Wikisource:Copyright discussions

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:COPYVIO)
Jump to: navigation, search
Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. You may join any current discussion or start a new one.

Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted.

When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions.

If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, Stanford Copyright Renewal Database as well as University of Pennsylvania's information about the Catalog of Copyright Entries may be helpful in determining the copyright status of the work. A search through or Google Books may also be useful to determine if the complete texts are available due to expired copyright. Help:Public domain can help users determine whether a given work is in the public domain.

Quick reference to copyright term

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'


27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw[edit]

There is a permission for this text to publish it under GFDL-1.3 license in OTRS that was rejected by an OTRS agent as incompatible with current WMF licensing policy. When the text was uploaded and the permission sent, CC-BY-SA was already the required license for any text contribution. So I think, this text should be deleted. Ankry (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikisource not allow GFDL-only works? It is still "free", and while I can understand the restriction about importing portions of GFDL works in editing mode, Wikisource is more about simply storing the entire source document without change. I believe Commons still allows GFDL-only images (though highly discourages them). If an external work happens to be GFDL though, I'm not sure why we would not be allowed to host it. Obviously, we can't take the text and use it in a Wikipedia article, but we should be able to reference it. It is different than an original contribution. Now... I'm not sure about scope here. It looks like the source is a comment on a message board originally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Terms of use and earlier Terms of Use (2009) point out that no text contribution that is GFDL-only should be made to any Wikimedia project on or after June 15th, 2009. I am seriously interested in any policy interpretation that allows Wikisource GFDL-licensed uploads after that date (if anybody can point it out).
Also it is curious that this text has "OTRS pending" status for over five years... The OTRS ticket concerning this text is ticket:2010010610000422.
Ankry (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Those are the terms of use for active users of the site. It makes perfect sense for any amount of text on most any Wikimedia site, as it gets edited etc by multiple editors and the GFDL derivative work provisions make it an impossible license to work with. Same with comments like this one. But, stand-alone works are very different. Commons still allows individual images to be GFDL (as those do not create derivative work problems with text). For something like Wikisource, for works which are naturally GFDL with external sources, I don't see how those are bound by the terms of use. We are not into creating derivative works here; we just want to host the unaltered original text. It's still free. Granted, you can't copy/paste from those works into Wikipedia articles or Wikiversity texts, but ... they can certainly be referenced and there is probably a good amount of material out there which is very relevant. Say, Free as in Freedom. I do have scope concerns on this work, and if the OTRS is not valid then of course even the GFDL license is not true (I don't have OTRS access so I have no idea). But I don't see the point in banning individual GFDL works from Wikisource; we are hosting external works, not doing any collaborative editing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
OTRS ticket might be valid if GFDL was still accepted after 15.06.2009. But as I noted above, the permission was rejected basing on the WMF licensing rules. Maybe an OTRS agent with better knowledge about enwikisource licensing could look into the ticket? @Billinghurst:?
@Clindberg: I 100% agree that accepting GFDL would not be here such a problem as it would be for Wikipedia (maybe except potential problem with translating GFDL-licensed texts by wikisourcians). But such exception for Wikisource is not reflected in the official WMF policy. IMO, the current policy is clear here: we can upload GFDL-licensed scans, but we are not allowed to upload any GFDL-licensed text after 15.06.2009. I see no differentiation between stand-alone uploaded works and on-wiki created works in the policy. Policy just says about texts. Or am I missing something?
Ankry (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
OTRS permissions is one for @Jeepday, @JeepdaySock:billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we can email back and see if the work can be relicensed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess those are the terms of use -- the text may be validly licensed that way, and the author is not subject to the terms of use, but technically a user here cannot import that under those terms. It is nonsensical to me though that we would allow scans like that but not be able to transcribe them -- the copyright on the scan is the exact same as the copyright of the text. Can such scanned PDFs not have a text layer in them? Projects are allowed to have an EDP (an exemption to the regular licensing rules which makes more sense for their project). Those are normally used to allow non-free works, which Wikisource could never do, but maybe this situation is one area which may make more sense. To me, the terms of use was written for the collaborative text situation (which is true just about everywhere else on Wikimedia projects), but Wikisource is a bit unique in that aspect. I do guess that earlier uploaded GFDL works were allowed to be cross-licensed with CC-BY-SA (did we ever go around and change the licenses?) which could make a difference in that the text could be copied over as part of other projects. But I'm not sure it makes any sense to restrict Wikisource to only PD, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence of wmf:Terms of Use (2009) that is relevant is "Furthermore, please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL." So 27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw is a clear Terms of Use violation by Justmeherenow (talkcontribs) ;-) I say that tongue in cheek, as clearly there is no intent to harm, and the usual Wikimedia content licensing situation doesnt apply to Wikisource as the original content being reproduced is not user-generated, and the original text is not amended on Wikisource, and there isnt much else to copyright here. However we do have a problem also with all content in Category:GFDL, especially anything imported after November 1, 2008 and extremely especially after the relicensing clause expired on August 1, 2009. (see ). This was never properly resolved on Wikimedia Commons either, as many photographers refused to accept automatic dual licensing migration of their GFDL-only high resolution photos. See c:Category:GFDL. Because Commons is large and those photographers very vocal, they have pretty pictures, and they had very good arguments too (like preferring to trust FSF than WMF), this resulted in a text vs images distinction in the ToU, licensing upgrade tricks, etc. The WMF simply didnt want to tackle more than they could chew, so they allowed GFDL photos, but not text, even thought the GFDL is almost ridiculous when used for stand-alone photos, but it is certainly designed for primarily textual works with only media supporting the text.
In short, the terminology distinction between images and text in the Terms of Use is silly, especially on Wikisource, and needs to be revisited. Editing images is the same as editing text, it is only the ease and volume of edits that differs. We should treat our faithful reproductions (facsimile) as 'Non-text media' in the ToU - they are not creative works intended to be gradually improved over time by the community.
If anyone feels particularly strongly about the problem with GFDL texts wrt the ToU, we could call GFDL textual works 'non-free' (irony alert) and create an Exemption Doctrine Policy (see especially meta:Non-free_content#Wikisource) to bypass the Wikimedia licensing policy. I'd be happy to lead that effort, rather than accepting the sheer stupidity of having GFDL scans permitted on Commons that we are legally not allowed to transcribe. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(@John Vandenberg:) We even have GFDL explicitly listed as a compatible license for works that can be hosted here. I don't understand the legal considerations well enough to know the best way to proceed. If we can't convince the WMF to update the terms of use to allow for WS, then an exemption doctrine policy looks like the only feasible solution listed above. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of all GFDL-only works[edit]

What is the status on this? Do we need to delete all GFDL-only works uploaded since 2008-11-01 under our current policy? I'd support an EDP, but I don't see a lot of discussion on proposals of that kind so I don't think we're likely to get any kind of consensus on such a change in the near future.

If there are no further comments on this discussion I think I will move this forward as follows: first, a proposal for EDP on the Scriptorium; and if there is no consensus or no discussion I will just delete all works tagged GFDL-only that were uploaded since 2008. Here is a list of all the works tagged GFDL:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting such works makes no sense to me. As does making GFDL an "incompatible" license. We should basically allow licenses similar to Wikimedia Commons (which has no formal EDP yet allows them anyways, despite being subject to the same terms of use). I think conflating the terms of use (which make sense for collaborative texts, and talk page stuff, etc.) into which external works we can import does not make much sense. I guess locally-created translations are the main issue -- we may need to disallow GFDL-only for those, as other editors should be allowed to tweak them, etc. Weren't existing GFDL translations changed to a combo GFDL/CC-BY-SA at some point? If not, can we still make that change? If not, I would grandfather those, and bar GFDL-only on new translations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I am no expert on the situation, but my understanding is as follows.
  • Works uploaded before the cutoff (2008-11-01) under GFDL-only are ok; they did not get changed to GFDL/CC-BY-SA but they are exempt from the Terms of Use so they can stay. This includes both imported works and original content by editors.
  • Original works created by editors after the cutoff (including local translations) cannot be GFDL-only, so that doesn't matter.
  • The terms of use explicitly say that importing text "available only under GFDL is not permissible." This is not conflating the terms of use, this is a direct quote. The terms have separate articles for text and non-text so Commons is not really relevant.
The list above is all the texts that are GFDL, but many of them may be pre-cutoff or dual-licensed and therefore hostable. I didn't have time to comb through the list.
The whole discussion (to my understanding) boils down to this: the terms of use forbid GFDL-only imported text since a certain date, and we have GFDL-only imported text since that certain date, so how can we address the situation? Two options only have been suggested: an EDP, or deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Anything in the Translation: namespace is user created, so I don't understand why you listed them. Are you proposing to delete those or not? They make up a considerable proportion of your list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, the list is a list of all GFDL works. It contains, but is not limited to, the post-2008 GFDL-only works that User:John Vandenberg proposed for deletion. If you want to go through the list and remove ones that do not meet the post-2008 GFDL-only criteria, go for it; I don't have time to do so. The list doesn't matter. I don't care about the list. What matters is that there is a significant corpus of post-2008 GFDL-only works on this site, and that in the absence of discussion all such works will need to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, if we don't even know which items are being considered, then I say postpone any discussion or decision until we have a specific list to be considered. These could simply be incorrectly tagged; they could be pre-2008; they could be original user-generated translations; they could be anything. As it stands, we don't know the status of these items so it is premature to even discuss them, much less delete them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Such a list is in progress at Category:GFDL-only. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. But, Commons is subject to the same terms of use, but allows GFDL-only media, if that is the license. That includes PDFs, etc. It really does not make sense to bar those. The terms of use are more for collaborative texts, where multiple editors need to work on them, and create original content. For the primary texts of Wikisource, that is not the case -- editors simply duplicate already-existing text so there is no new copyright added, so there should be no licensing concerns. To bar GFDL-only texts because of the terms of use does not make sense to me -- those are not written by contributors to this site. They are still "free" and we had always allowed them. Wikipedia does not bar the use of GFDL-only images being used in the articles -- just on the collaborative text because that is really the only way collaborative text can work, legally. The Translation: namespace probably does come under those collaborative concerns, but for original works which we are simply copying, I don't think the terms of use were targeted at those, and I'm not sure I see any problem with them. If we should create an EDP to make that explicit, fine, although I don't think that hosting free works necessarily requires one. I simply think that applying the terms of use to imported texts does not make any sense -- that should just be a "free work" requirement, like it has always been. The change in the primary licensing should not have affected the core content that we can host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I agree it doesn't make sense. But the terms that forbid GFDL-only explicitly apply to imported text (section 7c), and not for collaborative original content nor for non-text media. The most sensible approach would be to fix the terms of use to be more sensible, but EDP would be more feasible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Yes, but importing text on Wikipedia and just about any other project comes with the assumption that it will be modified from there. Wikisource is still different. I don't think Commons would have any issues uploading GFDL PDFs, if they were a source document. But an EDP would be fine, even if not exactly what they were meant for (they are normally an exemption to allow use of non-free works in certain circumstances, which we are not trying to do). I guess we are trying to get around a terms of use that some people think apply to this case, when I don't think it was at all intended, and I don't think WMF would have an issue with anyways. They would be the only ones to enforce the terms, so if they do actually consider this a problem and they want to ask for deletion, then OK, but short of that I don't see the need to delete them. They are not a copyright issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all mainspace works in Category:GFDL and compiled the following list of GFDL-only works added since 2008-11-01:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Tolstoy on Pascal[edit]

The work seems to be part of the Complete Works of Tolstoy/Tolstoi/Tolstoï (see work talk page), though the volume is not metioned. I have been unable to determine which vol. though it states that it was published after 1923, though not whether it is a first or later edition. It would be great if someone caould work out which vol the work came. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference for the text "Pascal" is: "The complete works of Lyof N. Tolstoï : Patriotism, Slavery of our times, General articles, New York: Carlton House, 1928, pages 382-390, - "copyright 1899, Thomas Y. Crowell & Co; copyright 1927, Nathan Haskell Dole; published 1928, Thomas Y Crowell; "Printed in the United States of America". There is no mention of any "volume" although indicated as "The complete works...". It is written on the cover of the blue book "Tolstoi's essays on life" (with the golden image of a man like the thinker by Rodin on a red background) and "World's great thinkers". AB, Qc unsigned comment by (talk) .
The copyright of 1927 is the relevant component for Dole's translations who died 1935. We need to know whether the work's copyright was renewed or not, as being copyright after 1923 makes it a different beast. The translations of Crowell that were published prior to 1923 with the 1899 works are in the public domain, it is the post 1899 works in the edition that have the other date. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see
  • the work here though cannot see a full text from here
  • search for renewals of Dole for Tolsto~ which doesn't show any particular result, though shows other works by Dole of Tolstoi's
billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I can also see a copy of the work at Hathi Trust. If we think that it is not copyright, a copy would be useful so that the this chapter of the work can be moved in situ. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If this remark from the preface (p. viii) may help; "The translations in the present volume are due to several hands, but a large number of them have been made by Mr. Aylmer Maude of England who was a personal friend of Count Tostoï's and has been for years in immediate touch with his industrial, religious, and social activities. Many of the articles thus furnished have been from sources otherwise unattainable. N.D.H." - Thus Alymer Maude could be the translator of "Pascal" (1906). AB, Qc

Qc huh. Aylmer Maude doesnt appear to have any renewals in his name either, but wouldnt his post-1923 copyrights in the UK have been extended in the US due to URAA. Brain hurts. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Garassyz, Bitarap, Türkmenistanyn Döwlet Gimni[edit]

This ancient page has no license, either for the original work or the translation. The translation may have come from Wikipedia, but that doesn't absolve us from correctly attributing its source, and Turkmenistan is a new nation, so the original might well still be under copyright. (There's also some questionable recent changes which should be checked if this is kept.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the original lyrics were by w:Saparmurat Niyazov, who had references to himself in there, which were changed by the government after he died (along with deleting a couple verses and reordering others it looks like).[1] If the lyrics are part of national law, then {{PD-EdictGov}} might cover the original. Not sure where the translation came from though. I do find hits in this 2005 book... apparently published by the "State Pub. Service Turkmenistan". If that was an official translation of a "law".... PD-EdictGov might cover that too ;-) It's just snippet view, but the translation appears to be almost identical to the translation of the original we have on Wikipedia (though with a couple of differences... Turkmenistan, light and song of soul, Long live and prosper for ever and ever instead of Forever, the light and song of the soul, Long live and prosper, Turkmenistan!. That last one seems to point to a slightly different translation, though the rest seems there word for word. Also appear to have some hits in this 2001 book (snippet view which doesn't even show the snippets), and those also seem to be the same as in this 2005 book (preview mode). The translation would not appear to be directly from Wikipedia though -- seems like they are all slight modifications of some common source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like the w:Ruhnama is the source of the translation; it's definitely an official translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC) says "Please note that permission has been granted for all the anthems on this site to be used by anyone for any purpose (except the handful marked © to various individuals, noted above) for either educational non profit or commercial for profit." and they have a little more about CC at . On they have the same Turkmen lyrics and English translation, and has "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." in the footer. Personally I feel that is (barely) enough evidence, at least for the translations, if we do list them and their licensing information. If it isnt correct, we have someone to blame. ;-) However we can go one better, and open a line of communication with them (contact names, and form available also from the faq), to find out the finer copyright details of the various anthems they have. Could be a good joint project -- they have lots of scans, which we can import (not necessarily to English Wikisource) and validate the transcriptions that they have on their site (not that I expect they have any errors), but it seems like they would actually be appreciative of another set of eyes, and we can also build short descriptions for them to add to their website. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've sent them an email; a copy of it is at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/National anthems/email
There has been no response to a few attempts to reach them... I'm inclined to take their word for it when it comes to licensing, and make a note of it on the talk page in the textinfo template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
And, having said that, I just got a response: "I apologize about the delay; we will have to look at each translation ans find out. But it would be something we would love to do, since David and myself are Wikimedians." We might be able to get some decent coverage of national anthems on this site after all :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
After further discussion with them, they do not have records of the source of their translations; I don't think their website can be used as evidence of license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
commons:Template:PD-TM-exempt says that state symbols and sign like anthem is not an object of copyright, but how about translation licensing?--Jusjih (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu[edit]

Raised a concern here 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)

US-specific notices in non-US copyright tags[edit]

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

1922 non-US renewed works[edit]

In working through some copyright renewals, I've noticed stuff like

THE ENCHANTED APRIL, by the author of "Elizabeth and her German garden" [i. e. Mary Annette Beauchamp Russell, countess] © 5Jan23, (pub. abroad 31Oct22, AI-4698), A696165. R56839, 6Jan50, Mrs. Corwin M. Butterworth (C), Mrs. Eustace Graves (C) & H. B. Arnim (C)

This seems to imply that that this is treated as a 1923 work, instead of as a 1922 work, despite the fact it was published in 1922. Is this right?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

for us, the US edition may be in copyright, so we probably ensure we have the British edition if we think that it is problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure the 28-year term would start from the foreign publication (if it was in English). From the Compendium II:
1311 Works first published abroad in English. Under the Act of 1909, as amended, ad interim copyright was a short-term copyright available to English-language books and periodicals which were manufactured and first published abroad. It was secured by registration within six months of first publication abroad and lasted for a maximum of five years from the date of publication. Copyright could be extended to the full 28-year term if a U.S. edition was manufactured and published within five years after first publication abroad, and if a claim to copyright in the U.S. edition was also registered.
1311.01 Both editions registered. If ad interim and full-term registrations were both made within the proper time limits, renewal registration may be made to cover both editions.
1311.03 Separate applications. Where separate applications are submitted, each application must be filed within the 28th calendar year of the term of copyright in the particular edition it covers. The Copyright Office will annotate each application to refer to the other edition.
1311.03(a) Late application. If the renewal application is received more than 28 years from the end of the year of first publication abroad, registration will be refused because the application was received too late. The applicant may submit a new application covering the U.S. edition alone, if that edition contained new matter, and if the application was submitted during the renewal period applicable to the new matter.
1311.05 Foreign edition never registered. If the foreign edition of a work was never registered ad interim, but the later U.S. edition was registered, the Copyright Office will accept a renewal application covering the U.S. edition. In the case of an application received during the 28th year measured from the end of the year of foreign publication, a cautionary letter will be sent stating that the registration is of doubtful validity. In the case of an application received more than 28 years from the end of the year of foreign publication, the cautionary letter will explain that renewal registration covers only the new matter, if any, in the U.S. edition. A new matter statement will not be required on the renewal application, unless a new matter statement appeared on the original application.
So, it would seem the 28-year clock and copyright renewal was counted from the date of foreign publication, although if there was new matter in the U.S. edition, then of course that new matter would use the later date. That entry looks like both the ad interim and U.S. versions were registered and validly renewed; but any matter in the foreign edition should be PD, and only new matter in the U.S. edition would still be under copyright (for another year and a half). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov[edit]

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)

Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.pdf[edit]

Note: the text in question is now at Page:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu/239Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I've omitted text here Page:Niger_Delta_Ecosystems-_the_ERA_Handbook,_1998.pdf/239 because it was a third party document quoted in full, and currently Wikisource doesn't allow fair use.

However, I'd like a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any info on the quoted document that would indicate its copyright status? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really, the accompanying text seems to imply it was an internal company document (and thus not necessarily formally published originally.).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If it wasn't published previously, I think that means that this copy is the original publication, and so (and I could be wrong) the copyright of the whole work applies to this quoted work too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Setne Khamwas and Naneferkaptah[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted both--Jusjih (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This recently added work appears to be from scanned text at A search shoes that M. Lichtheim published those works in the 1970s, so unless we can demonstrate that the works are clearly out of copyright, it would appear that we cannot host the translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a couple minor things pre-1963 that weren't renewed, but most of her publications seem post-1963. The Archive scan seems to be missing title page and verso, but the 2006 publication has a proper copyright notice for 1980, and the Archive copy doesn't look like a work that would have forgotten the copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Setne Khamwas and Si-Osire is by the same author and was added by the same contributor. It is likely in a similar copyright situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Index:Wikipedia – The Missing Manual.pdf[edit]

No evidence of GFDL release in document. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition the source listed seems to be have no indication of what the license on ANY of the e-books it's holds are.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The work was originally published with copyright notice in 2008. As mentioned in w:Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, On January 26, 2009, O'Reilly announced that the content of the book was being released under a free license compatible with Wikipedia. This license can be seen from the TOC at w:Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Hrishikes (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a ticket number at OTRS for that release? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Press release linked from Commons, Thanks. Now pagelisted. Project for December anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

See related discussions: WS:PD#Wikipedia- The Missing Manual and #Deletion of all GFDL-only worksBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: This item was specifically donated to Wikipedia for hosting and further editing by WP contributors. In view of the further editing by WP proviso, the license can be deemed to have extended to CC. In such a scenario, is not Wikisource automatically entitled to host it? Hrishikes (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
That's the question. If the Manual has been edited to create further editions, does that retroactively alter the license on the first edition, which is what we are seeking to host? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
But the first edition was donated by the publishers for WP editing, isn't it? See the press release. Accordingly, the license of the first edition got altered, so that WP could host and edit it. Hrishikes (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the work may have been OTRS-ed to allow it to be hosted despite not being eligible for relicensing under CC; see w:Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 7#Help:Wikipedia: The Missing ManualBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've posted a request for follow-up at w:Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
... and it was archived without any response. Figures. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hymni i Flamurit[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted as copyrighted translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
National anthem of Albania. Earliest online version of the translation I can find is [2] which predates our and Wikipedia's copy, and says it is from a bulletin published in the US. No indication of freedom from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities[edit]

Has been tagged as "not published" and "not licensed" for a while. The source website has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom. This mailing list discussion suggests that the copyright holders "are likely going to put it under CC BY, though this will take a while"... but in the meantime the work should be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:Handbook of Nature Study.djvu[edit]

Not a 1911 edition as Internet Archive claimed, but 1939 revision, by un-named writers. Bringing it here so further comment before the work is progressed too far. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not the 1911 original but, a 1939 revison for which a renewal record was found (R404916) -, Scans nominated for deletion at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunate error caused mainly by the uploader relying on the IA metadata, which gave 1911 as the date. Has been discussed on IRC, result of which is the Divj file has now deleted from commons and the correct 1911 scan has been sourced (I have not seen it yet) by Zppix, who also uploaded this one. Some cleanup needed as work was started on it. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted at Commons at ShakespeareFan00 request Platonides (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete as uploader, i have the 1911 oringinal now! Please delete to make way! Zppix (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't need to be deleted. Just upload to Commons with the same name and then refresh the Index: and things will be fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There was however the issue of the Page:'s, currently marked for speedy. These would need to be deleted to allow a clean start on a different edition.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Once the file has been uploaded and the Index refreshed, then I will deal with those pages appropriately. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)