation under copyright. --Xover (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvio by Billinghurst in 2017, but never discussed here. Probably speedy-able, but I haven't looked at it in depth. There's no source, and no indication that it might be PD or under a free license, and as a 2017 document it must be assumed to be in copyright absent any specific indications to the contrary. --Xover (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Covered by {{PD-EdictGov}} provided that the translation is official. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If anyone suggests that the Parliament of Catalonia does not merit {{PD-EdictGov}}, I will point them at /Archives/2018#Constitution of the Principality of Sealand. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, this is an interesting case. The Parliament of Catalonia is very definitely an entity of government: the Spanish government! That is, this declaration was adopted by a devolved part of the actual Spanish government, and not some extrajudicial entity claiming legal powers to govern. But here's the kicker, adopting the declaration was illegal (unconstitutional) for any part of the Spanish governance structure, and the central government overruled the adoption and pressed charges against the leaders of the devolved parliament. The declaration thus has no force whatever in the relevant jurisdiction, and PD-EdictGov does require some level of force of law (it won't apply to mere speeches, say). The constitution of Sealand had some credibility through claiming new "land" in international waters. However, both cases are a bit of "Schrödinger's copyright": if the claims to sovereign statehood succeed, the US copyright is void under EdictGov, but if they fail, the copyright will always have existed per the usual rules.

However, for practical purposes, a more salient fact is that the declaration was written in Catalan, not English, and so what we have here is actually a third-party translation of unknown provenance. *shrug* I have no strong opinion either way. --Xover (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a declaration of law nonetheless. US lawbooks are filled with laws that have been declared unconstitutional, in degrees ranging explicitly called out in a Supreme Court case, to being clearly and universally understood as being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, even if the SC was dealing with a different law, all the way down to laws that a few people think is unconstitutional. I would think that it would be a complex line to walk, if states could use copyright to protect unconstitutional law. But yes, the fact we have a translation kills it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Source. Footnote states "non official translation".

Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - even if the original is a {{PD-EdictGov}}, this is a copyvio unless the translation itself is either official, or was explicitly released under a compatible license. 31.154.101.236 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Policies of Resistance Economy (iran)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as CV

Tagged as copyvio by Billinghurst in 2016, but never discussed here. The text is a 2014 translation and summation of a speech by Khamenei, ultimately sourced to the translator's blog: http://www.rezahakbari.com/blog/2016/2/17/the-unveiling-of-irans-resistance-economy

Regardless of the copyright situation for the original speech, I see no indication that the translation is somehow PD or freely licensed. --Xover (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is a copyright notice on the original blog, I would speedy this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No obvious copyright notice; but that makes no difference post-19xx when notice was no longer required in the US. There is no indication of license of any kind that I could see. --Xover (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to check myself, and do a bit of googling, I concur.

Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Minister of Education, Singapore at 31st Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Council

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvio by Billinghurst in 2018, but not discussed here. The text is a brief speech (statement, more like) by Lee Yock Suan (1946–) at the SEAMEC conference discussed elsewhere on this page (then in the context of Thai law). Singapore has publication + 70 for government works and no obvious exceptions that would apply here. PD-EdictGov for the US cannot reasonably be said to apply to this case. In other words, it seems to be in copyright until 2066 in Singapore and until 2091 in the US. --Xover (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If the statement was released at a council in Thailand, does not Thai law apply? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if the copyright status of a government speech changed based on where that speech was read aloud from the manuscript prepared back at home. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of "publication" as it applies to "country of origin", but you might be right -- and anyway in the end it's only American copyright law that matters, so we should probably delete it regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment See the section above entitled "Works linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol", which discusses other works by this same minister. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, this is the minister of Singapore; the above section discusses the minister of Thailand. Thai law has PD-ThaiGov copyright exceptions, but none such exist in Singaporean law that I could find. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Though the Tortoise Lives Long translation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as third-party translation of unknown copyright status, --Xover (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Translation:Though the Tortoise Lives Long

If you look at the page history, the creator of the wikisource page states that the the translation was done by an "unknown" translator. This was later changed by another user to credit Wikisource, but there is no indication for this to be correct. In addition, if you put a line of the poem in Google books, you will find that the translation existed before the creation of the wikisource page. See example (not sure if this is the origin of the translation but it seems so, but it does shows that the origin is not wikisource). --Cold Season (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I also have doubts about this one by the same page creator:

Translation:Short Song Style

It links English Wikipedia as source, which coincidentally also contains the translation of the first poem (also predates the Wikipedia contribution too). As both poems seems to have been copied over from English Wikipedia (both contributed by the same Wikipedia user) and the first poem is not free, I have no reason to believe this second poem is attributed to the correct source either. --Cold Season (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm having trouble finding anything conclusive on these.
Both were added 22 June 2012‎ by Benjitheijneb (original versions: "Though the Tortoise Lives Long", "Short Song Style") with the edit summary created page as addition to Author:Cao Cao, taking text from Wikipedia.
On enwp, these are currently on w:Poetry of Cao Cao, but were originally added to w:Cao Cao: "Though the Tortoise Lives Long" on 19 April 2005 (diff) by Plastictv and "Short Song Style" on 3 December 2009 (diff) by TheAsianGURU (neither user has edited in years).
Both were added here in the main namespace and with translator listed as "unknown", but were moved to the Translation: namespace on 7 April 2014‎ by Jusjih who also changed the translator to Wikisource (removed |translator=unknown) and added {{CC-BY-SA}} and {{GFDL}} as the translation license. I would guess they were just doing general cleanup and adding the licenses because the text was copied from enwp, rather than acting on any direct knowledge, but possibly you can clarify Jusjih?
This translation appears to be commonly used, but there are others (I found one that a DeviantART user made for a school project, that was quite different). I'm not familiar with Chinese literary history as a field so I don't know whether there are any "standard" translations of this, and Google wasn't much help. I do see that this particular translation seems to exist in works published prior to the creation of Wikipedia, which certainly seems to suggest that this is not an original translation by either of the two mentioned Wikipedia editors.
My conclusion so far is that these are copy&paste additions from a pre-existing source rather than original translations by the Wikipedia editors, and that unless we can determine with reasonable certainty that the source translation is in the public domain we must assume they are still in copyright and cannot be hosted here. The strongest indication to the contrary is that no source I found names the translator (which tends to suggest it's an old one, and probably 19th-century), but that is both very uncertain and not sufficient under the precautionary principle. --Xover (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, this looks like we assumed the translation was written by the editors of Wikipedia, and this assumption was wrong in this case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hell Screen

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The translator is 1905 to 1987 as best as I can tell, so the work looks to have been published in Japanese in 1918, rather than the translation. Detail is slim here, and I have not had the ability to cast wider. I doubt that the translator did the work at age 13. Some further checks should be undertaken, though this looks like it needs to be flagged. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete According to Wikipedia, the translation was originally published in Hell Screen and Other Stories, Tokyo: Hokuseido, 1948. I see no reason to believe copyright is expired or waived. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Works linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

All the works currently linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol are claimed to be in the public domain due to Thai copyright law. That's not so.

THE ORIGIN of WORLD’s EDUCATION POLICY ON Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning 1995 is a specific article by the Bangkok Post. I don't think such an article would be covered by the "News of the day and facts having the character of mere information" exception.
Thailand Ministry of Education’s Policies 1995 not only isn't by Sukavich Rangsitpol but by Bumrung Chiablam; it bears a copyright tag that was faithfully reproduced on Wikisource. Some of the content may indeed be a ministry policy and thus free from copyright, but not all.
New aspirations for education in Thailand towards educational excellence by the year 2007: Same, though this apparently indeed is based on a ministry publication.

In general, I do not think it is appropriate to call a minister the author of every policy his ministry produces under his tenure, but that's not a copyright issue. Huon (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment see also the additional discussion listed above #Thailand PD Exempt and speeches --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The first is a cut&paste of an article in The Bangkok Post that happens to report on a speech by Rangsitpol, not the speech itself. This is clearly not PD and I'll speedy it as a clear copyvio relatively soon if nobody objects.
The second appears to be a summation regarding what the Ministry's policies are, and being on a Ministry of Education website, it looks like that someone is the Ministry of Education itself. Not only does the original document mention Bumrung Chiablam, the text was uploaded here by Bumrung Chiablam. But by the design of the site I'm going to go ahead and guess that Bumrung Chiablam is an employee in the Ministry of Education's ICT department that created that custom microsite to which this document belongs (a feat often called out in 1997, before CMSs took over; I've been credited like that myself), or possibly someone serving as the secretary for a meeting or conference where the information was presented, and not an actual author of the content. Meaning it is a MoE document, and falls under PD-ThaiGov under the same provisions as the document at question in the thread above.
The third is a "Paper submitted to the 45th session of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, 1996", by Rangsitpol, then sitting Minister of Education, and having just launched a new 10-year strategy for education connected with the w:1997 Constitution of Thailand (and surrounding events). IOW, I'd say this qualifies as PD-ThaiGov. --Xover (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Huon: I've deleted the first as clear copyvio. Do you have any comments on the other two, cf. my comments above? --Xover (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I'm not familiar with how Wikisource handles copyright. If guessing that the person who explicitly claims copyright in the source doesn't actually hold it is valid grounds for keeping the content here, I don't agree with that standard, but I'm not going to fight about it. Huon (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Huon: Wikisource handles copyright pretty much like every other Wikimedia project: clear cut cases have a clear answer, and for other cases we have a discussion to try to get as close to the right answer as we can with the information available to us.

In this case, the source provided for the text is the actual website of the Department of Education, making the default assumption that the content hosted there is also created by the Ministry of Education. It is also part of a microsite (follow the navigation links at the top of the page) that lays out the Ministry of Education's vision for education over the next decade (1997–2007), in which the text in question does not stand out in any way. The only indication to the contrary is the mention of this Bumrung Chiablam; and they are credited in the footer as "Program by Mr.Bumrung Chiablam" which, allowing for non-native English speakers, might mean anything from "Programming of this web application was provided by …", through "The conference where we presented this content was arranged by …", up to "This is a text we're hosting on behalf of the third party … who also holds the copyright.". But the credit follows a line stating that the content is "Copyright © 1997 MOENet Thailand Service"—"MOENet" being the Ministry of Education's website—making the reference to Bumrung Chiablam less likely to be an assertion of copyright. On balance, this evidence heavily favours the Ministry of Education itself being the author for copyright purposes.

The answer is not clear cut, and it is absolutely possible that my conclusion is incorrect, but that was the conclusion I reached based on the observable evidence. Hence the ping: I wanted to check whether you too found the information I dug up persuasive. --Xover (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Note Since this issue is inherently not cut&dry (we have imperfect information to base our assessment on), and there is disagreement with my attempt to reach a conclusion, this issue needs further input from the community to decide what to do. --Xover (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If we cannot determine whether it is copyrighted or not, we must delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite my own conclusion above I'd be happy to accept this reasoning as determinative. I would, personally, prefer to see more community input before acting, but would certainly have no objection if another admin feels this is sufficient on its own. It's been sitting here for 4.5 months without resolution so no conclusion now could reasonably be characterised as overly hasty. :) --Xover (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I have posted my independent verification of the text in question at the author's talk page. I believe that except one, the works listed are copyrighted by the institution that prepared the report and/or accepted the work for presentation. I note that in English Wikipedia, articles about the author and/or his daughter are prone to edits by the sockpuppet, though the issue is not relevant here. Most of the works should be deleted due to it being copyright violation. Regards. --G(x) (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that thorough analysis G(x)! Based on G(x)'s analysis and per Beleg Tâl's invocation of the precautionary principle, I have now deleted all works in this category save the one found to be legitimately PD-ThaiGov. Courtesy ping to discussion participants / nominator: @Huon, @Beleg Tâl, @G(x):--Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bridegroom due to translation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The work Bridegroom is an unsourced work by Antoni Lange, and translated by w:Watson Kirkconnell. The translator died in 1977, it would seem unreasonable to expect that the translation was pre-1924 and there is no evidence that the translated work is in the public domain. Mentioned in "Introduction to Modern Polish Literature", ed. by Adam Gillon, Ludwik Krzyzanowski, and Krystyna Olszer, 2 Edition, Hippocrene Books, NY, 1982 though without a date. The Polish original does seem to be out of copyright. If deleted, we would need to edit Polish author page to null link. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. The timing does seem awkward, and a good chronology of his publications is maddeningly hard to come by, but I did find Internet Archive identifier: internationalasp00kirkuoft which does appear to have been published in 1923, and in whose foreword Kirkconnell claims to have visited "a dozen" different countries. Given this it is not at all implausible that he could have published one translated 12-line poem by the time he was 29. Worldcat also shows multiple publications from the 1920s (and increasing through the 30s etc.), so it does seem like he started publishing in the 1920s. Then again, they also show him with 5 publications in the 1890s, so some skepticism may be warranted regarding their data. :) --Xover (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Searching HathiTrust says the first line is in A golden treasury of Polish lyrics, selected and rendered into English (1936), though it won't show me more. Looking at their catalog of his works, the first of literary interest was "European elegies : one hundred poems chosen and translated from European literatures in fifty languages" in 1928. So unless there's some literary journal or something where this was published, it's not PD for a few years, probably until 2032.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Absent any actual indication to the contrary I agree we must assume this particular translation was first published in the 1936 book. As it was first published in Canada, and Canada is pma. 50, it is in copyright there until the end of 2027 (1977+50), and in copyright in the US until the end of 2031 (1936+95). --Xover (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable approach conclusion. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A Tryst With Destiny

The following discussion is closed:

deleted and moved to Wikilivres —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

See w:A Tryst With Destiny. This is a 1947 speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Current copyright law in India gives it a copyright as a government work of 60 years, so it would be out of copyright in India in 2008. (Or so sayth Wikipedia.) I don't see it as PD in the US, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless it was published in the U.S. within 30 days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: Move to BiblioWiki? I am no longer able to do it.--Jusjih (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been sitting here as a known copyvio for a year and a half, and with the copyvio tag on the work itself. Anybody want to volunteer to import it at Wikilivres or should we just go ahead and delete it? --Xover (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio, and notified Commons. --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Raised a concern here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Index:To_the_Victor_Belongs_the_Spoils.djvu back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

Bringing it here, so that there is at least a disscussion.

The problem is the inclusion of 'third-party' images which are NOT necessarily under the same Creative Commons license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs taken before 1955 are public domain now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong country: Wikisource is hosted in the United States, not in Australia. It says that the document was published in 1999, and if this was when the photographs were first published, then they will be unfree for several more decades in the United States. I can also not find any evidence that the Creative Commons licence claim for the text is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My recollection is that the uploader of the original PDF, which was then moved to Common and converted to DJVU because the PDF wouldn't display, said his contribution was CC. This probably need someone with admin access at Commons and English Wikisource to do trace back what the originals were linking to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs created before 1946 were public domain in Australia in 1996 and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. It is unlikely that photographs taken from external sources would have been first published in that paper. If the Creative Commons license is not valid, that is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs were in the public domain 50 years after the making of the negative, nothing to do with publication.section "Provisions as to photographs" Again having and researching an evidence base for any argument would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

When you state that something is in the public domain, you must also state in which country it is in the public domain. This is in particular important in countries which do not use the rule of the shorter term, such as the United States. No Australian photographs created before 1955 entered the public domain in the United States 50 years after creation of the negative. That's when the copyright expired in Australia, but USA uses different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of such works expired in the U.S. when they were published without a copyright notice. Photos created 1946 and later could well have an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. Australian photographs which were published usually entered the public domain either immediately upon publication (no notice) or 28 years after publication (no renewal). There could be some which were published with notice and renewal, but I suppose that's uncommon for non-US works. The main problems are photos not published until after 1963 (no renewal needed) and photos created after 1945 (URAA automatically added any missing notices and submitted any missing renewals). In either case, the copyright didn't expire in the United States 50 years after creation; that was only the case in Australia and in countries which recognise the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence that a photo was kept unpublished for some time, the usual assumption for foreign photos is publication without notice. That also precludes renewals being an issue, though that is also a fallback sometimes if it turns out there was a notice. But yes, the main problem would be photos created after 1945 -- those would have had their U.S. copyright restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper photographers seem to take lots of photographs of each event but only end up publishing one or two of them. Family photographs are also usually unpublished. Some of these unpublished photographs might later end up somewhere and become published a lot later. Therefore, it seems that most photographs are unpublished and that we can't assume that a photograph is published unless we have some indication that this is the case. Also, it does not seem safe to assume that a photograph was published without a notice, in particular not after many countries started signing the Universal Copyright Convention which mentions copyright notices. Most European publications currently contain a copyright notice, although this was a lot less common in the past. The only thing we can safely assume is that pictures were published without a renewal as there should have been very few people outside the United States who bothered submitting a renewal to the United States authorities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of the images post-date 1955. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (To the Victor Belongs the Spoils)

Ok, this has now been sitting as a known copyvio since 2014 (that's 5 years!) and nobody has worked on it since ShakespeareFan00 did the work to determine what copyright statuses they could back then. This discussion has pretty much just confirmed that anything in there not published pre-1946 is a copyvio, and has been sitting here unclosed for 3.5 years! And the file is hosted on Commons, where I can pretty much guarantee that if we file a deletion proposal it will get nuked as soon as someone gets to that point in the backlog.

Even allowing for a generally conservative approach and wanting to salvage as much as we can, there are limits to what legal liability we can and should shoulder (and subject our volunteers and reusers to) and how much effort we should expend on saving this particular work (where, I'll note, the original author has been notably lax about copyright for someone wanting to release their own work as CC). If nobody in that time is willing to put in the effort and do the work required to salvage what can be salvaged, then perhaps the work is not worth salvaging.

So I say it's time to close this, delete the index and pages, notify Commons, and move on. And absent some actual progress, plausible arguments, or well-founded objections, in some reasonable timeframe (and I mean measured in days not years, just to be clear), that is what I will do. Please chime in on this (whatever your position: even "Dunno" and "Don't care" would be appreciated if that is where you're at)! --Xover (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The ideal course of action is for a user to censor the offending images from the source scan so that we can transclude it using {{image removed}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'll second that: redacting just the problematic images and keeping the rest would be the ideal resolution if someone was willing to take that on. And while it would be quite a lot of work, ShakespeareFan00 has made a great roadmap of which images need to be redacted, which should make the job much more manageable. --Xover (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Letter to Donald Trump from President Nixon

The following discussion is closed:

nomination by contributor, speedied

It seems likely at this point that the copyright is still owned by the Nixon Foundation; see the discussion at Talk:Letter to Donald Trump from President Nixon. Somewhat of a shame, but since the text of the letter, the original of which now hangs in the Oval Office, is so short, it's probably fair game to host the crux of it over at Wikiquote. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Schuman Declaration

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as third-party translation subject to copyright.

A 1950 statement by a French politician, in French, and here from an unknown translator. The listed site does not show the respective documents in their original, though the europa.eu has the English translation, though no evidence that it is not in copyright. I have my doubts that both the original and the translation would be out of copyright, though no nothing of either. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete The original speech might be PD-FrenchGov in France, since Schuman was Foreign Minister at the time, and as PD in its home country on the URAA date would not be affected by the URAA. It would be borderline for PD-EdictGov in the US, but I'd at least be willing to entertain arguments to that effect. The translation, however, if the given source is accurate, is copyright by the EU, which does not have a PD-USGov-style general exemption from copyright that I am aware of. As a third party translation it is exceedingly unlikely that the translation would be covered under PD-EdictGov in the US even if the original was determined to covered. --Xover (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahdname of Milodraž

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

The only source I can find for this translation is this poster, and I see no indication that it is out of copyright or in the public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete The page gives this web page as a source, which links to/is a subpage of [9], attributed to Darko Zubrinic of Zagreb in 1995, whose profile on that same website is here, and who was alive as recently as 2012. There is no indication that this person has released the translation under a suitable free license. If the translation is misattributed, then there is no evidence it is freely licensed, and there is no good source available. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete per BethNaught. --Xover (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ode to Nemanja

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Translation by Aleksandar Raković and Srđa Trifković, from here, no indication that translation is PD, nor could I find any such indication through googling. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete My google-fu suggests the two credited translators are both still alive, born in 1972 and 1954, and I can find no other obvious reasons to consider the translation PD or compatibly licensed. --Xover (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The Buckwheat Season

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

No license added after a year and a half. I can find no indication anywhere that either the original (via URAA) nor the translation are PD or freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The original was published by an author who died in 1942 in Korea, which is life+50, thus out of copyright in 1996. So the original should be fine; which of course is not a statement about the version we're currently hosting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete Actually, I'm guessing that this is a Wikisource translation or close to it. Google suggests The Buckwheat Season is irresistible to would-be translators interested in Korean literature (ten published translations in six decades, one said), and the hits for the given translator's name suggest several profiles that would be roughly in alignment with someone who would upload it here (and it is possibly dual-published on one other site, but that's hard to tell for sure). But in any case, that's just a guess, and without any of the formalities I don't think we have any real choice but to delete it: the translation is almost certainly in someone's copyright, and we have no indication of a compatible license. --Xover (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I thought of that, but I could find no link between the uploader's username or history and the linked translator. @Doririroring: do you have any input on this question? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have to agree with you. The English of the translation doesn't feel professional, but without a license, or a clear statement that it is a Wikisource translation, we probably shouldn't keep it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Whitetissues

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as cross-wiki LTA / spam / promo / probably copyvio. Any time you see new users posting stuff related to Sukavich Rangsitpol (former minister of education in Thailand), his daughter Thita Rangsitpol Manitkul, or the Thai Ministry of Education, you can assume it's someone spamming using a sock account. As best I can tell they're trying to promote Rangsitpol, not defame or attack them, so news items about and speeches by Rangsitpol seems to be the part of their obsession we see here. English Wikipedia and Wikiquote has different but related problems with this LTA.

Speech published in this document, copyright UNESCO 1997. However I am not sure whether UNESCO can claim the copyright to the speech, whether the copyright is with the speaker, or someone else; so I'm hesitant to call this a G6 "clear and proven" copyvio.

This diff in the Sandbox will also need redacting. BethNaught (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fuenteovejuna

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

This has sat around since 2010 with no source, translator or licence. Googling snippets did not turn up an obvious source. Additionally it is a translation of only the first of three acts, and poorly formatted. BethNaught (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, multiple problems. Tarmstro99 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, I strongly suspect that this is a machine translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom + previous comments. --Xover (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete + Comment English translations seem to be only fairly recent, and copyrighted. E.g. this one dates from 1961 and was renewed (RE0000440084). Sadly, it doesn't look very likely there is a PD translation. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cornell Concert Commission Director Interview

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Cornell Concert Commission Director Interview - no evidence of an open license, nor copyright waiver, just a stated "permission to share a transcript of this interview with the public or publish it". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It was uploaded by the copyright holder, and so by posting it she released it under CC-BY-SA/GFDL. That being said, I emailed her instructions for OTRS back in April and she hasn't responded, so maybe we should delete it anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"uploaded by the copyright holder" As I said, there is no evidence of this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete On the copyright, I think we should strongly prefer to have OTRS confirmation for any works that have not "aged out" of copyright or have strong external evidence of compatible license. There are just too many pitfalls with allowing the mere upload and assertion here to be sufficient: deliberate misrepresentation is one definite concern, and a good-faith uploader simply not understanding the legal implications of our licensing is another. So I agree with Beleg Tâl above that this work should be deleted for that reason.
But this work does not appear to be previously published either, and is thus out of scope too. And it doesn't help that the uploading user looks to be a publicist working with the subject interviewed: it appears likely that this is an attempt to use Wikisource for publicity, and as a free web host for an interview they could not get published anywhere else. --Xover (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Combat Order of the 8th Army of Red Army for subjugating Estonia on 13 June 1940

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

The underlying work is presumably PD, but the translation comes up at Google Books from a 2006 journal, four years before it was posted here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Pansies (1929) by D. H. Lawrence

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Still in copyright in the US until 2024 due to the URAA.

Lord Scantaethon recently contributed the texts of several poems by D. H. Lawrence (1885–1930) from the collection Pansies (1929) under the belief that the copyright for the work had expired.

However, in discussing their status, we eventually concluded that these are still in copyright.

The collection was first published in the UK in 1929, and not published in the US within 30 days. At the time the UK copyright term was pma. 50 (so in copyright until 1980). However, in 1995 the UK changed their terms of protection to pma. 70 (i.e. until 2000) and made the change retroactive, restoring copyright to previously expired works. The work was thus in copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996, the URAA date for the UK, and its US copyright was thus set to 95 years after publication (1929 + 95 = 2024). In other words, Pansies is now in the public domain in the UK but is still in copyright in the US until the end of 2024.

Can anyone spot any flaws in this analysis? This issue affects many (if not all) of Lawrence's works published post-1924 (we have previously deleted some), so it would be good to have multiple eyes checking the reasoning. --Xover (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the only exceptions in the public domain are going to be works published in the US within 30 days.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
keep per WMF legal advice, "However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status." -- Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 02:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to note for the record… I agree that that WMF advice is a good factor to weigh in some situations (we don't always have to be more Catholic than the Pope!), but in this specific instance there is no apparent ambiguity to wiggle around in. It's here at WS:CV rather than a speedy mainly in case I had made a mistake in my original analysis, and not because there is any doubt about the copyright status. --Xover (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Controversial Canadian report released to the public only after a freedom of information request, and under Canadian Crown copyright. The report contains the following permissions statement (my underlining):

This report may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Department of Justice Canada, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; that the Department of Justice Canada is identified as the source department; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the original report.

So far as I can interpret, that underlined bit means that derivative works are not actually permitted (only faithful replicas), making this incompatible with our policy (and Commons'). Or, conversely, if that underlined bit is not to be taken as an -ND limitation, it should be suitable for move to Commons. --Xover (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete, we've had other discussions about government documents with similar restrictions, and if I recall correctly we've determined every time that this is not compatible with our licensing policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A good candidate to replace our "author-based categories" example for "Precedent-based deletions" perhaps? --Xover (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's more of a policy-based deletion (CSD G6: Copyvio), but we can list it under precedent-based as well for clarity's sake. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Navajo Nation Statement (November 27, 2017)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

The uploader was directed to send the permissions to OTRS back in January 2018. OTRS has confirmed that no permissions have been received. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete Absent evidence to the contrary, this is clear copyvio. --Xover (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Itineraries for March 19-April 9, 2018 (Justin Trudeau)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio and of questionable scope.

These are copied from Trudeau's website. Several of them are merely placeholders with no content. It is dubious whether they are even in scope. But most importantly, this content is copyrighted material owned by the Office of the Prime Minister, and the license under which they are released does not allow for derivative or commercial use. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

i would say that diaries and day books of chief government officials are in scope, but unlike US, there will be crown copyright. - Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 02:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. And agree that scope is "dubious at best". --Xover (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Peoples Agreement of the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Work sat here with no license or evidence of permission since 2010. What Wikipedia lists as the official website of the conference has the text here, with no mention of the public domain or a free license (though no mention of copyright either). BethNaught (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete No license apparent, so normal copyright must be presumed. I can't find any theory that would make this PD-*Gov or PD-EdictGov, nor otherwise exempt from copyright. --Xover (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Canada

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Tagged as lacking license since 2008. No indication of compatible licensing on the source website. I see no reason to presume this is not in copyright. --Xover (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete agreed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Brown's speech on becoming Leader of the UK Labour Party, 24 June 2007

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Tagged as needing license since 2008. Brown made this speech as the leader of his party, not in any government post, so I see no reason to presume this is not in copyright. --Xover (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

On My Faith and My Church

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

2008 article by Barack Obama. Before becoming POTUS, and clearly written in a private capacity. I see no reason to presume this is not in copyright. --Xover (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Shalabi v. Barack Obama (2009-09-26)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Tagged as no license since 2017. Submission to the court by the lawyer of the plaintiff, and not a finding by the court, and hence not under PD-USGov. It's a public record, but not public domain: copyright rests with the plaintiff and their lawyer. --Xover (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it's an excerpt too. The now-dead PDF has a cover letter and two attached exhibits, of which this text (letter) is one. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Also, there are a lot of Guantanamo-related documents just like it that are almost certainly copyvio, if anyone wants to take the time to go through them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And so his boyhood ...

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Apparently tagged as "no source" and "no license" at creation in 2015. Poem by Robert Ervin Howard (1906–1936) first published (says Wikipedia) in Weird Tales in December 1937, and so in US copyright until 2033 (but pma. 70 is 2006). AIUI from previous discussions, Weird Tales was generally renewed (I haven't searched exhaustively), so there's little chance of no-notice/no-renewal expiry. --Xover (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, and in fact this is almost certainly renewal R369098 from 1965. --Xover (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

And, just for the record, the 1937 issues of Weird Tales were never renewed by the magazine's owners, so the individual renewal by the author should be determinative (provided I've understood that reversal-to-author stuff correctly). --Xover (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

George

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Short story by Stacy Aumonier (1877–1928) first published in a London weekly dated July 31, 1926 and republished in The Living Age (US magazine) just outside the 30 days limit for simultaneous publication, on September 4, 1926 (that's 35 days!). UK pma. 70 is 1998, and the URAA date for the UK is 1 January 1996, meaning the US copyright was restored and won't expire until 2023. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Great Heresies

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Book by Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953), first published in London in 1938 ("Books Received" in The Guardian on 24 November 1938). There is no evidence of a US publication until 1939 (December). It is thus in copyright in the UK until 2024, and in the US until 2033. --Xover (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Ankry (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The House of Ptolemy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Book by Edwyn Robert Bevan (1870–1943), first published in the UK in 1927 and no evidence of US publication until 1968. Pma. 70 is 2013, so its US copyright was restored by the URAA, running until the end of 2022. --Xover (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Foye email of Sept 13 2013

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Issued by an official of the w:Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and is covered by neither {{PD-EdictGov}} nor {{PD-USGov}}, nor anything else as far as I can tell. If it were to be kept, a scan is available here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete Pretty sure neither {{PD-EdictGov}} nor {{PD-USGov}} would apply to this state-level joint-venture pseudo-governement thingy. --Xover (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Cyprus 13 amendments and Thirteen amendments

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Part of a 1963 letter from the President of Cyprus to the prime ministers of Greece, Turkey and Britain. Not legislation, so not covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. As far as I can tell this is the original text and not a translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Cyprus is pma. 70 and Makarios died in 1977. Cyprus also does not appear to have any kind of PD-USGov type exemptions from copyright. --Xover (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I messed up, I just moved it from en.WP [10]. It is so old (since November 1963), so I thought it was ok plus it is a historical text. Makarios proposed it as a legislative test. What is pma btw? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Don't worry about. Copyright is hard, and even those experienced with it sometimes get it wrong (I've made some real howlers just in the last couple of days myself). That's why we have this community venue to discuss such issues when they crop up: more eyes on it means better chance of getting it right.

In this case, the issue is that the copyright law of Cyprus says that every creative work (like this one) is protected by copyright, for the author, until 70 years after the death of the author (aka. post mortem auctoris in Latin, so "pma. 70" is a convenient shortcut). Since Makarios was the author, he and his heirs owns the copyright; and since he died in 1977 the copyright lasts until 1977 + 70 = 2047.

In any case, the net result of all this is, that the work in question is still in copyright and cannot be hosted on Wikisource under our policy. --Xover (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! Cinadon36 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the work may be under copyright in Cyprus until 2047, but it would be copyrighted in the USA until 1953 (which is 95 years after publication). Wikisource policy requires that works be freely licensed or in the public domain in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Wikisource does not allow copyrighted material. However, Wikipedia does allow some copyrighted material under some circumstances. I suggest that you review w:Wikipedia:Non-free content and other relevant policies to see whether it may be permissible to keep this list of amendments at w:Thirteen Points where you got it from. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Glory to Hong Kong

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Text of the song was moved here from the enWP article. However, there is no evidence that the lyrics are released into the Public Domain. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. And per precedent of all the previously deleted propaganda from both sides of that dispute recently uploaded. --Xover (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete Per nom, only the sheet music is released under CC-BY-SA-NC-4.0, apart from that is unknown. Glory be to thee, Hong Kong. -- Assanges (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

European Charter on Freedom of the Press

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. No evidence of compatible licensing or copyright exception found.

Sourced from this press release by the European Commission, but was actually created by these people. Does not appear to be any form of legislation, nor do the creators appear to be any kind of copyright-exempt organization. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The EU are quoting it in the press release, but the legal authors are a private organisation. No special exemptions from copyright applies here that I can see. --Xover (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment One could expect that there is the expectation that this is a public statement that is expected to be considered PD-release, though it is mute on the important components. @Davide Denti (OBC): you added the work, are you able to assist? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Many issuers of public statements I've seen have been adverse to modification or commercial use, so expecting it to be considered PD-release seems very presumptive to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  Expectation != Presumption which is why I pinged contributor. Without the evidence that it is PD, I will both expect and presume that we will delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nupedia Open Content License

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. No indication of compatible licensing found. Copyright owner is Bovis' successors in interest.

I can find no evidence that the content of this license document are themselves licensed in a manner consistent with our copyright policy. I suspect that, like the text of the GFDL, the text will need to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Best plays of 1941-42 and the year book of the drama in America.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Not necessarily PD-70 as claimed at Commons, Did someone check for a renewal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Commons; it's renewal R491846, and that's irrelevant for all those plays it's reprinting that probably have their own renewals in the year they were published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Act of State Independence of the Republic of Abkhazia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as third-party translation of unknown provenance.

Translation of a 1999 declaration of independence, with no source, no translator given, and no license for the translation. Original is presumably PD-EdictGov. --Xover (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be the source, though it does not indicate whether the UNPO translated it themselves or whether it was issued by Abkhazia already translated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete Unless it is found out and supported by clear evidence that the translation was issued under a free licence, we have to assume that it was not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

India States Reorganisation Commission Report Telangana Andhra

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Ok, after wasting way too much time tracking down the original report and creating a DjVu with OCR text, it finally dawned on me…

This is the report from a commission set down by the central government of India, but is not actually produced by any organ of the government. The authors are the members of the commission—Fazal Ali, K. M. Panikkar and H. N. Kunzru—the last of whom died in 1978 (India is pma. 60; so until 2038). As an independent commission, this is not a "government work" under the copyright exemptions of the old Indian copyright act (and the current act doesn't have PD-USGov type exceptions). It is a "report [presented to] parliament], but these are not actually exempt from copyright: they have normal copyright but with an exemption from infringement for mere publication. Modifications are not permitted (i.e. -ND).

In the US, this is not covered by PD-EdictGov (it's a report by an independent commission, not a law, judicial or administrative decision, etc.), and so its copyright is 95 years from publication (so until 2050).

In addition to the text, this also affects the following scan images:

Incidentally, this text is also out of scope as an excerpt: the report is 273 pages long and we have a grand total of 10 of them (which was why I was looking to produce a full DjVu in the first place, sigh). --Xover (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete, how frustrating, I commiserate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Foundation Stone Meditation

The following discussion is closed:

No OTRS followup to document appropriate licensing after a decade. Never say we're too hasty deleting copyvios! 😎

The uploader claims that the translation is licensed under GFDL, but did not respond to requests for substantiation on the work's talk page. There is no evidence of GFDL release on the translator's website. OTRS was not able to determine whether or not permission was granted via OTRS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete Oh, and an excellent example of why age of wikipage is not a good determinant. This was added first in 2006, and the copyright issue was brought up in 2008. After 9 years of no response to an otherwise obvious copyvio, I wouldn't bat an eye if you'd speedied this instead of bringing it here. One can quibble on how long to allow an uploader for figuring out the OTRS stuff, but the limit is definitely somewhere short of a decade! --Xover (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Address by Mr. Ilham Aliyev, Head of the Parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the PACE on item "Europe's fight against economic and transnational organized crime" (Strasbourg, April 23-27, 2001)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Written by Aliyev when he was an ambassador to the Parliament of Europe; not covered (that I can tell) by any of our license tags. No license provided since 2008. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete PACE would not seem to fall under any {{PD-EdictGov}} exemption, and would not in any case be determinative here. "Head of delegation" is a dubious role in terms of meriting any kind of PD-AzGov-type exemption, and the type of work at issue here (essentially a speech) does not obviously fit into the "official documents (laws, court decisions, other texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character) and official translations thereof;"-exemption in Article 7. I also don't see any case for {{PD-EdictGov}} to unilaterally apply for US copyright here. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The rise, decline and renewals of Sramanic religious traditions within the Indic civilisation with particular reference to the evolution of Jain sramanic culture and its impact on the Indic civilisation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} since December 2010. Uploader was prompted for an update in August 2015 with no response. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete Since Patil died in 2011, no OTRS permission is likely to be forthcoming now. --Xover (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Quietly Night is falling...

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

No source or license provided in nearly ten years. I cannot identify cited translator. I suspect it's a user translation, but cannot confirm that the IP uploader is the same person as the cited translator. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of ASEAN.svg

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The flag is copyright by ASEAN. It's used under Fair Use doctrine on enWP, and has been deleted multiple times on Commons (it keeps getting reuploaded by someone carrying a torch). --Xover (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Past discussions on Commons suggest it might be {{PD-ineligible}} in the USA due to simple geometry, despite being copyrighted in source country. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, the discussions suggest someone attempted to make that argument, but it was dismissed. And I agree: even if the rest of it was, that central design thingy does not qualify for PD-ineligible. --Xover (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Translations by Manish Modi

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Logassa, Mangala Sutra, and Namotthunam were translated by Manish Modi, the (still living) owner of the publishing house w:Hindi Granth Karyalay. The uploader, User:Anishshah19, tagged the translations as {{PD-release}}; but they have not substantiated this claim, nor have they responded to my query on the subject on their talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete Absent OTRS this is clear copyvio. --Xover (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Xover --DannyS712 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A Little Fable

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Unknown translator. Original was first published in 1930 in Germany, and in copyright there until 1994 (assuming pma. 70; I can't find special provisions for posthumously published works). Any translation would therefore either be a violation of the original copyright, or it would have been made after 1994 and itself be in copyright for some significant period yet (until 2089 if US). It is also an excerpt of a short story ("Beim Bau der Chinesischen Mauer"). --Xover (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - copied from Wikipedia, which cites the origin as Michael Hofmann's 2017 translation in The Burrow. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Strider: the Story of a Horse + illustrations

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Strider: the Story of a Horse

This text is labelled as being published in 1864, but that's the date of the Russian original. Our copy is (apparently; there is no source specified) the Maude translation which was, so far as I can determine (I may very well be wrong!), first published in the UK in one of the volumes of the OUP complete works edition in 21 volumes published between 1928 and 1937. Louise Maude died in 1939 and Aylmer Maude in 1938, so, the UK being pma. 70, this translation was still in copyright in the UK on the URAA date (1 January 1996), making it still in copyright in the US until some time between 2024 and 2032.

In addition, our text is decorated with four images—also unsourced—claimed to be "from 1950 USSR publication". Except I'm pretty sure they're actually taken from here (even the file name quirks are identical). In any case, the "1950 USSR publication" is actually this 1951 edition, which is illustrated by Georgy Savitsky (1887–1949). Meaning that regardless of the status of the translation itself, these illustrations from a completely different edition are in copyright in Russia until next year (1949+70), and since the URAA date (1 January 1996) it has been in copyright in the US and will remain so until 2046 (1951+95). --Xover (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As a note, Russia was life+50 on the URAA date. Not that that matters for this...--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

File:OTTO WEININGER (THEODOR LESSING) english translation.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

(plus Index: and transcribed pages) Wikisource translation by Bottler45 of a chapter of a book first published in Germany in 1930. The author of the original is Theodor Lessing (1872–1933), meaning it was still in copyright in Germany on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and thus is still in copyright in the US until 2025. The issue has been raised with the uploader, but no contrary information has been provided. --Xover (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan China Notes Establishing Diplomatic Relations

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Unknown translator. The original is extremely unlikely to be in English. Also no source and no date. And these are not actually edicts of government: they're draft press releases with no particular force of law (that is, if made by the US they would be PD-USGov, but not PD-EdictGov). IOW, even if by a Wikisource translator it would still be in copyright in the US. --Xover (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Comment: there was an office of the Beijing government that was translating Chinese works in English into the public, though those were usually noted from source. This one can probably go, at various levels. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Letter to George Bush from Ariel Sharon announcing his disengagement plan

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A work by the prime minister of Israel with no license ad no license for a long time. It also has no source. I don't see that this could qualify as a government edict, and I see no specfiic tag indicated at c:Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags#Israel that would indicate that we have or could generate a license to cover this work for its time of publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Sharon was PM of Israel in 2004, and the Israeli Copyright Act, 2007 defines the state as the copyright owner for works produced by employees and officers of the state. Such works are protected by copyright for 50 years from publication, with the only exceptions being documents which have actual force of law (the text of laws, judicial decisions, etc.). This letter is thus in copyright in Israel until 2054. In the US it does not obviously fall within the exemptions in PD-EdictGov, so its US copyright will not expire until after 2099. --Xover (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete It will leave copyright in 2085 in the US. It would be nice to get a declaration from Israel that their "crown copyright" expires world-round, like the UK has offered, but that still wouldn't save this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Bhaja Govindam

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied.

No source, no translator; tagged since 2011. --Xover (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy

Delete. Source is sanskritdocuments.org, translator is a "M. Giridhar, NA, PSA Easwaran", text is copyrighted and commercial use is explicitly forbidden. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

USSR's President of the National Defence Commission radio speech - July 3, 1941

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. Work does not fall under the scope of {{PD-RU-exempt}}, which means it falls under Stalin's personal copyright. That means the work was in copyright in Russia on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and its US copyright was thus restored and runs to 1941 + 95 = 2036. The original creative work in the translation (the derivative work) seems to be {{PD-US-no-notice}}, so the translation will also fall into the public domain in the US when the original's US copyright expires.

Translation of a 1941 radio speech by Stalin (1878–1953), at the time direct ruler of the USSR, with no source and no license. The original can probably be presumed {{PD-RU-exempt}} (or the equivalent; but not {{PD-EdictGov}}), but not the translation which seems likely to be the one by James Von Geldern and thus in copyright until some time next century or so. --Xover (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment I am actually sceptical about whether {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies because the language of the exemption stresses that a document must be "official", which makes me think this is actually more a EdictGov-type exemption than a USGov-type exemption, but since I didn't have the energy to dig into the finer points of Russian copyright just now, I'll skip it in favour of the more straightforward issue with the translation. --Xover (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Apparently there was a pma. 25 rule in Russia until 1993, when the new law made it pma. 50 retroactively. Russia is currently pma. 70, but I can't find when that change happened or whether it was retroactive (it presumably was). In any case, at the time of Stalin's death, his published personal work was in copyright until 1979, entered the public domain in Russia until 1993, and was then restored to copyright until 2004 (and very likely extended by the subsequent law until 2024). Russia joined the Berne convention in 1995 so his works are protected by copyright in all signatory countries as well. The long and short of which is that the finer details of {{PD-RU-exempt}} is what determines whether this work was eligible for Russian copyright to begin with. --Xover (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that what we have to worry about is the copyright in Russia in 1996, since that determines whether the copyright was restored by the URAA. Later or earlier copyright durations are moot for US copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment All the online sources of this translation that I can find state that it's from the Aug 1941 issue of Soviet Russia Today. According to w:File:Ward-Harry-F-1941.jpg, the October 1941 volume of that magazine was published in the USA without a copyright notice, so this translation is almost certain to also be {{PD-US-no-notice}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be visible on HathiTrust; unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be held by a library close to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

These two cases (w:ru:Выступление В. М. Молотова по радио 22 июня 1941 года and w:ru:Выступление Сталина по радио 3 июля 1941 года) are very varied. Strictly speaking, they are not official documents directly (in the terms of the Russian copyright law) - they have not any legislative, administrative or judicial character - especially compared with w:ru:Акт о капитуляции Германии (which has administrative character). Alex Spade (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
[Note for context that Alex' comment comes as a result of my question on Commons regarding the scope of {{PD-RU-exempt}} exemptions]
Thank you for the clarification Alex! Given this, it seems this work does not fall under the scope of {{PD-RU-exempt}}, which means it falls under Stalin's personal copyright. As outlined above that means the work was in copyright in Russia on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and its US copyright was thus restored and runs to 1941 + 95 = 2036. The original creative work in the translation (the derivative work) seems to be {{PD-US-no-notice}}, so the translation will also fall into the public domain in the US when the original's US copyright expires. --Xover (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Other

The United States of Lyncherdom

The following discussion is closed:

Tagged {{Pd/1923|1910}}{{PD-posthumous|1923}} after undeletion.--Jusjih (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I can this undeleted since it would be considered a 1923 work which is now in the public domain? Previous discussion from 10 years ago is here. I tried bugging the closing/deleting admin, but he or she is no longer active on the project. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Undeleted. We should really move it to a scan-backed version, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The scan of this edition is https://archive.org/details/completeworksofm20twai —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

US-specific notices in non-US copyright tags

The following discussion is closed:

ok to proceed with modification of tags —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I've brought up a few times some works that are hosted under a non-US copyright tag, like {{PD-INGov}} or {{PD-Israel}}. These tags indicate that a work is PD in the source country, but don't indicate whether a work is PD in the USA.

I would like to add a little notice on the end of all of these tags based on the one used at {{PD-Russia}}, saying something to the effect of:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. because it was in the public domain in (country) in 1996, and no copyright was registered in the U.S.A. (This is the combined effect of (country)'s joining the Berne Convention in (year), and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)

Or, in the case of foreign government edicts:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

That way, the copyright tags can indicate both the information about source country copyright, but also the crucial US copyright status that allows the text to be hosted here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The only license that we require is the US license, the additional licenses are niceties, not requirements. If people wish to double license, then they should be wrapped in Template:license container begin and "... end". — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem that I wish to address is that works get uploaded with non-US tags but don't have a US tag added. I think that the non-US tags should either be able to function as US tags also, or have a warning saying that a US tag must also be provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We are not catching their absence during patrolling? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'm finding quite a few that have been here for years by digging through various maintenance categories, which is why I'm bringing it up. Already there are discussions in progress on this page regarding works that have been uploaded under {{Legislation-CAGov}} and {{PD-INGov}} and {{PD-Israel}}, and I expect to find quite a few more. I just want to generalize our approach so that I don't need to make a new discussion every time I find another one.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Support the thought to retrofit.--Jusjih (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for a small change to {{PD-EdictGov}}

The following discussion is closed:

done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion regarding the German constitution, I propose modifying the template {{PD-EdictGov}} as follows:

Current:

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials."

Proposed:

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I've gone ahead and done it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Plays of Roswitha

The following discussion is closed:

question answered

Could people assist to determine whether (external scan) is out of copyright in the United States? The translator died in 1960, so it's still protected in the UK, but I'm unsure whether the book was registered for copyright in the US, and whether or not there was a renewal. It seems to have been published only from London, and anything post 1922 is confusing for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The translator is Christabel Marshall, who published under the pen names of Christopher St John and Christopher Marie St John. I do not know which of these names the copyright might (or might not) have been registered under. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't see why it would be PD in the US. (It is PD in Canada, which is why the University of Toronto may have felt fine about uploading it.) There's basically just two rules for restoration; it had not to be PD in its source nation in 1996 (or later if the nation joined WTO or Berne later, or is Vietnam, but 1996 for most of Europe) and "has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country." So it wasn't PD in the UK in 1996, the translator lived in the UK and it was published in UK with no following publication in the US.

Short of finding it was printed in the US at the same time, we'll have to wait until next year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If you think it's useful, I would like to kickstart 2019 with a collection of books that are newly freed into the public domain in the US (i.e. works from 1923), and this would certainly be an option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I would think that this would be best considered as a subpage to WS:RT or a rejig of those pages. And to that we should also consider how we would list works that we have deleted that could be undeleted as coming out of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: This would definitely be useful. We have no medieval plays at all, or any works by Hrosvitha (except for the one I found that was in PD). Hrosvitha is the earliest post-Roman playwright whose works survive, and the first female playwright (we know of) from anywhere in the world. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: To some extent, WS:RT could work, but I also want a big bang on 2019-01-01, and that's going to take more off-wiki work and more preparation than WS:RT is usually associated with. I've been working on transcription projects for close to 20 years, starting not too long after the US PD was basically frozen. This is a huge deal to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Extension of Canadian term to 70 p.m.a

The following discussion is closed:

no action needed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that it affects much on Wikisource, but apparently a new US-Canada trade pact could see Canadian copyright terms extended to 70 p.m.a for some works. (Most likely to be those still in copyright (as happened with the UK extension from 50 p.m.a to 70 p.m.a. ), or works published after whenever the trade deal is ratified in Canada.)

A quick scan based on what was tagged with {{PD-Canada}} indicated that there wouldn't be much on Wikisource that would need to be reviewed (given US non acceptance of the shorter term) apart from possibly works by Author:William Lyon Mackenzie King such as Letter requesting a copy of Adventures in Contentment. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If the copyright tag for Letter requesting a copy of Adventures in Contentment is correct (i.e. if the work was indeed published in the USA between 1923 and 1977 without copyright notice), the US copyright will remain the same for that as well. Since the US law will not be changing, there should be no change to what may be hosted here. I guess we'll find out more when the details are hashed out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Most likely Canada will make the extension non-retroactive, meaning there would not be anything to delete even if we did use Canada's law here (rather just a freeze on new expirations). Since we use U.S. law only though, it's highly unlikely that anything is needed -- the URAA remains unaffected. If there are tweaks to the U.S. copyright law due to the new treaty, we'd have to see what those are, but aside from that there should be no changes here. PD-Canada is just a helpful-information tag; I suppose if they make the law retroactive we may have to remove some of those but that will not affect hosting ability. The main effect will probably be that Wikilivres/Bibliowiki becomes less useful as time goes on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Practice of the Love of Jesus Christ

The following discussion is closed:

replaced with free, scan-backed edition —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The original work is obviously PD (extract of a translation published in 1887), but there is a note with an email address saying that it has been "Edited and language modernized by Br. Sean, a choir monk, 2008". The article was created by Emesee (talk • contribs), now blocked, who I assume is not Br. Sean. A quick comparison with the original suggests the editing is mostly things like changing "Thou" to "You" but it's hard to tell what exactly was changed without going through page by page. It may be possible to email and ask for permission, though frankly the page is a mess anyway and a scan-backed copy from the IA file without the editing would probably be preferable. —Nizolan (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

After some Googling, the edition produced by Br. Sean also seems to have been previously hosted on IA and taken down (link). —Nizolan (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, edited version needs to be replaced with the 1887 published version —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've started work on the scan of the original here so it can be re-created as a translations page once deleted. —Nizolan (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Done: redirected. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Life-Of-Pingali-Suranarya.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

The discussion concluded that the work's US copyright was restored by the URAA and it should be deleted. A procedural followup to confirm the conclusion has been posted at WS:PD. --Xover (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Published in India in 1941. Author died in 1947. Accordingly, was not PD-India on URAA date. Therefore, copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after publication. Also pinging @Rajasekhar1961:, the uploader, for comment. Hrishikes (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The author died in 1947, more than 60 years from now (2018). So I thought, it is in public domain in India. Is the copywright law say differently. Kindly clafiry. --Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but English Wikisource has to follow the somewhat inconvenient US rules. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: It is indeed in the public domain in India at present. But it was not so on January 1, 1996, when most countries, including the USA and India, entered the Uruguay treaty of forming the World Trade Organisation. On that date, the work was copyrighted in India, so the U.S. gave cognisance to this copyright retrospectively from publication. Once copyright got thus recognised in the U.S., the term of copyright would be as per the U.S. law, i.e., 95 years from publication. English Wikisource, unlike the Indic ones, follows U.S. laws only. So current PD-India status has no value here; the status in 1996 determines the issue. Hrishikes (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So we can work on the books published before 1923. Does that mean we have to remove it from English wikisource.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the issue we are discussing. Let's see what others say. Hrishikes (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree this was not PD in India on the URAA date: according to w:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, books by authors who died after 1941 are 60 pma. There's no US renewal in the Stanford database so it could be PD in the US if published in the US within 30 days of publication in India. However I see no evidence of that, so

Delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Done - exported to Wikilivres, and local copy deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Work by Communist Party of China

The following discussion is closed:

Please talk at zh:Wikisource:写字间#就中国共产党文件收录问题的讨论 and ask me as needed.--Jusjih (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (your cultural bridge to East Asia)

Since it has been long unclear to many if the works by Communist Party of China is copyrightable, I find it necessary to seek clarification and establish consensus. While CPC may hold copyright to some of its works, those should not include orders, and any document released publicly by CPC. Under US copyright law, do we consider Edict of CPC as Edict of Government given the status quo of Chinese politics? Considering article 5 of Copyright Law of PRC, do we consider some works by CPC as "other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature;"? After the 2018 constitution amendment, the party leadership is written in, does that mean to copyright works by CPC would be unconstitutional in its nature?Viztor (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Please talk about this on Chinese Wikisource Scriptorium first.--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Tremendous Event

The following discussion is closed:

Text is PD and can be imported in some suitable way, by anyone willing to do the work. --Xover (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we can import this text from Wikilivres. The 1924 publication available there was not the first one. You can find a 1922 US publication in HathiTrust, so its US copyright seems to be expired. It is also PD in UK as both author and translator died more that 70 years ago. Any comments? Ankry (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

AFAICS the text history in Wikilivres suggests that it was edited somewhere else by Yann and imported there, but I cannot find any evidence that it was ever present in Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems it can be copied in, but it would be better to load scans and split-and-match or reproof it from scratch.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The text on Wikilivres was imported from another source (see talk page), now dead. Yes, best would be to find the matching scan, and do a split-and-match, as it was alreayd proofread. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Since we have no copy, it would be better to proofread from the scan than to do a match-and-split. Match-and-split often introduces deviations from the text that are harder to spot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - AMENDMENT FIVE

The following discussion is closed:

Temporarily deleted as unsourced translation to be recreated anew from [11]--Jusjih (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The text of AMENDMENT FIVE in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China was translated by "NPC Observer" which was released under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 [12] . The official translation is not released yet.--QBear (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete the Constitution of the People's Republic of China entirely for no working source of the translation and I will restart by noting the Chinese governmental source if no objection.--Jusjih (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant but the original page did provide a link to the NPC's official English website. Assuming the translations there are official translations, they are in the public domain under article 5, item 1 of the PRC Copyright Law. --Ewan0707 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Is [13] back in 2004 your meant original page? I am reverting my added copyvio tag, but still waiting for proper license.--Jusjih (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Philadelphia Negro A Social Study.djvu potentially copyrighted section

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced with redacted file. --Xover (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

See my concern raised on its talk page. It seems that the introduction is probably still in copyright. How should we deal with this? Mathmitch7 (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. The Introduction, which covers pages ix–xliv, was written by E. Digby Baltzell and has its own copyright (including this express notice from the colophon: “Introduction by E. Digby Baltzell, Copyright 1967 by Schocken Books Inc.” U.S. copyrights in 1967 works were subject to automatic renewal under the 1992 CRA, so Prof. Baltzell’s essay will presumably remain under copyright until 2062 (absent further legislative alterations to the term of protection).

The way we have dealt with such problems previously (for example, in The Pentagon Papers) is to upload a new version of the source file from which the copyrighted content has been removed, and to mark the affected pages with {{text removed}} during proofreading. It’s not elegant, but it avoids legal trouble. Tarmstro99 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sooo… Anybody actually volunteering to redact that DjVu file? We've had the known copyvio sitting there for 8 months now… --Xover (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mathmitch7: Ok, absent other takers, I've redacted pp. 10–45 (physical) / ix–xliv (logical) in the DjVu at Commons and tagged the pages here with {{text removed}} (and marked them as Problematic). --Xover (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Our Island Story- A Child's History of England.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Local DjVu uploaded and index migrated. --Xover (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Work is PD-US, it's from 1905.

However it's not PD-UK ( assumed origin given a London publication.) in respect of the illustrations, given that the illustrator Archibald Stevenson Forrest died in 1963 (see. http://www.grantwatersfineart.co.uk/ArchibaldForrest.html)

The scans should be localised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

How about we upload the DjVu from IA locally and migrate the index to that, and then flag the PDF as copyvio on Commons? We're the only project using the PDF so no need too worry about the other WSes. --Xover (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: The DjVu version of this work from IA has been uploaded at File:Our Island Story (1905).djvu, its illustrations extracted to Category:Our Island Story (1905), and the index and pages migrated to Index:Our Island Story (1905).djvu. The old files have nominated for deletion at Commons. --Xover (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Poetical Works of Robert Herrick.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Offending text redacted. --Xover (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not the main text but the preface.

Based on the research I made here https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/search?author=Percy+Simpson&amode=words there is a likely Percy Simpson who died in 1962.

The text, on page ix, mentions a 1915 library edition, and the reason why the Simpson Preface was inserted in the 1921 and subsequent reprints.

PD-US ( pre 1923) but not necessarily PD-UK ( based on Oxford location), so would need the file/scans to be localised.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The 1915 edition seems to be available as https://archive.org/download/poemsherrick00herruoft, and so could be swapped in if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I've uploaded a new version of the DjVu with pp.9–13 redacted and marked the pages here with {{text removed}} --Xover (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:War and Peace.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

All copyrighted material has been redacted, and improperly redacted material restored. --Xover (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

See Page:War and Peace.djvu/2, Claims copyright as of 1952 to a corporate owner. 1952+95=2047

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Also the Muade translation may have been renewed in a different edition as https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog/R472795 (in 1969), unless that renewal is specfically to do with a foreword as "new material". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Having gone through the CCE records for 1952/53 I can't find a specfic mention of the edition Wikisource has scans for in terms of searching for "War and Peace" directly. The edition was clearly published in the US, and has a notice, but I am unclear as to how "international copyright" was dealt with in the US in 1952, as I'm not immediately finding the edition in the CCE.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The 1969 renewal was by Clifton Fadiman (for the foreword) and Simon & Schuster (for the editing), and not for the translation. The Maude translation itself, originally published in 1922–1923, is in the public domain in both the U. S. and in countries with copyright terms of author’s life plus 70 years or less (Louise Maude died in 1939, and Aylmer Maude in 1938). Any claims to copyright in this edition which might be taken seriously would include the image on the title page, the biographical note (pp. v–vi), the character groupings (p. xv), and the time-line (p. xvi). If needed, those can be removed (from the scan). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC).

Finally found the relevant renewal - [RE0000045404 / 1980-01-09 for A00000066673 / 1952-04-05 ] , which would cover the new material you mention. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The hyper-link appears to be incorrect. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC).

Oh it times out..Well lookup RE0000045404 with the search facility. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The scan gives no indication that it is from that series, and the renewal notice gives no indication that it includes the specific book that was scanned. Whilst it appears to match, there is no definite indication. (proper hyper-link). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC).

commons:Commons:PRP applies. Unless it's definitely confirmed as NOT copyright, the new material will have to be excised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

See - also w:Great_Books_of_the_Western_World. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And by comparison - [14] - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, @TE(æ)A,ea.: If somebody gives me a list of page numbers (in the DjVu) that needs to be redacted I can take a stab. Do we have a standard "redacted material" placeholder page image to use for those pages in the DjVu? --Xover (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems in terms of the new material, someone had already updated the file? If you were to strip back to just the current DJVU pages 11 to 706 representing the actual text of War and Peace then there are less issues, However It would be better in my view (as this isn't very far forward) to find a definitively pre 1924 edition of the Maude translation, and use that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, @TE(æ)A,ea.: I've redacted the file as per above. --Xover (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
TE(æ)A,ea. has expressed dissatisfaction with my previous close of this discussion and reverted my redaction of the above described pages in the file at Commons. Hence I am (somewhat hurriedly, to avoid archiving) reopening this discussion so we can come to a community consensus. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Please explain your reasons for disagreeing and your preferred course of action here.

Please note that when I previously closed this discussion I also hid the old revisions (revdel) of the affected pages in the Page: namespace, and as a purely practical matter I have not unhidden these now (but if other admins disagree then do absolutely feel free to unhide these). The relevant pages are available to view in the DjVu file, and it's soon enough to do whatever the consensus is when that consensus has been determined. I would also request that as many as possible take a look at this issue and chime in so that a proper consensus can be determined. Courtesy ping: ShakespeareFan00 --Xover (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

As I think I mentioned earlier, the copyrighted materials include the biographical note, the explanation of the familial relations, and the summary of events, which I removed when I corrected the file. As such, there is no need to remove further content. The maps which conclude the book are not copyrighted under the relevant matter, and neither the title page nor the copyright page (the remainder of the matter), would, I believe, be of sufficient originality to warrant coverage by copyright. This is especially true of the copyright page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC).
- I have no concerns if you think you've removed all the relevant pages, Was the table of contents part of the original work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  - There’s no reason to think that the table of contents wouldn’t be original. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC).
    - Ok, then I read agreement above—and see no objections from others—that TE(æ)A,ea.'s previous redaction covered all the actually problematic material and that, relative to the status quo, pp. 1–9, 707–708 should be restored. The DjVu file has already been reverted to that state by TE(æ)A,ea., and I have now unhidden and reverted to the original revisions of those pages in the Page: namespace.
      A rather roundabout way to get back to where one started—mea culpa—but the moral of the story is probably that copyright discussions are not closed until the archive bot gets to them, and that silence can very easily be mistaken for assent. --Xover (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nobel speeches/lectures

The following discussion is closed:

1 deleted, 2 kept, 1 moved to wikilivres —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

According to https://www.nobelprize.org/faq/questions_in_category.php?id=5:

Can I use or translate a Nobel Lecture, speech or a biography?
Nobel Media administrates the publishing rights of the Nobel Lectures, speeches and biographies on Nobelprize.org on behalf of the Nobel Foundation who hold copyright. For information on how to license these, please contact media@nobel.se.

This is further confirmed on https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelmedia/nobelprize_org/copyright/legal_notice.pdf

Nobel Lectures, Speeches and Biographies
To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a presentation speech, a banquet speech or a biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.
If granted, "© The Nobel Foundation" and relevant year must be stated, the text correctly quoted and the author identified as the sole author of the text.
All Nobel Lectures, presentation speeches, banquet speeches and biographies are also published in the book series "Les Prix Nobel" and "Nobel Lectures."

This brings into question the following works:

-Einstein95 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Roosevelt's speech is out of copyright because it was published before 1923. I don't see any reason why Al Gore's speech would be out of copyright, given he wasn't in a federal office in 2007. Barack Obama was President at the time of his speech, and we've generally read the copyright law to put pretty much everything the President creates into the public domain. (And it's possible it was written for him by a White House official.) But accepting the Noble Prize is generally not a Presidential duty, so...? I'm leaning towards it being a work of the US government. Faulkner's speech in 1950 may not have been copyrighted and renewed, and the URAA didn't restore copyrights of Americans like Faulkner, so that's probably in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gore

Delete contributor is also known to be open-minded with their interpretation of copyright; Obama

Keep, we have called USGov; Roosevelt

Keep pre-1923; Faulkner, ??? was it published in the US, and within 30 days?. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The URAA doesn't restore works that are solely by Americans. There has to be at least one author who is from an eligible nation, which explicitly excludes the US. I can't find a renewal, but I don't know when it was first published. If it hit the New York Times via telegraph, it could have been published within 30 days in a renewed work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the URAA would restore works by Americans if they were actually residing overseas at the time. But Faulkner would not qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, domiciled. Which I supposed mitigates against the undeletion of Three Stories and Ten Poems based on my proposal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Gore's speech. @Koavf: move Faulkner's speech to BiblioWiki?--Jusjih (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

So Gore was deleted; Obama and Roosevelt are PD; but we're waiting on Faulkner being moved to Wikilivres? It's been over a year… Anybody volunteering or should we just go ahead and delete it? --Xover (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1934 Interview with Joseph Stalin

The following discussion is closed:

moved to wikilivres —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Pulled from the web, but I cannot access the source location. Is this in PD, or still under copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a scan of an early publication (for reference) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a British work from 1934, so it will be PD-US in 2030. Wells died in 1946, and Stalin in 1953, so it's okay for Bibliowiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

But is anyone willing to actually move it to Wikilivres? --Xover (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The Man on the Ground

The following discussion is closed:

moved to wikilivres —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvio by Beeswaxcandle in 2013, but never discussed here. Not clearly speedy-able, but it is a 1933 US publication by Robert E. Howard (1906–1936), so its copyright doesn't expire until 2028 unless one of the copyright formalities (notice, renewal) can be shown to have not been observed (I haven't checked). --Xover (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no renewal for the work, but there is one for the magazine it appeared in, so I think it was renewed as part of the magazine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I found the renewal for the magazine, but I also see a lot of renewals for individual stories in the magazine under their authors' names. This suggests to me that the magazine generally did not acquire the copyright for the stories it published and that consequently the author retained it themselves. If that is the case, the absence of a renewal for this specific story would indicate that its copyright expired in 1961; and I can find no renewals for this story even though some of Howard's Conan stories do appear with renewals. --Xover (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's complex, but an author could renew a work even if the magazine acquired the copyright, and that would put the copyright back in the author's hands, so it would be advantageous for them to do that. The Weird Tales contracts have long been lost, so we've been deleting these as it's impossible to know.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
Actually, it turns out I was in error when I claimed this was never discussed here. It was discussed in 2013 and closed as move to Wikilivres+delete. Every other story in that discussion is now a Wikilivres redirect, but this one got left out for some reason. And based on this new discussion I see no reason why we would reach a different conclusion this time around.

Which means that as soon as someone performs the move to Wikilivres, we should delete it here.

However, this brings up an unfortunate issue. We currently host several stories from this magazine, including 5 just from this issue (two by Lovecraft). Barring a few exceptions like Canadian (pma. 50) authors that filed separate renewals, this means we potentially have a boatload of copyvios sitting there. Anybody have suggestions on how to handle that? Since we have already determined copyright status with a lot more certainty than the average case these are presumably speedy-able. Do we want someone to wade in there and just go ham? Most of them are, I assume, of interest to Wikilivres, but we have a shortage of editors to do the work there. Running each story individually through full discussion here is a moderately big job, and I'd be highly optimistic if I guessed the odds of getting any significant community discussion on them to be 50/50 (please comment on noticeboard discussions everyone! It makes it so much easier to ensure they reflect the community's consensus and to catch the mistakes that every individual contributor makes perioodically!</soapbox>). Putting them up in a batch requires the copyright analysis for the exceptions to be performed beforehand. But maybe that's the best balance between competing factors here? --Xover (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: If there are other works by this author that need to be deleted, someone should compile a list and start a new discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The Murder on the Links.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted old files, kept new PD upload. --Xover (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The book The Murder on the Links is now fair game. However, this work has a modern cover and modern notes that need to be removed. There's also no need to transcribe it; the PDF was produced from an ePub and the raw text could be pulled directly from the file. In general, it's better if we use US works published before 1989 and better 1978, because then the lack of a more modern copyright notice would put any new material or edits into the public domain. If not, usually we're going to have to drop the cover and any new notes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this copy is outside of our bounds because of the 2011 copyright notice to HarperCollins—who didn't exist as a company until 1990. Need to find a scanned first edition to proofread. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf which someone apparently started to transcribe in good faith (sigh) :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This edition of the book dates to 1984. The copyright notice states that it "contains the complete text of the original hardcover edition," just set in a new typeface. It's also freely available in Google Books, which lists the copyright date as 1923. I don't know if it'd be useful to you folks, but wanted to point it out. 173.80.109.236 00:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that actually works. Anything newer would have no copyright because there's no proper copyright notice on the post-1923 material. I've uploaded it as File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The cover design, however, may be under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It was published in the US without proper copyright notice, so it should be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The copyright notice says "Copyright 1923 by Dodd, Mead and Company. Copyright renewed 1950, Agatha Christie Mallowan." If it applies to the cover, then it expired in 2019. If it doesn't apply to the cover, then it had no proper copyright notice. The US Copyright Office on the Jaws cover emphasizes the importance of having the correct name, and neither the name of the publisher or cover designer is mentioned in the notice. The Copyright Compendium III says "note: Using an antedated notice in an anonymous work, pseudonymous work, or work made for hire may affect the term of the copyright if the work was first published in the United States between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989. In such cases, the term is computed from the year of publication that appears in the notice, rather than from the actual year of first publication." If this is not a work made for hire, it seems highly unlikely (as per the Jaws decision) that the copyright notice includes the cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
@Prosfilaes, @Beeswaxcandle, @ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey: Do I understand correctly from the above that File:The Murder on the Links.pdf and Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf should be deleted as copyvio, but File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf should be kept as properly out of copyright (including covers etc.)? --Xover (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That fileFile:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf may also have an issue with the cover, unless there evidence otherwise, not mentioned in this disscussion yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Where's the copyright notice? American works published before 1989 needed proper copyright notice, and this doesn't have one covering the cover. I said that above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I still think it would be better to find a first edition, but noted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The cover appears when viewing the file initially, but once you open the file, it is not displayed. There appears to be damage to this PDF, but I do not know if more pages than just the cover are affected. We also do not know whether a separate application for copyright for the cover (by Virginia M. Smith) was granted. All we know is that the publisher credited the designer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

When I open the file, both in Google Chrome and Adobe Acrobat Reader, the cover is displayed. I don't know which program you're using. If that's the only problem, it can be converted to DjVu.

The cover needs a proper copyright notice; it lacks one. If you want to see if there's a separate application filed with the copyright office, go to the Copyright Office Records Catalog and check; I searched for both Murder on the Links and Smith Virginia, and in neither case did something appropriate come up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I am using Firefox, and am viewing the file in my web browser from its location on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded a DjVu translation at File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay? I don't want to close this myself, but I would like to know if this copy will work or if we need to search for another copy. I've got a supposed facsimile edition, but it's not explicit about its copyright status either, and my pile of works to scan is deep enough that I'd like to avoid adding something else to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed resolution (The Murder on the Links)

Ping previous participants in this discussion: @Prosfilaes, @Beeswaxcandle, @ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey:

The following pages/files are involved in this discussion:

File:The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
Proofread pages under: Special:PrefixIndex/Page:The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.djvu (keep)

I'm going to go ahead and assume that Prosfilaes' latest DjVu is acceptable to all. Which means I intend to close this discussion by deleting the first bullet and the pages in the third as copyvio; the index in the second as redundant when the file and pages are deleted; and the fourth as redundant/duplicate of the fifth. In other words, to only keep the final DjVu.

If anybody has objections or corrections or needs more time to consider, please respond here ASAP. If you agree with this course of action, please also say so here ASAP. I can't see that we really have any issues outstanding here so I'd like to close it out and clear the backlog. --Xover (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Support --Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov

The following discussion is closed:

All infringing works deleted; EdictGovInd template deleted and works recategorized; PD-IndGov template updated for 2014 law. --Xover (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The license {{PD-IndonesianGov}} (not to be confused with {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) is explicitly nonderivative and therefore unacceptable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How many of these works have the correct license? Are there any of the works that ought to have a different license? Otherwise, I agree that we cannot / should not host works under the stated tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of them are listed with multiple license tags and can be kept. Some of them I'm not sure. Maybe we should discuss each individually. I'd delete the license tag though, or at least make a note on it that works cannot be hosted under the license unless they are PD in the US for some other reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Relevant to this discussion, I think our copy of Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia (the basis for the distinction drawn above between {{PD-IndonesianGov}} and {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) may be out of date. Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia bills itself as a 2002 act as amended in 2014, but the 2014 revision legislation (available from WIPO, with a not-so-great machine translation into English) appears to be more in the nature of a replacement than an amendment. The rule against copyrightability of governmental works is now stated in Article 42 in terms that do not entirely overlap with Article 13 of the 2002 act; there is a new provision in Article 41 concerning limits on copyrightability of certain works; and there is a series of exceptions under new Articles 43–49, some of which may be pertinent for our purposes.

All of which is just by way of saying that perhaps this discussion needs to be tabled until we as a community develop a fuller sense of what Indonesian copyright law actually requires (and permits). Tarmstro99 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaymondSutanto, @John Vandenberg: Are you able to advise us on this matter? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, @Tarmstro99: is right: the template is out of date. The newest Copyright Act that we use is the 2014 edition (you can see it on Indonesian Wikisource: id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014). The Copyright Act says that all of Acts made by government doesn't have any copyright, on Article 42 (Tidak ada Hak Cipta atas hasil karya berupa: ... b. peraturan perundang-undangan). The 2014 edition is a replacement for the 2002 edition. RaymondSutanto (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaymondSutanto: is the legislation retroactive, does it affect government works published before 2014?—Also, this discussion does not cover Acts of government (which are hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, but rather works created by the Indonesian government that are not legislative. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is retroactive. Works that are not legislative are also counted (included) on Article 42, for example Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) and Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) that are not a legislative law. RaymondSutanto (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a (mediocre) translation of the 2014 law here. The changes that affect us aren't substantial. Government works that aren't listed in section 42 are still licensed in a non-compatible fashion (no derivatives except for certain purposes). The works listed in section 42 are the same as section 12 of the 2002 law, except that "scripture or religious symbols" are now exempt from copyright, and "decisions of arbitration boards or of other similar agencies" are no longer exempt from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov)

Ok, I've put some effort into researching this. The texts in that category break down as follows:

Analysis of all works in Category:PD-IndonesianGov

Agreement on the Issue of Dual Nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the People's Republic of China—No source. Unknown copyright status for translation. Original is PD-IndonesianGov and ditto in the PRC. If official, translation is PD-IndonesianGov. PD-EdictGov in the US.
Airasia flight QZ 8501 passenger manifest—Proposed for deletion separately as out of scope.
Bangkok Declaration—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
Cabinet Presidium Decision 127 of 1966—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia—No source. But an official translation is available online and is clearly PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov.
Declaration by the Government of Indonesia concerning the Exclusive Economic Zone of Indonesia—Official translation, sourced to the UN. PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov.
File:The Exclusive Economic Zone of Indonesia.djvu—Official translation, sourced to the UN. PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov.
Indonesia Raya—National Anthem. In copyright but with "exemption from infringement" exemptions in Indonesia. Copyright in the US until 2023. Also includes a Wikisource translation outside the Translation namespace, and constitutes an unmarked annotated edition.
Jakarta Charter—Third party translation. Original is PD-IndonesianGov. Translation is copyright in the US until 2043.
Joint Statement by the Philippines, the Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (5 August 1963)—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
Manila Accord (31 July 1963)—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
Manila Declaration (3 August 1963)—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
Presidential Decision 240 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
Presidential Instruction 14 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
Proclamation of Indonesian Independence—Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
Suharto's Resignation Speech—Third party translation in copyright in the US until 2093 or so. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
Treaty of Friendship between the Federation of Malaya and the Republic of Indonesia—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.

Based on this, the following works are non-compliant with policy and should be deleted:

Agreement on the Issue of Dual Nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the People's Republic of China—No source. Unknown copyright status for translation.
Cabinet Presidium Decision 127 of 1966—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
Indonesia Raya—National Anthem. In copyright but with "exemption from infringement" exemptions in Indonesia. Copyright in the US until 2023. Also includes a Wikisource translation outside the Translation namespace, and constitutes an unmarked annotated edition.
Jakarta Charter—Third party translation. Original is PD-IndonesianGov. Translation is copyright in the US until 2043.
Presidential Decision 240 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
Presidential Instruction 14 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
Proclamation of Indonesian Independence—Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
Suharto's Resignation Speech—Third party translation in copyright in the US until 2093 or so.

In addition, {{PD-IndonesianGov}} describes what are in effect -NC and -ND exceptions to infringing acts from Article 43 (e.g. filesharing is ok if it is not for profit), but does not exempt works from copyright (it's effectively an extended fair use clause). All work remaining in the category should be relicensed under the text of {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}, but the latter template should be renamed to the former for clarity (PD-*Gov suggests it's PD as a work of the named government, like PD-USGov, but PD-Edict*Gov suggests a work that's PD as a work of a foreign government, like PD-EdictGov in the US).

Based on this I have also opened a discussion on Commons to clarify whether their apparent acceptance of Article 43 works is deliberate or an error. --Xover (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Courtesy of" images in Advanced Automation for Space Missions

The following discussion is closed:

DjVu redacted to remove problematic images, local images deleted, commons images nominated for deletion, and work moved to scan. --Xover (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There are a bunch of images embedded in Advanced Automation for Space Missions that are captioned "Courtesy of Czechoslovakia Ceramics, Inc., Prague." e.g. Image:Aasm-fig4-3.jpg, Image:Aasm-fig4-5.jpg, Image:Aasm-fig4-6.jpg. They have been uploaded here under {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. They were recently transferred to Commons and marked for deletion here, but Commons immediately deleted them, since an image included in a NASA document "courtesy of" the copyright holder, does not thereby become PD. What do we need to do with the local images? Hesperian 01:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I imagine these are "fair use", and we should censor them in the scan and replace them with {{image removed}} in the trancribed text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Government use of copyrighted material does not affect that copyright. Most such are used under some form of fair use for the US Government that wouldn't even apply to us, much less our reusers; and in this case the "Courtesy of …" actually suggests a license ("permission") to use that must be assumed to be in that specific context and not apply to us or our reusers. In other words, we need to delete any extracted image files as copyvios and treat the PDF and transcription as Beleg Tâl has indicated. --Xover (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

┌──────┘
I've removed the images from Advanced Automation for Space Missions, deleted the three that were hosted here, and nominated the last one (Fig. 4-4) for deletion on Commons.

However, I also managed to track down the original NASA publication and have uploaded a DjVu with text layer, but with the offending images (pp.104–105) redacted, and set up a basic index for it at: Index:Advanced Automation for Space Missions.djvu. Anybody up for trying Match&Split on that to get the stuff in Advanced Automation for Space Missions scan backed? Hesperian? Beleg Tâl? Or, I seem to recall, Billinghurst has done such tasks in the past? It's a bit beyond what I feel comfortable trying on my own in any case, so any takers would be very welcome! --Xover (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be necessary to do match and split on each subpage separately, which is rather time consuming. It might be a few weeks or more before I can get around to it, but if it's not done when I find myself with time to handle it, I'll do it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, match and split is really easy (besides being time consuming) so don't be afraid to give it a shot :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have begun the match and split, but it appears that the text layer does not match the scan images in the later pages of the book. @Xover: are you able to fix this? If so I will continue with match and split when it is resolved. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: My apologies, I should have caught this. The problem is caused by a sequence of software limitations and cascading failures:

Tesseract (OCR engine) falls down on pages where text is rotated 90°, typically tables and illustrations, and returns empty data.
djvused from DjVuLibre will happily set the hidden text to something that is invalid and djvutxt can't extract.
djvutxt outputs an error message rather than an empty hidden text layer for these pages.
MediaWiki-DjVu uses djvutxt to dump the hidden text from the whole .djvu file and relies on getting valid structured data from it, so it doesn't detect the pages that just give an error message, and happily proceeds to assign every subsequent text layer to page n-m, where m increases by one for every preceding page with an invalid text layer.

In this particular case there were 5 such pages spread over most of the work, starting at page 95, meaning every page after that point was offset by 1–5 pages. It's a really annoying problem because in the .djvu file the hidden text looks fine: the only place you can actually see it is in the Page: namespace here.

In any case, I've tweaked the .djvu to correct for this and re-uploaded it, so the pages should align properly now.

Thanks for taking on this. H:MS contains loads of scary warnings about how fiddly the process is so I didn't quite feel comfortable tackling it just yet. --Xover (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

PS. This is task T219376. --Xover (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:Criminal Code of Canada.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Local copy uploaded, and renamed to reflect date of last amendment. --Xover (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Referral, as this isn't under a straight PD license as claimed at commons, but as Canadian law (and a consolidated version) it is felt this would be covered under the Reproduction of Federal Law Order (which ideally should have a suitable license tag? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We have {{Legislation-CAGov}} which would be a more appropriate license for this ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

IDK what that tag on Commons is but it's clearly wrong. I don't know how they handle crown copyright over there. {{Legislation-CAGov}} is the best template here on WS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

In the US this is clearly PD-EdictGov. However, in Canada this is in Crown Copyright with an ad hoc permission to use license that imposes incompatible limitations (-ND, essentially). The Reproduction of Federal Law Order only permits literal copies and requires disclaimers that it is not the government's official copy. In other words, we can host it here; but we shouldn't rely on a copy at Commons because it is incompatible with their policy (PD in source country). As soon as someone (hint, hint) uploads a local copy here it should be proposed for deletion at Commons. --Xover (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This version was current to 2017. What if the law changes as evolving work?--Jusjih (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that consolidated editions of Canadian law are out of scope... I kind of agree with you, but since Justice Canada publishes the consolidated editions online every time it gets updated, but doesn't publish the originals separately from the amendments, we've mostly been treating these as separate editions rather than as an evolving work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
Ok, I've uploaded a local copy to File:Criminal Code of Canada (June 19, 2017).pdf (the date of last amendment for this file) and, since no pages were transcribed yet, moved the index from Index:Criminal Code of Canada.pdf to Index:Criminal Code of Canada (June 19, 2017).pdf (per standard edition disambiguation practice). Once I hit "Publish" on this message I'll hop on over to Commons and propose their copy for deletion. (courtesy ping to participants: ShakespeareFan00, Beleg Tâl, Jusjih). --Xover (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Flag Code of India

The following discussion is closed:

question answered —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Flag Code of India has a {{PD-INGov}} tag, but also the manually-inserted (in the header) note "(This is still copyrighted in India through 31 December 2062 pursuant to Indian Copyright Law.)". What is the true situation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jusjih:, who added both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

{{PD-INGov}} used to be like {{Legislation-CAGov}}: copyrighted in home country, but not in the USA. However, a subsequent court case in India in 2007 determined that legislation is PD in India also. {{PD-INGov}} was updated accordingly in 2017. The info in the header is outdated and incorrect. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Polyushko Pole

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to Translation:Polyushko Pole.

Military song by Viktor Gusev (1909–1944), originally published in Russian in 1933 and public domain under pma. 70; but the translation is by an unknown third party and no source is provided. The text was added at English Wikipedia in this edit and subsequently transwiki'ed here by an IP (probably an enwp editor without a WS account; this was before unified login). Two thirds of the content is also in Russian (once in Cyrillic and once in some indeterminate Romanization), so it is also questionable whether it is in scope (especially without a source). --Xover (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia translations are usually user-generated, and past precedent has been to move these to Translation space even if they were generated by Wikipedia users rather than Wikisource users. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Index:Gillies plastic surgery 1920.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

File transwikied prior to deletion at Commons.

Harold Delf Gillies (1882–1960) so not necessarily PD outside the US, File is not PD-old-70, and so should be localised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, sounds right to me —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment Note that this file is not just eligible to be transwiki'ed locally, it is actually currently proposed for deletion on Commons. I've commented there and urged that it not be actually deleted until we can copy it (no guarantees, but they're usually pretty good about accommodating such requests when they're aware of the need). However, I was sure there was a user script or tool labs tool for performing such reverse moves from Commons properly (preserving edit and upload history, mostly), but am currently utterly unable to find it. Does anybody know what utility that was? Alternately, how do you handle such cases? --Xover (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
There's not a whole lot of need to worry about such detail on a file uploaded from a third-party site. I've copied it here, so we don't lose it, but it could stand some more metadata.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll grant I am excessively obsessive of such matters, particularly for this (simple) case. Comes from having had to investigate moderately large-scale bad-faith copyvio uploads after they had been transwikied from enwp to Commons. The old revision history would have made the job a lot easier. --Xover (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thailand PD Exempt and speeches

The following discussion is closed:

works by Sukavich Rangsitpol are almost certainly covered by contemporaneous copyright of the author, or UNESCO's non-commercial copyright, it is not believed that works are exempted by provisions of Thai copyright law.

If suitable and verified permissions are provided through the c:Com:OTRS system from the author of the work(s), then we would be able to host any permitted works. This would be in the terms of the permissions declaring the works to be made available under a suitable creative commons licence as described at Help:Copyright tags
An author page is appropriate for solely the listing of the works where these works are available on the web.
- Where a work is available elsewhere on the web in html form, then a wikilink to the work is suitable
- Where a scanned/electronic version of the work is available in PDF, DJVU, WORD, then after the title listing then linking through use of {{external scan link}} is allowed.

— billinghurst sDrewth 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as exempt official work. --Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:

News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain

Constitution and legislations

Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports

Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.
It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.
-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I have no idea, but I'd wager that speeches don't count. It might depend on how the transcription of the speech was first published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The work is a report of a paper delivered at a SEAMEO symposium. "The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) is a regional intergovernmental organization established in 1965 among governments of Southeast Asian countries to promote regional cooperation in education, science and culture in the region". The Ministers of Education of the members sit on its council, and it appears to be hosted by Thailand. The working language is almost certainly English (the members have no other language in common that I can see), so the translation is by the Minister or his Ministry. In other words, you can probably take your pick of the three possible reasons for copyright exemption in 7.2(3).
So, unless anybody wants to argue otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and close this as Keep fairly soon. --Xover (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2019

The Copyrights belongs to His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol.If someone wants to argue otherwise please check the following numbers

Please Keep this page for Future References .

Please Undeleted The Minister Work .

1) Ministry of Education

662 282 5765 call center 1579

Education Policy depends on Minister of Education and would change when the Minister was replaced

2)The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)

662 391 0144,662 391 0256

3)UNESCO Bangkok

662 391 0577

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9800:bc11:bd0d:dda7:8f2a:c48:ca52 (talk)

@Xover: I think the IP user has a point. The work in question, Teachers' Learning in a Changing World, was closed as "keep", but was then deleted under this discussion which doesn't mention it at all. Was this a mistaken deletion or am I missing something? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: The IP is wrong about nearly everything; but you are correct! It was swept up in the other bulk deletion because the analysis on the author page linked from that discussion listed it as a publication of SEAMEO; but we’d initially kept it because it was a speech to SEAMEO by the Minister of Education in his official capacity (if it had truly been under the personal copyright of Rangsitpol as the IP claims it would have been copyvio). I’m unable to perform the undelete right now, but can do it next weekend if nobody gets around to it before then. And my apologies for the gaffe! —Xover (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xover:

English is not my language,I might lead you to the wrong direction.I do not know if my following explanation would help.

He is politician that mean all his work and speeched copyrights is under PD-TH-exempt {{PD-TH-exempt}} {{authority control}}2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:E83A:CD55:61FE:71C4 23:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Thai copyright law contains no general exemption for works by politicians. The only relevant exemptions are for works of the actual government, including works by sitting ministers when acting in their official capacities. Works by Rangsitpol before or after his term as Minister of Education are not exempt from copyright, and neither are works that were not produced as part of his official duties as Minister. And even for works that would be exempt, third party reporting and translations would have their own copyright. --Xover (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A politician does hold copyright over his work. The copyright over a work created by a politician does belong to the politician. Being a politician does not mean your works are copyright-free. PD-TH-exempt only covers public information, such as legislation, judicial decisions, news of the day, etc, or translations thereof made by public agencies. And the work in question does not fall under any of the PD-TH-exempt criteria at all. --Miwako Sato (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Miwako Sato: You have authority’s to delete The Page in Thai .I was surprised that you didn’t say it is useless and should not be kept .

https://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%A9:MobileDiff/99660

His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol was CEO at American oil company .He probably does his own translation.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:451:D4F5:8595:AC73 18:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: you are right.All his work that in Wikisource is

{{PD-TH-exempt}}

{{authority control}}

Because it is about Education Reform.It was the work that he did during his term as Minister Of Education.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 18:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/csee.2014.13.1.54

In this Link he was Omitted from Minister of Education List.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Right after the 1997 Asian financial crisisIncome in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46 percent from 1998to 2006.^[1] Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3 to 11.3 percent.^[2] Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) versus 1997 Asian financial crisis ^[3]

It was that effect from His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform.

He did so much for the poor children in Thailand and someone hated it.That why they try to delete his work.If you are not from teacher family who has many benefits during his time as a Minister of Education.You will not know .2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There will be a lot of people coming along in the future try to delete his work.Please remains calm,your opinion is right.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

↑ NESDB, Economic Data, 1995–2006 Archived 19 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WBBO-200511
↑ "Thailand Economic Monitor November 2005". World Bank. Retrieved 5 January 2019.

Comment I have deleted another work added by this user, the work of a person who was not a politician at the time the work was written, who was stated as being resident in Japan, and for which there was not the evidence that the works would have been exempted from Thai copyright law. It would seen to me that the IP editor has a different understanding of copyright than other users at this site. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Further, there would seem to be a clear misunderstanding. My reading of the {{PD-TH-exempt}} is more akin to {{PD-GovEdict}} than {{PD-USGov}}, and it doesn't put the work into the public domain just for its creation during a period of a public role, it is a more limited and specific set of criteria. The works will need to be released by the author under an OTRS declaration (see c:Com:OTRS) if they are to be reproduced. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@billinghurst All the work I uploaded was his work as Education Minister,Including the speech he gave during that time.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 10:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The second appears to be a summation regarding what the Ministry's policies are, and being on a Ministry of Education website, it looks like that someone is the Ministry of Education itself. Not only does the original document mention Bumrung Chiablam, the text was uploaded here by Bumrung Chiablam. But by the design of the site I'm going to go ahead and guess that Bumrung Chiablam is an employee in the Ministry of Education's ICT department that created that custom microsite to which this document belongs (a feat often called out in 1997, before CMSs took over; I've been credited like that myself), or possibly someone serving as the secretary for a meeting or conference where the information was presented, and not an actual author of the content. Meaning it is a MoE document, and falls under PD-ThaiGov under the same provisions as the document at question in the thread above. The third is a "Paper submitted to the 45th session of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, 1996", by Rangsitpol, then sitting Minister of Education, and having just launched a new 10-year strategy for education connected with the w:1997 Constitution of Thailand (and surrounding events). IOW, I'd say this qualifies as PD-ThaiGov. --Xover (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Xover (talk) Your opinion was correct,why my upload was deleted.Should I wait for you to undeleted it.

The reason I upload to day because the person who nominated the article to be deleted using the reason that UNESCO doesn’t allow their materials for commercial.

I believe that UNESCO will not consider Wikisource us Commercials Site .

That way the articles should be deleted.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 14:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Our terms, as explained at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, require all work to be available for commercial use.
That the person was the education minister does not put those works into the public domain per template:PD-TH-exempt
I believe that generally works by this person will need the specific permission of the writer, so would need an OTRS permission, and we leverage the information as expressed at c:Com:OTRS
Please stop bombarding this page with irrelevant text, it is not helping to provide your point of view, it just clouds the discussion, and lowers people's tolerances.

— billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Try to keep Deformation in the article,even though it is against the law in Thailand now a day. Translation:Computer Crimes Act 2007

[15] 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to post that ,and I thought it would look better with the blue links.

The work has been there more than a year before it was deleted.And the other experience editor believe it could be undeleted.

I apologize for my behavior.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

==Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform Policy== == Sukavich Rangsitpol ==

Article {{{number}}}:
c1. {{{clause1}}}

This article has previously been brought to this Noticeboard twice (Archive 279 and Archive 286) as well as in other venues. The talk page of the article has become a mess due to a group of connected contributors (likely a sock of Nafeby633) trying to argue and remove the material about the subject's ban of homosexuality and the procurement of computers, both of which are well-sourced. I am asking some experienced editor to take a look at the article and take action as may be deemed appropriate. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I happened upon these edits the other day while on recent changes patrol. The above looks like a fair summary to me. In addition, the article is plagued by repeated, aggressive (re)additions of excessively promotional quotes, invalid or off-topic citations, and unfounded original research insinuating the article subject is to be credited for Thailand's recovery from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Right after the 1997 Asian financial crisisIncome in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46 percent from 1998to 2006.^[1] Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3 to 11.3 percent. name="WBBO-200511"Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) versus 1997 Asian financial crisis ^[2] 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thailand education reform 1995

In 1995, the minister of education, Sukavich Rangsitpol, launched a series of education reforms in 1995 with the goal of achieving educational excellence by 2007.^[3]

"The objective of education reform is to create learning individual, organization, and society. An educated person or the authentic learning outcome should possess the following abilities and characteristics which are based on Thai cultural heritage and appropriate level of education: good physical and mental health, critical thinking, intellectual inquisitiveness, professionalism, sense of responsibility, honesty, self-sacrifice, perseverance, team spirit, adherence to democracy, and love for king, country, and religion."^[4]

2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform has led to the following results:

The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5% increase)
Since 1996, first grade students have been taught English and computer literacy.
Professional advancement from teacher level 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government.
Free 12 years education for all children provided by the government. This program was added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens.^[5]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol[16]

Author talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol[17]

Template:BLP noticeboard [18]2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Reason I want to record the Policy

1) If the Thai Authorities realize it was the education reform policy that really increased income for the Poor. 2) The policy will be here waiting to help Thai people again.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 15:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

↑ NESDB, Economic Data, 1995–2006 Template:Webarchive
↑ "Thailand Economic Monitor November 2005". World Bank. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
↑ Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice 1: 93–101. Retrieved 18 September 2018.
↑ Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice 1: 93–101. Retrieved 18 September 2018.
↑ Education Management Profile: Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO PRINCIPAL REGIONAL OFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC. 1998. Retrieved 18 September 2018.

==[[User: G(x)]] Contribution ==

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol[19]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol[20]

Template:BLP noticeboard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sukavich_Rangsitpol [21]

@ Billinghurst

I apologize for my actions this week.I have been busy and the last Time I was satisfied with @Xover conclusion in July.But after a month everything is Deleted. Please kept the Author Page to yourself,so that the other paid cannot get it deleted.

Every thing I wrote was in Internet thus there will be a link.

I believe that The three people who try to defame the subject is paid .You should take look at their edit history .

Even the subject Thai Wikipedia was deleted all his work.

I want to upload all he did for Thailand and nominate the Deformation paragraph to be deleted.

Could you advise me where to upload the following in Wiki .2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:ADC2:525A:B13E:6C69 00:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to this community for you to smear the intentions of others, completely unacceptable. To those people you should retract that allegation and offer an apology.

I have explained how the works of the author can be held at this site by specific permission of the author. I cannot advise you on how to breach another person's copyright. Your contributions to this point have been problematic, and so has been your approach. This continual addition of works that are under a person's copyright simply needs to stop, and if you are unwilling to stop yourself, then you will be further forcing administrators to undertake restrictive measures. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Public domain user translations

The following discussion is closed:

User translations, like all other user contributions, are always CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL. If a user wishes to also triple-license their contributions as, e.g., CC0, that is an issue for that user's contribs and needs to be marked on that user's user page: any such contributions do not affect the CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL licensing for a given work.

I've noticed that there are a number of user translations in Translation namespace that purport to be in the public domain (most notably Translation:Bible). I'll note that these works are collaborative and are expected to be improved by any future users, and that user contributions are by default CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL and not public domain. Would I be correct to assume that any user that contributes to these works, but does not explicitly release their own edit under PD, nullifies the PD status of the work and places it back under CC-BY-SA/GFDL? And would it be desirable to proactively edit any such translations that claim to be PD, to place them under CC-BY-SA/GFDL to prevent confusion with future editors who may edit the work not realizing that they are modifying the copyright status of the work and not updating the tags accordingly? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. There's a big notice for every edit that tells you that you agree to dual-license your contributions as CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL, and this is neither negotiable nor revocable. If you also wish to triple-license them under a public domain dedication you are of course free to do so, but as that does not bind other users I don't think there would be any point to that. Every user translation should be tagged with CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, and any public domain tag should be removed the second someone else edits the page (for example to add missing CC BY-SA+GFDL tags; so, in other words, they should just be removed, period.). If we for some reason need to let a user apply a PD release to their contributions we need to handle that either by a tag on their user page (CC BY-SA requires attribution so it will be findable), or through a talk page notice on the work saying "some parts are also available under a PD dedication". I don't think we have any genuine need for that, and we can find some way to address it if it ever pops up. My bet is most of these tags are just confused users trying to say "I'm not claiming any copyright on my own work". --Xover (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Why don't we just change the edit notice to state that saving a translation on this project dedicates the edit to the public domain? No take-backs. Really, we shouldn't be in the business of perpetuating copyright claims for derivatives of public domain works. BD2412 T 22:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Why would we do that? That is way more complicated and the benefit over the existing licensing is tiny. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also not a realistic option. While new Wikimedia projects have some leeway to set default licensing (cf. Wikidata), relicensing an existing project is… unlikely to be successful. In any case, relicensing existing contributions and switching to a new default license, and what that should be, is a completely different discussion. For the issue in this thread, the simple answer is that the Terms of Use are not negotiable, mandate CC BY-SA+GFDL, and the nature of a wiki means any individual CC0/PD-release belong on a user page and applies to the individual edits in that user's Special:Contributions rather than any given page in whole. --Xover (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

yeah, a CC0 would get you into a structured data on commons dual licenses of metadata morass. you could also just switch all work on PD works to PD rather than CC but tracking it would be an added complication. is there any indication it is a problem? Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 13:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Librivox won't accept Wikisource as a source text because of some combination of non-PD license and being openly editable. I don't know if it's something we can do anything about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ka Mate

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio; and recreated as redirect to Wikisource translation of the same work.

Unknown translator. And judging by the enwp article, this translation is a modern one, most likely cribbed from some rugby club's homepage or something similar. The original is long since out of copyright, but is specially regulated in NZ law, and there may be some pitfalls in that (probably not, under US-only, but worth keeping in mind if moving something containing it to Commons ever becomes relevant). --Xover (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep doubt that you will ever get an authoritative source of translation for this version of the haka, like nursery rhymes having no official version. Suggest we just keep it as unsourced translation. @Beeswaxcandle: your NZ 20c? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Note that when you go back and fix a ping, you need to re-sign the message. The extension looks for a link to a user page + a signature in the same edit in order to trigger a notification (see mw:Manual:Echo for the gritty details). @Beeswaxcandle: forwarding a ping. :) --Xover (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
and I did, though as 18s apart, so just too quickly. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete unlike nursery rhymes this translation does not date back to time immemorial. Almost certainly taken from the All Blacks website, either originally translated by the author of that page, or taken from one of the two works cited in the bibliography. That being said, it should be easy to construct a Wikisource translation of the haka. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Move—I discussed this with one of my (very knowledgable) Māori colleagues today. We can create a Wikisource translation as long as the license specifically states that no commercial use can be made of it. When I have a chance I'll pull out my Māori dictionaries and see what I can come up with as an initial go. My colleague very specifically warned against using Google Translate for this as Māori is a very idiomatic language and direct translations do not work well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: "Move"? 1) We don't allow non-commercial restrictions, and 2) this translation cannot reasonably be assumed to be by Wikisource, and so the translation itself is in someone else's copyright. Whatever version we were to host we would need to create a new independent translation, and it couldn't be -NC. Do you mean "Delete this text and create a new one from scratch in the Translation: namespace"? --Xover (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Move and replace with an Wikisource translation. Without the non-commercial restriction (which someone has noted on the current page), I can't legally assist with a translation. The original text belongs to Ngāti Porou and all commercial rights to it and any derivatives also belong to them. If we're going to keep it, the license needs to state this. btw, I should correct the impression that this is the haka. The haka is a general battle-dance and each tribe has their own version. Ka Mate is the words that are used in one particular version of the haka. There are other sets of words. It's just that a Ngāati Porou elder (kaumātua) gave the All Blacks permission to use it when one of their people was in the team, and therefore it's become the most famous. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

How is it a non-commercial restriction? As far as I see, it's just an additional, NZ-only attribution requirement. The original is PD (I think) so you can make translations and use them, including commercially, as long as you give the required attribution in NZ. BethNaught (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: Translation:Ka Mate —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Guantanamo-related documents (batch 1)

The following discussion is closed:

All deleted as copyvio, except Department of Defense correspondence regarding contraband underwear at Guantanamo Bay which has OTRS release for the non-USGov parts.

The various Guantanamo/911/Afghanistan-related categories contain a myriad documents that are more enthusiastically than critically and carefully curated. In an effort to clean them up a bit I've started going through them looking for some broad categories and their copyright status. The first of these is various letters, statements, and filings by Guantanamo detainees, their legal counsel, character witnesses, or amicii. These kinds of documents are all public records but not public domain: their copyright lie with the detainee, their legal counsel, etc. (there are a lot more complicated issues hiding there, but I'm starting with the straightforward ones).

Civil Action No. 05-CV-359 (GK) -- Petitioners' status report—Detainee's filing, copyright by filer
Exhibit B: I, Darrel Vandeveld, hereby declare as follows—Declaration by former GTMO prosecutor, testifying as a private individual, copyright by filer
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 162 -- Status report—Detainee's filing, copyright by filer
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 357 -- NOTICE OF FILING AND SUMMARY OF PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULING ORDER—Detainee's counsel's filing, copyright by filer
Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) -- Doc 31: Statement regarding hearing of July 8, 2008—Detainee's counsel's filing, copyright by the filer
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation: Doc 161 -- status report—Detainee filing. Copyright by filer.
To the Board: Sylvia Royce, 20 September 2006—Detainee's counsel's letter to review board. Copyright by counsel.
Letter to Abd Al-Malek Ahmed Abd Al-Wahab Al-Rahbi (2002/12/17)—Letter to detainee. Copyright by sender.
Letter to Abd Al-Malek Ahmed Abd Al-Wahab Al-Rahbi (2002/12/31)—Letter to detainee. Copyright by sender.
Abu Zubaydah's description of the Khalden training camp—Declaration by detainee. Copyright by filer.
Guantanamo Release Agreement—Proposed boilerplate release agreement for detainees by private non-profit. No indication of free license or public domain release.
Statement presented by Mohammed al Qahtani (ISN 063) to his second annual Administrative Review Board—Statement by detainee. Copyright by filer.
Statements on behalf of Abdullah Majid Al Noaimi (ISN 159)—Character witness statements. Copyright by filer.
CSRT Summarized Transcript for ISN 10, Abdul Sattar—Transcript of tribunal, including detainee statement. Borderline, but should be copyright by detainee (other parts are PD-USGov).
Summarized Detainee Statement (Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, ISN 8)—Not a summary but the actual statement by detainee. Copyright by the detainee.
Summarised Unsworn Detainee Statement (Ilkham Turdbyavich Batayev, ISN 84)—Detainee statement. Copyright by detainee.
Summarized Unsworn Personal Representative Statement with absent Detainee (ISN 1104, Mohamed Rahim)—Tribunal transcript. Contains detainee statement. Copyright by detainee.
Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement (ISN 850, Mohammed Hashim)—Detainee statement. Copyright by detainee.
Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement for ISN 798, Sahib Rohullah Wakil—Detainee statement. Copyright by detainee.
Summarized Sworn Detainee Statement (CSRT ISN 651)—Detainee statement. Copyright by detainee.
Verbatim Transcript of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for ISN 10024—Contains detainee statement. Copyright detainee.
Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement (ISN 017)—Detainee statement. Copyright by detainee.
Affidavit of Omar Ahmed Khadr—Affidavit by detainee. Copyright by detainee.
Department of Defense correspondence regarding contraband underwear at Guantanamo Bay—Set of letters between USGov and an detainee's counsel. USGov part is PD-USGov, but the counsel's part is copyright by counsel.
Hufaiza Parhat, et al., v. Robert M. Gates, et al., Petitioners' motion for entry of protective order, December 18, 2006—Petition to the court on behalf of detainees. Copyright lies with detainee/counsel.
Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement (Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo)—Not a summary, contains detainee's actual statements. Copyright by detainee.
USA v. Khadr - Defense Motion - For Dismissal Due to Lack of Jurisdiction Under the MCA in Regard to Juvenile Crimes of a Child Soldier (January 18, 2008)—Motion filed by counsel for detainee. Copyright by detainee/counsel.
Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee Summarized Detainee Unsworn Statement—Detainee statement. Copyright lies with detainee.
Translation oral statement ISN 578 (2006)—Detainee statement. Copyright lies with detainee.
Al-Oshan v. George W. Bush -- December 8, 2008—Joint filing by detainees' counsel. Copyright lies with counsel/detainee.
Counsel visit email exchange -- June 14th 2007—Contains emails from counsel for detainee. Copyright by counsel.

Barring any brainfarts on my part, these should all be pretty straightforward. --Xover (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Commons DR that may have some relevance to enWS

The following discussion is closed:

Commons DR was closed as keep, citing both threshold of originality and sufficient even if not perfect OTRS permission received.

There is a deletion discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:11texta.jpg that may be relevant to us.

This was triggered by a premature transwiki of an image from here to Commons, where the file here had some insufficiently addressed issues around authorship. The file in question, and the related images from the same work, would have ended up either here or on WS:PD eventually in any case (not necessarily to be deleted, but whatever resolution would need community consensus), but the transwiki triggered the need for a discussion there. I'm hoping the wider discussion there may either unearth information or provide relevant arguments to let us more easily make a decision on how to deal with the files here.

The short-short version is that the files have OTRS release, but failed to fully specify authorship for all parts of the work (the images in question in particular), particularly for one of the credited contributors. In addition, a concern has been raised at Commons that the entire work may be either a hoax or essentially an attempt to use WS to self-publish it (which is plausible, but not obvious).

There's no particular action needed from enWS contributors right now (the discussion on Commons only affects the one file transwikied there, and for which we have a local copy), but as I will be referring to that discussion one way or another when we tackle the issue here, the WS:CV regulars may be interested in the discussion. --Xover (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Little Bunny Foo Foo

The following discussion is closed:

Original text found to be probable PD due to lack of copyright notice and migrated to a scan. Work used to scan-back had other lyrics still in copyright, and which have therefore been redacted.

2006 import from enwp tagged as no source and no license for the last 12 years. According to this article its earliest plausible date is 1933, and the most likely range is around the 1960s. In any case, it is still in copyright in the US until some undetermined point after 2028. Our copy of the text is, according to the notes field, from “David Grover's 1997 album Sing a Song of Summer” which would be even worse if there's anything original in there (almost certainly not, but I haven't checked). --Xover (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's an American work, it's easy for it to be in the public domain. If it was legally published before 1978 without copyright notice or legally published before 1964 and not renewed, it is PD. I'd almost argue that we could keep it based on that. If it's Canadian, then the URAA might have restored it, or it might be technically legally unpublished and life+70.

On the whole, I really want to give this a pass. It seems likely that it is purely public domain, and it's clearly abandoned copyright, being around for at least 50 years with no claim of authorship or copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it bears the hallmarks of abandoned copyright. But we have the examples of things like "Happy Birthday" (or whatever song it was) where someone came forward in the 11th hour to claim copyright, based on some baroque set of rights transfers. Given we don't actually have any information about the source of our text beyond a clearly in-copyright 1997 musical album, nor even any information about this work's first publication, I don't see how we can reasonably keep this. All the information we actually do have suggests it is in copyright, and the exceptions (failure to obey formalities) are impossible to determine. That creates a, to me, unacceptable risk for our reusers (and us, but I'm less worried about that).

However, if we want to bend over backwards we could try to pursue precedent regarding oral transmission and copyright versus fixity. The above linked article does tend to point toward this work existing as a purely oral work for a long time, with first fixation into writing happening much later and by a third party. It is possible US copyright has some sort of quirk regarding such situations that will let us have a clear conclusion either way. For example, I believe, NZ, AUS, and Thai copyright law regulates traditional oral works specially. --Xover (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

One could also take the view that the 1997 version was either the reuse of a work that was not under copyright, or is equally in breach of copyright. If it is not found to be renewed then we can retain it if we have taken our reasonable steps to assure ourselves. There is no evidence presented whether the work is or is not in copyright, we just have an indication of when it was first published, and what copyright applies at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

But absent publication info we have no way to check for registrations, renewals, or presence or absence of copyright statements; all of which are essential for determining copyright status. --Xover (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak Keep per Prosfilaes --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep as almost certain to be PD, unless more info comes to light. Worth continuing to research. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment The community sentiment appears to be to keep this text under some kind of "I'm guessing it's PD. Somehow.” reasoning. That leaves us with the practical issue of how to resolve the maintenance tags on it: what do we give as a source, and what do we say the license is?
The source that is actually provided for it is a 1997 commercial audio recording that is clearly in copyright. The arguments for licensing above suggest an assumed {{PD-US-no-notice}} and/or {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. It would be pretty contradictory to tag a 1997 clearly copyrighted work as no-notice/no-renewal, and I don't really understand how y'all can just blindly guess no-notice/no-renewal when the actual source is unknown (we clearly need c:COM:PRP as local policy!), but that is the best I can come up with for this situation.
Can I get some confirmation that removing the two maint. tags ({{no source}} + {{no license}}), leaving the source as the 1997 recording, and adding the license tag {{PD-US-no-notice}} is in fact concomitant with the community's consensus here? If so I'll close this accordingly, complaining about it all the way, and linking this discussion (I ain't taking responsibility for this!) for further information.
Pinging discussion participants: @Prosfilaes, billinghurst, DannyS712, Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
So I found https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/the-hoax-behind-little-bunny-foo-foo, which provided some history. You can see that the story is discussed in The New Yorker, Volume 45, Part 7, from 1970, so it can be assumed to have been published before then. Having found no copyright for the original source (couldn't find the original), I would go with {{PD-US-no-notice}}. this email, while a hoax with some fake history, makes it clear that the story was known at least by 1997/03/06. Now, even if the story is known and agreed upon, there are variations. For now, I would support tagging as no-notice, and citing the given source as a reference for this specific version of a public domain story - does that make sense? I'm getting sucked into a rabbit hole and will probably do some more digging, but for now that is what I have. Happy holidays, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here are the full lyrics published April 1970 without a copyright notice. This edition predates any known publication of the lyrics found by any of the researchers linked above, so it could very well be the first edition set in tangible form - which gives us our no-notice and a proper source. The linked work does not give an explicit citation for this song, but notes that uncited songs come from "the authors' experiences with day camps for retarded children." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is another 1970 full-lyric source, also without copyright notice. This one is a University thesis, properly published the following year (1971). The author claims "traditional sources" as the origin of the song, so this is also a fixation of oral tradition (but the edition I linked above predates it). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, there is a short anecdote similar to the song, with the moral "hare today goon tomorrow", in the essay "Recreation or Wreck-reation" by Wayne W. Womer. The earliest edition of this which I could find is 1941, which also lacks copyright notice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
According to this 1963 article in the Journal of American Folklore, there were at the time 4 versions in the Indiana University Folklore Archives of a story involving a rabbit "sometimes called Rabbit Fluff" who hits mice on the head and gets turned into a goon by his fairy godmother, with the moral "hare today goon tomorrow". It does not specify the contents of these stories, whether they are the song in question or some kind of precursor like Womer's essay or like this 1945 prose telling of the story. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712, @Beleg Tâl: That was a truly heroic effort by you both: very much appreciated!
I've grabbed the (now rather unfortunately named) 1970 work, uploaded and index'ed, and made a quick and dirty proofread of just the relevant page. Would appreciate if you'd take a look at Little Bunny Foo Foo and make any corrections and improvements you think are needed (did I mention it was quick and dirty?) before we close this discussion. --Xover (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: thanks for doing that! This has opened up another can of worms now though, as all the other songs in that volume now need to be checked - see User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Day Camping for the Retarded for progress. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded/Chapter 4

The work Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded is covered by {{PD-USGov}}. However, Chapter 4 contains several dozen camp songs that are not covered by {{PD-USGov}}.

I did some research and found that several of them are very likely to be copyvio. In particular, Girl Scouts USA expicitly claims copyright on the song "Brownie Smile Song"; Woody Guthrie's estate claims copyright on the song "Put Your Finger in the Air"; and Disney may own copyright to the "Johnny Appleseed" song from the 1948 movie Melody Time.

The results of my research to date is documented at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Day Camping for the Retarded. I do not think I will be able to get much further information.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: Because Day Camping is in source and PD, the ideal action is to censor the copyvio sections of the scan and replace the relevant lyrics with {{text removed}}. The question is therefore what sections need to be so censored. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will have time or interest to research this further, so I !vote

Delete to the following items:

I Want to be Friendly
If You're Happy and You Know It
Crocodile Song
My Hat Has Three Corners
Six Little Ducks
Where is Thumbkin?
Little Tommy Tinker
Brownie Smile Song
Hi, There!
Fido
The Wonder Ball
The Elephant Song
Ha-Ha, This a Way
Noontime is Here
Johnny Appleseed
Put Your Finger in the Air
Stodola Pumpa
On Top of Spaghetti
Kumbaya
Happy Trails

Note: all the other songs in this work are either confirmed PD, or this work is the earliest edition of them that I could find and therefore the same logic applies to them as was applied to Little Bunny Foo Foo. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: With regret, and somewhat dragging my feet, I have generated a new DjVu of this with the listed songs redacted. I call bullshit on the copyright claim for "Kumbaya", so I've left that in until the WMF receives a DMCA takedown request (or the community overrules me). The new file is at File:Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded (1970).djvu, and I've moved the index, pages, and mainspace artefacts over to that file. And the old PDF has been deleted on Commons. --Xover (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Aside

Comment @Beleg Tâl: Could we move this to a subthread of #Little Bunny Foo Foo since it springs from there and the two impact on each other? --Xover (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: I placed them separately because I think we have satisfactorily established that the song "Little Bunny Foo Foo" is in the public domain, regardless of the copyright status of the other works contained in that particular edition. We may have to censor Day Camping, or remove the scan backing, but "Little Bunny Foo Foo" can remain regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
But if we—for example—ended up deleting the scan, LBFF would no longer be scan-backed, and the above thread would no longer make sense for anyone reading the archives. But no big deal, I just thought it'd be "cleaner" to do it that way (partly because I've held off on closing the LBFF thread until we resolved all the issues surrounding this work). --Xover (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You have been doing more on this page than I; I have no objection to merging the discussions if you think best. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've merged them now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing

The following discussion is closed:

This monster discussion has not resulted in a clear consensus, is highly unlikely at this stage to attract much further participation, and has been open for way way too long to be productive. I am therefore closing it as "no consensus" mainly to get it out of the way (and in case interested contributors should feel it is a sword of Damocles hanging over it). This close is no bar to reopening a discussion of this text should anyone feel they have further to add. Long term, the most productive path to a final resolution of this issue is to follow up on the excellent work by Bluerasberry at c:Commons:Joint authorship. The Commons community is much larger and has access to more legal expertise than enWS, and enWS relies heavily on Commons for all other copyright issues. Getting the Commons community engaged in the issue to a point they are able to reach a consensus should give us a firm reference that we could apply mutatis mutandis here. An alternate path is to ask WMF Legal to assess and post guidance on the issue, but it is by no means certain that they would prioritise such an effort or be willing to post (effectively movement-wide) guidance on it.

2013 statement issued by multiple parties on OA publishing, each holding copyright in the collective work. The statement is published at dash.harvard.edu under the terms set forth in the Terms of Use for DASH Repository. These include -NC and -ND restrictions, and so are not compatible with our copyright policy. --Xover (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep pending further investigation. The fact that the work was posted in DASH does not mean that DASH holds the copyright to the work. Indeed, the work has appeared in multiple locations online which purport to apply different policies: for example, at this site which states that all content is CC-BY 3.0 unless otherwise stated. Different repositories have different copyright policies, but only the actual copyright holder’s views (usually meaning, those of the author or authors) govern. I agree that it most likely makes sense to view the statement as a work of joint authorship by the conference participants (rather than the work of an individual author), although the document does not actually so state. More information about authorship and the provenance of the work seems to be needed here. Tarmstro99 17:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Suber also states that he is not an official spokesman for this document, so his claim of CC-BY is no more credible than the DASH claim to NC and ND restrictions. If any organization owned the copyright it would be HHMI, who convened the meeting and invited the participants. However, as the text itself states, the authors contributed as individuals rather than as representatives of their organization, so joint copyright seems to be the correct assumption. Because of this, in order for us to keep the text, it will be necessary to find an explicit release issued by all contributing authors. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tarmstro99: If we agree that all the actual licenses provided in the different repos and sites in which this appears cannot be trusted, then we need to examine the known facts to determine its status for ourselves. Do any of the observable facts support a free license or a copyright exemption (public domain)? If not, the default state is that it is protected by copyright owned by its authors. --Xover (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
it is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of standard terms that are added to all content. you should not imagine that organizations will make copyright determinations for you, they will present a "no known copyright" or "for educational use" or NC, as a fallback. we have seen some progress with our partners, but legal departments remain recalcitrant. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
An observation..."find an explicit release" (per Beleg Tal) and "examine the known facts" (per Xover) seem to me to be mere restatement of what Tarnstrom originally suggested, i.e. "further investigation." -Pete (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Not quite. I'm saying that the default assumption for all works are that they are protected by copyright. Tarmstro's argument that we cannot trust the copyright statement provided by the hosting repository (by pointing at a different statement in a different repository) simply means that we have no credible indications to support a deviation from the default. The available facts are that it is a work of joint authorship by the conference participants, who hold copyright in the joint work, and who failed to actually license this particular work in line with the goals of the statement itself (the irony). Unless someone can unearth facts that credibly support compatible licensing, this is clearly copyvio. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep pending further investigation, to which I'm happy to contribute. Per what @Tarmstro99: says, I believe the original license was one acceptable to Wikisource, and it may be that the statement has been republished in other places which apply licenses that are not. I will see what more I can learn and report back. -Pete (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. My own research did not suggest any likelihood of finding information credibly supporting compatible licensing, but I am very grateful for all contributions towards the best possible determination we can achieve. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment For what it's worth, version 3 of the CC licenses launched in 2007, several years after the publication of this statement. Version 3 is the first version compatible with Wikimedia TOU. -Pete (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Have you been able to unearth any further information on this? --Xover (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks for the ping. I'm sorry, I realized that I had this document confused with a related one, and got stuck. Reviewing it again now, I do know several of the signers, and I will reach out to them. If you feel it should be deleted in the meantime, I don't object, assuming that an affirmative outcome would mean it could be restored. Or, if you're OK with waiting a couple-few weeks to see what responses I get, that's cool too. Sorry for the delay. -Pete (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: It's been sitting open since September last year: a few more weeks makes no difference. Please keep in mind though, that we'll need something more than just one or more of the co-authors saying they think that X is the case. If we can't find anything solid that's been published, we'll need the full OTRS dance for all the co-authors (which is a pretty tall order 7 years after the fact). --Xover (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Yes, I fully understand that -- I'm looking for either (a) clarification that there is a provable compatible copyright license or release from 2003 that we've somehow overlooked, or (b) somebody from that group organizes a poll of all authors and can generate a new license. (I don't know whether all signers were authors or not...possible that the number of authors is lower than it appears, so I wouldn't totally rule that out as a possibility.) I realize it's a tall order, but because of the irony you acknowledge, I think it's worth the effort. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I've had a helpful reply already, though no "quick fix." Still looking into it. -Pete (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a small update for now -- emails are underway, my inquiries have been redirected to more appropriate recipients twice now, and I hope for a definitive answer by the end of this week. Peter Suber did confirm to me that the initial publication (as far as he knows) was on his personal website, predating the DASH publication. Also, as far as he knows, the NC and ND provisions of DASH would apply only to materials subject to Harvard's open access policy, which as far as he knows would not cover this document. So it would seem that the current status is "unclear, perhaps no general license was ever formally applied" rather than CC-BY-NC-ND. Again, hope to have clear affirmation of a general license, or at least affirmation of the status quo, in short order. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Small development, and @Xover: you may be interested in this part: The leader of the institution representing the original lead author has stated their understanding is that under U.S. copyright law any one copyright holder may assert a non-exclusive license (like CC BY) for a work. That position is spelled out in some detail here. (Hat tip @Bluerasberry:.) They have not yet made that formal assertion of CC BY (which I expect will entail some internal deliberation) but that is the theory they will be working under. -Pete (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Far be it for me to argue with the Berkman Center, but I am not unreservedly willing to buy that theory for this purpose.
An "undivided ownership share" is a concept related to title to land and ownership of real property, where selling your part or letting someone else use it does not deprive the other sharers of their economic benefit from the land (and when you let someone else use it you must account to the other sharers for the profits). In a traditional copyright situation a similar mechanism applies: each joint author may license the work and derive economic benefits from it, and it does not deprive the other sharers of their benefits beyond that implied by multiple parties owning a share to begin with. But when we are talking about intangible property (digital intellectual property, where you can make perfect replicas at effectively zero marginal cost) a copyleft-style license has the same practical effect as an exclusive license: it deprives the other sharers (authors) of the potential for economic benefit. Think of it as analogous to trespass to chattels or even conversion, if you like. And copyright is primarily an economic right (the right to commercially exploit, with some moral rights tacked on to various degrees in various jurisdictions).
In fact, I believe (but don't hold me to it) that in the UK (and probably other Common law jurisdictions, but I haven't checked) such ownership constructions are held to legally create a trust, regardless of whether you take other affirmative steps to create or act like one, for the specific purpose of imposing a duty for the trustees to always act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. I believe the standard example is the house you own jointly with your spouse: for legal purposes both of you have the roles as trustee and beneficiary and neither of you can unilaterally sell the house (as a trustee) unless it is in the best interest of the other (as beneficiary).
But the above is strictly speaking just a hypothetical right now. We'll have to assess the actual facts if and when they are presented. I would be much much more comfortable with an assertion from a trustworthy source that all the joint authors had agreed to the licence. And what counts as a trustworthy source for this purpose would be either directly from each author (like a joint statement), or some inherently trustworthy institution (roughly by the same assessment as a "reliable source"-type assessment on enwp), or something similar. The same claim from just one of the authors I would be less comfortable accepting (no offence to Suber, but I don't know him from Adam and there are far far fewer checks and balances in place for individuals then there are for organisations, and much greater incentives to misunderstand, misrepresent, or skimp on due diligence).
PS. Not trying to draw any bright line here, by the way. I'm just outlining my thinking and understanding now so that it's clear going in, rather than pop up like a moving goal post after the fact. The actual facts and intervening arguments may alter my thinking significantly before the end.
PPS. I just noticed that Diane Cabell was one of the signatories of this, while she was a Director at the Berkman Center, and until 2014 she was at Creative Commons. If she's not one of the people you're talking to it might be worthwhile to reach out. I imagine she'll see the problem immediately, and identify potential solutions. And, speaking only for myself, she is someone I would be extremely hesitant to argue a legal question with (appearances to the contrary aside, I don't actually enjoy looking like a blithering idiot). :-) --Xover (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

<---------------

I see two issues here - one is the general case of whether one copyright holder has the authority to issue licenses when there is a group of equal stakeholders. I think the answer is yes, and I think that the above legal explanation from DMLP / Berkman / Harvard confirms any one copyright holder has the right to issue non-exclusive licenses of any sort, and I think that Xover is taking a minority position in opposition to that by saying that individual copyright holders in a group cannot issue CC licenses without unanimous group permission. Responding to group copyright does seem like a common situation in the Wikimedia space, and we should have clarity on how to respond, and I am unaware of any published on-wiki guidance for addressing this. Xover, positions aside, are you aware of any established wiki guideline on how to manage copyright from groups? Is this idea of requesting permission from everyone in a group documented somewhere? If not, we should write something to clarify, right? Should we go to Commons Pump Copyright, or what would you propose?

The other issue is this particular case. I see this case as unique because this particular document is foundational to Wikipedia's copyright licensing practices. The copyright license for this document is the document itself. The document itself defines what a free and open license is, and it does this in the modern sense of understanding this, and the signatories are all understood to be the founding experts who defined the concept of the free and open license for creative media including the output of Creative Commons. The correct copyright license for this document is this document itself. There are a lot of signatories, and while we have not talked to all of them, the ones we have talked to obviously support free and open media including for this document. Noawadays the Creative Commons licenses themselves have Creative Commons licenses upon them, but 20 years ago when the Bethesda Statement came out, the explicit language of this document calling for free and open media everywhere was self explanatory enough for it to freely go into circulation with many people taking action with the understanding that they should republish, translate, and remix this document without anyone even imagining that the text of the document would not apply to the document itself. To question the license of the document now is to apply a contemporary reimagining into a time and situation where obviously subject matter experts of the time did not feel a need to comment. I am comfortable treating this document uniquely and recognizing its open license as a special case, even while for other cases we seek other opinions about the general case in Wikipedia for how to respond to shared licenses.

Xover, can you make a proposal of how to proceed? Pete and I have talked with a few people already. Among all the signatories, is Diane Cabell really the person whose authority you would accept, even after we already have a license from the copyright holder which hosted the meeting which produced this document? I support getting this in order, but I want to avoid a situation where the asking proceeds indefinitely without an identified end. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I get the feeling you are ascribing to me positions and stances that I do not actually hold. But I am out of time to respond in depth just now, so I'll just quickly address a couple of key points.

Regarding the Cyberlaw guidance on joint authorship, they do not actually address this situation directly. They have certain implicit expectations about the context in which their advice will apply, and copyleft deliberately subverts those expectations. It may still be valid, but we cannot just assume that it applies.

Regarding we already have a license from the copyright holder which hosted the meeting which produced this document, this is the first I'm hearing about this. Details?

Regarding The correct copyright license for this document is this document itself… Keep in mind that if we accept the document itself as its own license, it cannot be hosted here for at least two reasons: 1) unlike the CC licenses, it is not actually an approved license (and unlikely to ever be so, due to…), 2) the terms of that license are incompatible with our licensing policy since it imposes -NC style limitations on reuse. Open access and copyleft are related and overlapping, but their interests are not identical; and absent clear licensing we cannot just assume that all the signatories would agree to use the terms in our particular copyleft licenses. For the same reason you should not assume that I would license my open source software under the GPL: I have philosophical objections to some of its terms even though I for the most part agree with its goals. --Xover (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: Excuse me me for attributing any position to you - there never was a reason for me to do that, and if I misstated something then it was my own lack of understanding.

About the license - yes, we have a license statement for this particular from someone at Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This is a recent development since the start of this conversation. They say CC-By. Is there a Wikisource OTRS process, or do you use the Commons OTRS process here? We could tag OTRS permission on the talk page of the document, assuming that you would recognize a representative of that org as suitable permission.
I disagree with the claim that copyright licenses need advance approval for acceptance into the Wikimedia platform. We have a standard for compliance, Commons:Commons:Licensing, but anyone can meet that standard with the license of their choice without pre-approval. I recognize that anything uploaded should meet that standard, but I would not agree with dismissing by default a license which lacks pre-approval. Wikimedia projects have always had tolerance of a lot of weird homebrew licenses at Commons:Category:License tags. I would support you or anyone else contesting a license, if it comes to that, but maybe having the above described permission is sufficient.
This might be a tangent if the above described permission is sufficient, but I do not see the NC restrictions in the Bethesda statement. I see no restrictions except attribution of copyright holder. I agree that the text is weird in places, but to me, the Bethesda statement seems CC-By interoperable. If it ever happened that we had Bethesda-licensed text to import, then that seems fine to me.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Still short of time but trying to squeeze in some responses in the interest of not stalling progress. Apologies.

On OTRS, so far as I know we don't even have a separate queue in OTRS, and definitely not our own procedure. But I have to admit to treating OTRS as a bit of a black box so I may not be entirely up to date on that.

On the restrictions in the document… First I think it is important to stress that this isn't actually a copyright license (at best it is an indication of intent), so the issue is rather hypothetical. But with that caveat, the restriction is in the first section or thereabouts where they place a limit on "printing out a reasonable number of copies for personal use" (an entirely reasonable limitation when talking about open access to research and journal articles). I haven't checked in detail what else is there, so this is just an example of why we cannot simply assume that the interests of people concerned mainly with open access will always align 100% with those concerned mainly with copyleft and free culture. They may, but it's not certain and it may vary from case to case.

On the license statement from Howard Hughes Medical… That's great news! I am, personally, not immediately convinced that's sufficient, for the reasons outlined previously, but that's something concrete and it is not at all unlikely that the community will consider that sufficient to retain this document here (I tend to the more conservative end of the spectrum on these issues). At the very least if we make it contingent on the outcome of some kind of process to clarify this issue in general. Preferably involving WMF Legal, or at least people like Clindberg or Michael Maggs over on Commons, but something with broader attention and input than an individual copyright discussion on enWS. As you say, the question isn't specific to Wikisource; and it would eliminate a lot of uncertainty and needless back and forth to have specific guidance either way on these cases. As a practical matter, enWS tends to rely rather heavily on the guidance on Commons for copyright issues (modulo the direct differences in the respective copyright polices). --Xover (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, @Peteforsyth: I have still not found the time to really dig into this issue. But I have managed two things: 1) thinking at it from a few different perspectives, and 2) a superficial search for any legal precedent or case law that address this situation directly.

To take the latter first… I have found absolutely zilch in any of the sources I have access to that actually addresses this issue. I feel this must be my failure and that surely this must be an issue that has cropped up somewhere at some point, but finding it would take someone more qualified than me (hence my desire to get WMF Legal on the case). Which means that my analysis above is a prima facie novel legal interpretation; and novel interpretation from some random Internet person (even if that person happens to be myself) is not a good basis for decisions on legal issues. So, with my community member hat on I'm going to change my !vote to neutral on this.

Which brings me to the #1 mentioned initially. Putting my admin hat on and trying to look at this from a "how do we progress this towards a resolution" perspective, my assessment is that the community has not shown itself willing to accept the document itself as its own license (and keep in mind the pitfall I sketched previously for that) , but… based on previous discussions I hold it very likely that they would accept your proposed OTRS license statement from one of the co-authors' institution. The devil is in the details (which institution, under what circumstances, what are they actually saying, etc.) but my guess is that the general principle is one the community would consider sufficient.

So, absent other input, my suggested way forward is that you proceed to get OTRS permission as you have been planning. Once that is in place we make a new subsection of this discussion with a brief summary (so people don't have to wade through this mess), and ping previous participants. If over a week or two we either get no feedback, or a normal consensus assessment of what !votes we do get supports keep, I close this thread as keep. (I propose a short-circuit in there because it's really hard to get sufficient numbers of participants to properly assess consensus in these complicated threads).

Once we've landed this specific case I would like to try to get some guidance on the general issue. First by trying get WMF Legal to look at it, and failing that (or if their statement on it is not clear cut), in a discussion on the Commons `pump. The goal of the latter would, to my mind, be to establish clear guidance, and not primarily the legal issues. And I would very much appreciate your involvement in that effort, if for no other reason then at least to make sure more perspectives are reflected in the formulation of the issue.

Thoughts? Does that sound like a sensible approach? --Xover (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Xover:

I agree, the argument about "this document is its own license" is odd. I will table that one.
I started a discussion at the Commons village pump some time ago and it has answers. See commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Multiple_copyright_holders;_one_person_grants_CC_license. My read on consensus here is that any one copyright holder can apply CC licenses without permission from other copyright holders. Please look that over and tell me the extent to which you think my phrasing and question apply to this case.
About expert opinions and precedent - We have a few opinions from Commons. That is a start. I started to compile Commons:Commons:Joint authorship. Would you please post any comment to the talk page there about the extent to which that essay addresses this issue? My view on Commons noticeboards and WMF legal is that they will not draft text, but they will respond to drafts. People are more likely to respond as a proposal is more developed. I did that first draft and got a little response. We could escalate this if need be, but my feeling is that WMF will not respond until and unless there is some community development. I agree with you - either Creative Commons or Wikimedia Commons past discussions should have raised and addressed this issue many times. I have been unable to find prior documentation and discussion. I have not looked extensively, but I think that at least that essay page I drafted is the first guideline-style documentation anyone has made on wiki. If anything exists off-wiki, maybe I have not found it, and I have not searched wiki discussions at all.
The permission we have is from a person who was hosting the Bethesda conference. I do not want to send this to OTRS prematurely, but yes, my view of their statement is that they understand CC licenses and said they right now apply one to this document. If you / consensus can accept that, then I can either send it into OTRS or we can discuss more details if there is anything ambiguous.

All of this is conversation trying to get to a resolution. What do you think of all this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: (and courtesy CC to Pete) Meh. I wish I'd been aware of that discussion when it happened. I disagree with your assessment that that discussion demonstrates consensus that any one copyright holder can apply CC licenses without permission from other copyright holders: of the four people participating, Asclepias and King of Hearts jump straight to the same concern I outlined above (it was apparently not so novel after all), and Brainulator9 expressed a different but related concern, so only Jeff G. unequivocally supported that position.

On that basis I would say we definitely need to pursue a general resolution to this issue, including both what (if any) position WMF Legal takes and a community-anchored guideline for applying it. And I think that process properly belongs on Commons: we don't have the capacity or expertise, and in most cases we will be working based on files hosted on Commons anyway. In the mean time I'm in no rush to close this discussion (beyond providing progress and resolution to those who care about its outcome specifically), so my proposal is to just leave it open until we have some actual guidance to base a close on. --Xover (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep consistent with established Commons and OTRS practices of accepting licenses from anyone who we can show has a right to issue them. It's a little late to do otherwise and require licenses from all copyright holders, heirs, successors, and assigns; doing so without input from WMF Legal would be reckless and foolhardy, would waste much volunteer time, and could bring accusations of "copyright paranoia" and being "more Catholic than the Pope". Doing so retroactively could cripple the movement. @Xover: Thanks for the mention. — Jeff G. ツ 13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translation

The following discussion is closed:

After two years open and pleading for input on WS:S the result is a simple majority 4:2 vote to accept the text even absent any real evidence. One commenter is just generally opposed to copyright and wants us to pretend it doesn't exist, but the remaining commenters in favour of keep indicated essentially that what evidence exists is sufficient to meet their personal standard. Those in favour of delete generally cited absence of evidence for intent to license (in essence, a precautionary principle).

The text has been moved to Translation:Philosophical Writings of the Years 1860-1865/Translators and tagged as a Wikisource translation.

This work was provided in 2010 by an IP address. The author is a known modern translator [22] though the source is unknown, and unproven that the translation has been published, and if published whether it is in the public domain, or not.

It is possible that the translation has been done and gifted to the web. I can see that the person has edited at Wikipedia and from an IP address. If we do wish to determine that is the case and determine to retain the work, then I would suggest that we move the work to the Translation namespace, and de-identify the author. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Since Larrieu is a published author, and the uploader is anonymous, I would assume copyvio over gifted translation. I would suggest reaching out to the translator, but he died in 2015. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Larrieu made several edits to Wikipedia in 2006, and the IP address geolocates to roughly the same area that the IP address that added the text here does, albeit from a different ISP (Verizon vs. Cox). In their edits on Wikipedia they exhibit a level of competence with wiki editing roughly commensurate with the text added here. They also expressed interest in finding online verified copies of certain old texts, in response to which a Wikipedia editor referred them to Wikisource!

Based on this I am actually personally convinced the text was added by Larrieu himself, and that he intended it to be freely available.

However, despite this conviction, I don't think we can keep this work: simply because the necessary formalities were not observed. We don't know that it was Larrieu that added it, and we don't know that they understood the licensing consequences; because there is no OTRS ticket confirming the identity and intent, and the added text did not contain explicit copyright tags. So, reluctantly, I think we need to delete this.

We could reach out to Larrieu's heirs, but the odds of them knowing anything about his wiki activities are pretty poor. --Xover (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggest we move it to Translation: namespace and make appropriate notes on talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
I believe the participants so far are in disagreement over how to best handle this issue due to the uncertainties involved (I don't believe a clear-cut right—wrong answer is obtainable with the available information). I would therefore request that other community members (the more the better!) chime in with their opinion so that we can more accurately gauge the community's consensus on how to handle this. --Xover (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is still

Delete: assume copyvio over gifted translation without evidence to the contrary —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree and thus also

Delete. But I take billinghurst's above proposal of "move to Translation:" as an implicit {{vk}}. Since the issue is not clearly settleable on the facts, I think we need wider input to determine our course of action. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep 2010! They met our requirements at the time, and we didn't have a translation: ns back then. There is suitable evidence that the author did edit, and with this translation left their name on the work appropriately to our style. The text is not findable on the web, so it is unlikely to be a copy and paste job. If anyone had done that in the Translation ns: today, then no one would be batting an eyelid about keep it —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)‎.
Keep per billinghurst --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep this retroactive deleting of deceased people's work, because they did not get in their time machine and anticipate the subsequent copyright compliance, is doing quality improvement wrong. it is behaving just like betacommand. is there any evidence of an online source. copy pasted? if not, then keep, risk low. Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 22:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep on the condition that the translation is scan-backed to the original in the Translation namespace. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To further elaborate, through all evidence available to us at this time, this Larrieu translator seems to have solely published their own translation here on Wikisource in 2010. By doing this, he effectively waived his copyrights to the translation to the CC BY-SA 3.0 License (I checked and this is indeed the default license that was used by Wikisource at the end of 2010 just like to-day). As there is currently no available evidence that this was copied from somewhere else, or that he published it elsewhere beforehand or afterward and claimed different copyright terms for it, it's as safe to assume that this is freely licensed as it is to assume any random sample of Wikipedia articles is. I think that unless we find something to indicate otherwise, we should keep it. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: The problem with that reasoning, and the reason we generally require VRT (neé OTRS) verification, is that we cannot know that they actually understood that that was what they were doing, or what the consequences would be. For example, the contributor appears to have been a professional translator, meaning their livelihood depended on the ability to charge money for their translations. Since digital goods (like a translated text) have no natural scarcity (unlike a physical good, I mean), a license that permits commercial reuse and derivative works destroys the value, to the translator, of the translation. Experience shows, again and again, that people who initially seem inclined to contribute something really mean to apply -ND and -NC restrictions (or, not infrequently, "used by permission, only on Wikipedia") once the details are explained to them.

Normal people (and I don't count us who hang out at WS:CV or c:COM:VPC among those) have no conception of how copyright works, much less "copyleft" licenses. Nobody but nobody reads, or even notices, clickthrough licenses like the one below the edit box. It works as legal cover if we really get sued, but we generally want contributions to be made fully informed of the consequences ("Gotcha, no backsies!" is not a sustainable strategy). For comments on a talk page the assumption is sufficient; but a full translation is more akin to a photo or other media file. And there is a reason Commons, for example, doesn't accept things like that without OTRS verification.

However, that all being said, this is definitely a matter of personal standards of evidence and tolerance for uncertainty. I am not suggesting that it is in any way wrong or unreasonable to accept the evidence available as sufficient in this particular case. I'm just pointing out the flip side. Xover (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This is the current wording of the text below the edit summary section of the edit window. Assuming it was the same or similar in 2010, I assume this would apply. In other words, while it may be considered courteous to go through the OTRS or whatever system Wikimedia Commons might normally do, it's not (apparently) legally required. By saving edits the translator, professional or not, agreed. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Index:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted the index, File:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdf, Page:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdf/1 to Page:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdf/25 for no clear evidence of licensing. Please request undeletion with evidence of licensing.

2014 work that has been sitting tagged as having insufficient licensing information since 2016. The issue was raised with the uploader at the time, and an alleged email from the author was provided on their talk page, but the OTRS procedure was not apparently followed. The work as such is clearly in copyright, both by the author and by other contributors (cover design etc.), so the question is whether we consider the (unverified) emailed statement on the contributor's talk page sufficient.

e-mail from John Duley to Willl Loew-Blosser 10/9/2014
"Will: Thanks so much for following up on this. The answer to your two questions at the end of your email is yes-- I would be pleased to have it widely circulated so do not intend to copyright it and would be willing to have it published as you suggest. John"

e-mail to John Duley from Will Loew-Blosser 10/4/2014
"Hi John,
Leslie and I have were very pleased to learn so much of East Lansing history from your monograph. As we mentioned at breakfast I’m looking into putting your monograph entitled "The Civil Rights Movement in East Lansing and Edgewood Village” onto wikipedia. There is a section of wikipedia called wikiSource that holds original works that may be then used in the encyclopedia articles as a source material.
See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page
The first question is about copyright. WikiSource does not accept copyrighted works. You do not have a copyright notice on the title page but there is no explicit permission to reproduce or republish either.

My view is that iff we were to accept this as a valid ~~{{CC0}}~~ {{PD-author-release}} dedication, which we would then move to Commons, the chances of it avoiding deletion there would be slim. We need proper verification through OTRS for these cases, not least in order to ensure that the copyright owner understands all the consequences of PD dedication or free licensing. --Xover (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that the release into PD is clear, and the work could be tagged {{PD-author-release}}. I do not think {{CC0}} can be used because the copyright holder did not explicitly link the work to the Creative Commons Zero deed and legal document. I would perhaps have accepted the notice on the talk page if the editor who posted the notice was themselves the copyright holder. However this is not the case and I am inclined to disallow it without proper OTRS. Is it at all possible to contact Duley directly? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
In 2014 the situation was that The author is in his late 90's, quite poor health, and has stopped using e-mail. so I hold that unlikely. And if no followup was forthcoming in 2016, I would tend to think that for internet people to now intrude on an old man with copyright questions would border on being immoral. At least my take is that we have to decide this issue based on the information we already have. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep I also understand it as a clear release into the public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jan Kameníček: If this document was tagged {{PD-author-release}} it would be eligible to be moved to Commons. Pragmatically, how do you rate its chances of surviving a deletion discussion there? --Xover (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I have almost no experience with deletion discussions there, but if we are afraid that it will not survive there for some reasons, we can keep it here. Or, if we move it and they decide they do not want it, we can move it back here then. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: The question was meant to probe the logic behind your conclusion, specifically in terms of the standard of evidence we apply. If we are confident that the available evidence is sufficient to conclude it has been released into the public domain, then we should also be confident that it will survive a deletion discussion at Commons. Since I am not confident that is the case absent confirmation through the OTRS process (and neither is Beleg Tâl based on their comment above), I wanted to check whether you deliberately wanted to apply a different (lower) standard of evidence or whether there was some confusion behind it.
In practice, in these circumstances, if the consensus is to keep this as {{PD-author-release}}, I would not personally transfer this to Commons because I believe it would be against policy there and would be deleted. But another user very well might move it to Commons at any time, unless we used {{do not move to Commons}} to mark it to keep local. But if we do that we are essentially saying that we do not believe this is properly licensed (i.e. that our {{PD-author-release}} tag is a lie). This is unlike the typical situations where a file is PD in the US but not in its home country: in that case there is a genuine difference in policy between Commons and enWS. In the case at hand the policy is ostensibly the same on enWS and Commons, but we are (I suspect) applying a different standard of evidence.
And if we are doing that then we should be very conscious and clear about that fact. It sets precedent for future such cases, and it impacts the risk to our reusers, so it is something we should approach with deliberation and eyes open. --Xover (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, neither our nor Commons discussions are legally binding, they are in fact both just lay opinions and it is no wonder that our lay opinion can be different from their lay opinion. As written above, I have almost zero experience with these discussions in Commons, but often heard others saying that they are sometimes trying to be more Catholic than the Pope... So by not moving it we are not saying that we are lying about the license, we are simply saying that our lay opinions about some border cases are different than theirs. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

yeah, i would keep it as PD-author-release, here. commons would view failure to follow OTRS as a deletion rationale. i.e. [23]; [24]; [25]. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete if no evidence of licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

[1] NESDB, Economic Data, 1995–2006 Archived 19 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine

[WBBO-200511-2] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WBBO-200511

[3] "Thailand Economic Monitor November 2005". World Bank. Retrieved 5 January 2019.

[4] NESDB, Economic Data, 1995–2006 Template:Webarchive

[5] "Thailand Economic Monitor November 2005". World Bank. Retrieved 5 January 2019.

[6] Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice 1: 93–101. Retrieved 18 September 2018.

[7] Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice 1: 93–101. Retrieved 18 September 2018.

[8] Education Management Profile: Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO PRINCIPAL REGIONAL OFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC. 1998. Retrieved 18 September 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2019

Kept

Selected Essays by Karl Marx translated by Henry James Stenning

A fraternal greeting from the free Macedonian state - 1944 and other works

Deleted

Copyright status of Mao Zedong's work

Page:American Seashells (1954).djvu/1 and others

PrabuddhaBharata and PrabuddhaBharata/November 1930/The Economic Views of Swami Vivekananda

Though the Tortoise Lives Long translation

Works linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol

Bridegroom due to translation

Arbitrary break (To the Victor Belongs the Spoils)

Cornell Concert Commission Director Interview

Pansies (1929) by D. H. Lawrence

Itineraries for March 19-April 9, 2018 (Justin Trudeau)

Cyprus 13 amendments and Thirteen amendments

Translations by Manish Modi

Strider: the Story of a Horse + illustrations

Other

US-specific notices in non-US copyright tags

Suggestion for a small change to {{PD-EdictGov}}

The Plays of Roswitha

Extension of Canadian term to 70 p.m.a

Work by Communist Party of China

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - AMENDMENT FIVE

Index:The Philadelphia Negro A Social Study.djvu potentially copyrighted section

Nobel speeches/lectures

Proposed resolution (The Murder on the Links)

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov

Arbitrary break (All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov)

"Courtesy of" images in Advanced Automation for Space Missions

Thailand PD Exempt and speeches

Public domain user translations

Guantanamo-related documents (batch 1)

Notice of Commons DR that may have some relevance to enWS

Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translation

Navigation menu

Search