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'


PD-EdictGov New Start[edit]

See Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-EdictGov Jeepday (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Bump. See [1]. CopyVio? --Elvey (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Bumpety bump. Sentencing_Statement_of_Tarek_Mehanna:CopyVio?--Elvey (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-EdictGov}} is kept by consensus, is there any use leaving this discussion open? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Not in my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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).[2] 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) 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
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)

Category:U.S.A. Presidential Debates and Category:U.S.A. Vice-Presidential Debates[edit]

Would debate responses be protected by copyright in the United States? I imagine the questions themselves are drafted beforehand and meet the requirement that they be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, but the responses are probably a mix of prepared material of unknown fixity and impromptu expression. Weird gray area. Prosody (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is, whether these were published in a "tangible" medium, that can be "touched". Irrespective of any pre-existing (but unpublished) draft, a speech or verbal debate, by definition, is published "verbally", therefore intangible. You cannot touch spoken words. Therefore these are not copyrightable, IMO. If these were later published in a written form, or as a CD, then that would come under copyright. Hrishikes (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
These matters have had airings before, and there is debate that should be referenced in the archived. People may also be better referencing expert opinion pages rather than stating personal opinions, eg. see sDrewth 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To note that there have again been contributions in this area and I have deleted these contributions and left a note. To see the previous discussions of the community on this subject matter please look at results of the search presidential prefix:Wikisource:Copyright discussionsbillinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete if no one proves their licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:Lamb - Hydrodynamics, 6th edition, 1945.djvu[edit]

This is a reprint of a 1932 edition, The British Author died in 1934, would have expired in the UK in 2004, which post-dates URAA. However I am willing to accept no US renewal, if someone checks.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that US renewal doesn't matter for works published outside the USA that were still copyrighted in the source country in 1996. It would have to satisfy {{PD-1996}} in that case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The original 6th Edition ( 1932) would have now expired in the UK in any event.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as 1923-77 with no evidence that it was published in the US means 95 years, so out of copyright in 2027 in US. If it was published in the US we would need to demonstrate that there was a copy that was not compliant with US copyright law at the time. In lieu of that ... nada. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright in author's home country[edit]

I can't seem to figure out if this is listed in any of the help documents (and do we really need so many help documents on Copyright? Seriously. Not sure how we expect anyone to find any information in them.)

The basic question is: if I have a work that I know to be PD-US, but that is not PD in the home country of its' authors/translators, can it be hosted on Commons or must it be hosted locally on enWS?

Long form:

I'm interested in bringing in Max Weber's "From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology." It's on IA here: Weber died in 1920, and the translators died in 1978 and 1962. It was published for the first time -- in the US -- in 1946, with a copyright notice. A copyright renewal would have had to happen in 1974, then, which I could not find and think, therefore that this is now PD in the US (which would explain why IA has it.)

However I think it's still copyright in Germany since they use death + 70 (or maybe 50.) This would mean that since translator Hans Heinrich Gerth died in 1978, it's still copyright in Germany until 2048 (or maybe 2028.) If this is the case, where it's PD-US but not PD-Germany, can the work be hosted on Commons? Or does it have to live on enWS itself? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's not PD in the author's home country, then it won't be hosted on Commons, and must instead be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If it was first published in the US, does not that make it a US work, regardless of the nationality of its translator? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that it was first published in the US. It may have been published simultaneously, or within the same year, in West Germany, but I wouldn't know how to check. All I know is that the copyright date is 1946, and it was published in the US in 1946. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
For Commons upload, German copyright will apply for the original; for the translation, if the original is PD, then US copyright if first published in US; both US and German copyright if first published in Germany. So, that aspect needs to be checked. No non-US publication is mentioned on the title page and colophon; copyright is held by US publishers, so you can upload it in Commons under template PD-US-not renewed. For checking, you can use this page and subsequent pages. Seems that the 1946 edition was US-only and the London edition was published in 1947. Hrishikes (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If Weber died in 1920 and Germany is 70 pma, then the original is PD in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Copyright enquiry relates to the cover art and title illustration attributed to Roy Krenkel, Jr. , w:Roy Gerald Krenkel give death as 1983?

The original portion by Rice Burroughs should be fine :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Roy Krenkel who died in 1983 (Wikipedia link is actually w:Roy Krenkel) was born in 1918. The printing of Pellucidar is 1915. I think it's a different Krenkel. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless the year on the Index and File at Commons (1915) for Pellucidar is wrong. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Bingo, that's it. It's the 1962 printing: [3]. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Was it renewed (in respect of the Krenkel contribution)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
RE511880 says "Ill.: Mahlon Blaine.", new material illustration, and date 25Oct62. That's for , though. This is probably good, unless it was used in another book that was renewed or was separately renewed as copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) mentions a map. This edition has a map. Think you can dig up an older edition?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's this map: File:Pellucidar-map.gif -- then it's the original from the 1915 first edition. (Where, here, "first edition" refers to the 4-part serial printing in All-Story Weekly; the first printed edition was in 1923.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I've included that image on Page:Pellucidar.djvu/4, which you can compare to the image on the page; they're clearly the same.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So that's not accurate; I've replaced Pellucidar-map.gif with the version from the book. No copyrightable difference I can tell.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Have you checked for renewals of Roy Krenkel Jr. or the publisher? When would 1962 material be renewable? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Works published in 1962 would have been renewed in 1990 (plus or minus a year). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
And no sign of Pellucidar art by a Roy Krenkel at ; Symbol keep vote.svg KeepBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of court submissions[edit]

A court submission (not transcribed here) has been challenged at Commons on the license of {{PD-USGov}}. It is one that we need to which we need to pay attention and look to how this impacts us and how such works are licensed, and whether we should even host court submissions. I am wondering whether the re-publication if undertaken has been more based on fair use, rather than anything else. If it is fair use, then that has not been considered within scope.

While the work is not here, there are other such similar works here and we need to how we may wish to manage such cases— billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it's clearly not {{PD-USGov}} since it's not a work of the Federal government. I've usually used {{PD-EdictGov}} on non-Supreme Court decisions since that particular license includes the phrase "judicial opinions". (Of course, {{PD-EdictGov}} comes with its own license-specific can-of-worms, but we won't mention that now.) We may want to consider a specific PD-CourtDecision tag?
From my understanding of this blog post -- -- all judicial opinions are not copyrightable in the United States, and the blog makes a good case for state statutes as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not a court decision, it is a submission to the court. In this case legal representation of the plaintiff. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Once submitted to the court, it becomes part of the public record. Or, at least, that was my understanding of the process .... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That is the point of this exercise. While it may become a public record, and available as fair use, what part of the law, or legal decision, abstains it from copyright provisions sufficiently for us to reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this not the same issue we had a few years ago with Green Eggs and Ham in the public record due to being read during a parliamentary debate? If I recall correctly, the consensus for that was no, a copyrighted work does not become PD in such cases (or else there was no consensus either way), so it seems to be that such would be the case here as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
According to this article, a court found that republishing court submissions was fair use, but acknowledged that they were copyrighted. So I think that's our answer; fair use isn't allowed on WS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2017 (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)

General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century[edit]

1851 work where the translation was published in 1923 as claimed at the source and by the contributor. As the US cut off is the end of 1922 for free from copyright, it does not seem that we can host the work unless we can demonstrate that the work did not meet US copyright requirements. It would seem that the translation would not come of copyright until 95 years after publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As the contributor who posted it, I'll admit the error of trusting too much in the source's assertion that the work was in the public domain. In the hour and a half or so since the copyright issue was raised, I did make a rudimentary search for some indication as to whether or not Freedom Press renewed the copyright after the first 28 years was up, but the fact that I came up empty-handed in that search does not in itself suggest that the copyright was never renewed. To be on the safe side, we could delete it for now, and then it could be put back up when we're more certain that the copyright has actually expired. It's not like it would be that terribly long of a wait.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If the translator is John Beverley Robinson, and this old Wikipedia article is right about him being an American who died in 1923, then I don't see a renewal, and it would have expired in 1993 in the UK, meaning the URAA would not have resurrected the copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, if published in the UK or US. This also says he died in 1923. There was definitely an architect by that name who died in 1923, who wrote at least one book, and this seems to be the same person. If published in the UK, it would have expired there in 1974, and not been restored in 1996 (as it was also beyond 70pma), thus there is no URAA restoration. And unless Mr. Robinson was actually living in the UK, it would not have been eligible for the URAA anyways (I think there needed to be at least one rightsholder who was either a national or domiciliary of a non-U.S. country -- an American simply publishing a work in a foreign country would not have been eligible for restoration). Thus, it seems like the work would have needed to be renewed. If no U.S. renewal, then it would seem to be OK as PD-US-not_renewed (and PD-old-80 for users in other countries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If the copyright was renewed, Stanford doesn't have the renewal in its catalog, so I'm tending to suspect that it was never renewed (especially considering the knowledge that Robinson had been dead for 28 years when it came time to renew the copyright).—MNTRT2009 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 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)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, translation is not "official" and copyright has yet to expire in USA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
National anthem of Slovenia, 7th verse of a longer poem. The original is fine, but the 1954 "official" translation by Janko Lavrin, despite being published on the Slovenian Goverment website, doesn't appear to have any claim to being EdictGov, and is therefore probably copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-EdictGov}} also applies to official translations, technically. From the Compendium III: As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. 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. That was usually more for translations of the law itself, and unsure if it would apply to a song translation, but it might. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: thank you for clarifying that point; I have often wondered whether official translations count under {{PD-EdictGov}}. However, in this case, I put "official" in quotation marks, because although the government is publishing the translation of that verse on their website, there is no indication that Lavrin was a "government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties", and furthermore he translated the whole poem and not only the single verse listed on the government website. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure on that score. But if it was published as an official text, then it would be explicitly excluded from Slovene copyright law, section 9:
Article 9.
(1) Copyright protection shall not be afforded to:
1. ideas, principles, discoveries;
2. official legislative, administrative and judicial texts;
3. folk literary and artistic creations.
(2) Translations of texts mentioned under item 2 of the foregoing paragraph shall enjoy copyright protection, unless they are published as official texts.
That would line up with PD-EdictGov as well. To your point though, I don't think this became the national anthem until the late 1980s or early 1990s, and the translation existed in 1954 so it was a private copyright to begin with. As far as I can tell, it was published in a book called "Selection of Poems: Francè Prešeren" edited by William Kleesmann Matthews and ‎Anton Slodnjak, and published by Blackwell in the UK in 1954.[4] I also see a copy printed in a volume of the Christian Democratic News Service, either in 1954 or 1955, which was a New York publication. Both of those have a different last line ("From ours and other good hearts here") than the version you linked, so Lavrin may have tweaked his translation in later publications. The anthem verse is identical though. That book may have been published in other countries, but it's quite possible then the country of origin is the UK. But if the US publication was "simultaneous" (within 30 days), then it would not have been eligible for URAA restoration. (I can't find a registration or renewal for the Blackwell volume.) Seems most likely that the U.S. publication lifted it from the UK one, but it does not seem to be credited -- just the translator. But, Google is only giving very limited search abilities there, so it's easy to miss stuff, and I can't tell which volume or date that it was (the Google book is a compilation of multiple volumes). If Matthews/Slodnjak were fishing around for publishers separately, then it could be an independent publication -- the question is the dates of both. Matthews was born in Estonia but grew up in England, and was working in the UK in 1954, and Slodnjak was in Slovenia. Just not sure. It does seem to have been quoted widely -- phrases from the anthem verse have hits in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s on Google Books from before it was the official anthem. I guess I'd probably lean delete, though much would depend on the date of that New York publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Searching for "March 1956" and "April "1956" shows that the March issue is pp. 177 through 192, and "The Toast" is on p. 189. So we can safely say that the UK version predates the US version by over a year. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Works of Author:Carson Cistulli ?[edit]

Looking at some of the works listed at the author page, and following links, I haven't seen evidence that any of the works are in the public domain. The author talk page makes some claims, though I don't see evidence. I would appreciate if someone could double check and see if I am missing the obvious. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The works of the author

have no evidence that they are in the public domain. So these works and the author page should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Also, previous discussion on this topic found no evidence to corroborate the claim of PD or CC license.Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that the about page at the New Enthusiast website has a contact address. When I have some time, I may drop an email to ask about copyright of the works (unless someone beats me to it). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: did you have a chance to contact them on this issue? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Imam Ali's First Sermon in His Peak of Eloquence[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Translation by Syed Mohammad Askari Jafrey, first published in Pakistan in 1960 [5]. Pakistan is 50 pma, translator to my knowledge is still living. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Works of Author:Muhammad Yunus[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted (speedied); no consensus to delete author page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It would seem that both these works are copyright unless we can find evidence that they are not

The first we should be able to link to the relevant page at — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've speedied them, as both of them are available on their publishers' websites with explicit copyright notices [6], [7]. Also vote Symbol delete vote.svg Delete on the author. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: If the works are freely available on the web to legally view, then I believe that the author page should link to the works. No reason not to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I thought that it was our usual policy to delete author pages if they have no hostable works. There are lots of authors who have copyrighted content published on the web. I don't see how this one is different. However, I don't really care either way, so I change my vote to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It is an ancient discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-11#Author pages and your comments display the ambiguity of where we are and how things have changed in the intervening years that more work is coming on limited release by authors. The deletion of author pages came about as we had random author pages of people who were not authors, and we were not going to get works added. We have avoided giving guidance on the matter, and maybe that is right; or maybe it is wrong. I do think that there is probably value in shaking out this tablecloth and looking at the picnic set again. Are we only showing local works, or are we also able to show works hosted elsewhere. Probably better to be had in WS:S.— billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position: I think that linking to nonfree works is a separate issue to keeping of nonfree authors. We had a number of discussions recently where authors who had no hostable content were deleted, regardless of the availability of their works. However, I don't see a problem with linking from an existing author page to nonfree content hosted elsewhere. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Letter from Ali Khan, Majid Khan's father[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
A letter reproduced from a publication. No evidence that the work has been released to the publid domain or freely licensed, though I can understand that it may be displayed as fair use at some places, that is not our criteria. @Geo Swan:billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Final March for Reform[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Created by "Organizing for America", a project of the Democratic National Committee. I doubt that this counts as PD-USGov, but I'm not sure. The documents themselves are from but that leads to a web of redirects. I found some terms of service for a related site it claims copyright to all content of "the Web site operated by OFA and other OFA Web sites which link to these Site Terms" and licenses it for "informational, non-commercial and personal use only". The documents themselves contain no licensing information. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Liao-Fan's Four Lessons[edit]

Translation from an audio book by "The Education Foundation of Liao-Fan's Four Lessons". A copy issued by them is here. License statement in the copy says "This book is not to be sold. FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION", which is more restrictive than our copyright policy allows. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ar Hyd y Nos (Sugars)[edit]

Translation of Ar Hyd y Nos (All Through the Night) by J. Mark Sugars, professor at Californa State University Long Beach[8], still living. No indication of free license on this page or anywhere else on the Internet that I could find. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, Declaration of Dr. David R. Legates in support of defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment[edit]

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Peter Watson, Plaintiff's Final Response to Government's Motion for Summary Judgment
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Peter Watson, Second Amended Complaint
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, Plaintiff's Final Response to Government's Motion for Summary Judgement
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, Plaintiff's motion to strike declarations attached to defendants' reply memorandum and portions of defendants' motion for summary judgment and reply memorandum

None of these files are products of the US government, nor are they rulings of a court. As such, they're still copyright of their authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

These are all documents submitted to a court case? I think this depends on the outcome of the discussion above, #Copyright status of court submissions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree and I think unlikely to be free of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as public domain or should we delete it here ?[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted; congressional record does not invalidated copyright, and fair use is explicitly prohibited on enWS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
[[File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf|thumb|8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|100px]]

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was added here to Wikisource.

I had originally added the file to Wikimedia Commons.

They nominated it for deletion there and they don't think it is public domain, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf.

Is public testimony in an open public hearing read out loud as such before the United States Congress public domain?

If so, should we keep the document in written format here at Wikisource , and if not, should we delete it from Wikisource?

Thanks for your helpful advice ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I am no expert on the subject. Based on previous discussions, this is my understanding: everything is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is written down unless there is an explicit release. If this document was first put into writing by US government officials, it's public domain as {{PD-USGov}}. On the other hand, if it was first put into writing by James Comey, it is copyright unless explicitly released into the public domain by Comey. Based on your statement on Commons, "He read the document out loud", suggests he wrote it down beforehand. Therefore, my !vote is Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
… With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record.

  • about how people can reproduce except where copyright restrictions prevail. If you want the statements fully in the public domain, you will need to get then released under a free license or direction that they are public domain.

    Noting arguments about who pays for a website, and that it is the US government are no exclusion from lawful protection. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep prepared remarks of private citizens is their copyright, but keep here as "fair use." the transcript is on and c-span, encyclopedic Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    As per WS:COPY, Wikisource does not do fair use. To change that rule would be non-trivial and probably require discussion with the WMF.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    but we could adopt an EDP as per Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy_.28EDP.29. the WMF has given us the option, and this is the perfect case. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    The proposal did not get much commentary or support at the time. So what may become policy in the future may allow undeletion at a time in the future. However, it is not policy at this time so I don't believe that allows retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • yes, at what point will the community be appalled enough to adopt the policy? might want to make a list of items deleted at commons that are ripe to be posted. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment file deleted at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Early in the morning I gazed at the eastern skies ...[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Withdrawn. Thanks for answering.--Jusjih (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
US license?--Jusjih (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Any chance of no-notice or not-renewed? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It was first published in The Last of the Trunk Och Brev I Urval (2007) and The Collected Letters of Robert E. Howard Volume One: 1923-1929 (2007), which means it's {{PD-old-US}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much anything that appeared in The Last of the Trunk Och Brev I Urval will be PD-old-US, as it was unpublished material legally published in Sweden in 2007 to acquire a European publication copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Book of the West (vol. 2).djvu[edit]

In checking the illustration credits I found a possible problem with this, namely F.D. Bedford is listed who seems to be Francis Donkin Bedford (1864–1954), meaning their artwork isn't out of copyright in the UK.

The book itself IS PD-US though, it just can't be hosted at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly suggest checking Volume 1 which was transcribed previously as well.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you're probably right, so this work should be moved to local. I don't see Bedford cited in Vol. 1, but all the illustrators should be checked. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)