Wikisource:Copyright discussions
(Redirected from Wikisource:CV)
Latest comment: 4 days ago by MarkLSteadman in topic Index:A contribution to computer typesetting techniques - tables of coordinates for Hershey's repertory of occidental type fonts and graphic symbols (IA contributiontoco424wolc).pdf
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives. |
Index:The ideal lovibond color system for C I E standard illuminants A and C shown in three colorimetric systems (IA ideallovibondcol716haup).pdf
[edit]Derived from data in a previous paper whose author was not a Federal employee, This is a derived work. The prvevious paper has been proposed for deletion at Commons, on the same basis. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you mean to label these as WS:CV instead? MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing found in the CCE for this paper. (The issue here is the contribution of a specific Non-Federal author, in the earlier paper) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn both of the Commons DR's, having not been able to locate this in either of 3 relevant catalog systems. This was clearly a US publication, and as far as I can tell there isn't a notice on it. This may make the concern that prompted my concern above an issue that can be handled in a different way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- However, not all NBS/NIST datasets are under PD-US-Gov terms. So this discussion should remain open. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Started in good faith, but I can't actually find anything in the Document to say it's actually crown copyright, rather than merely just having the HMSO imprint. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: I have moved these 4 discussions to WS:CV from WS:PD. Copyright issues should be discussed here. — Alien 3
3 3 12:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)- It doesn't need to claim anything in the document. The 1911 act defined it as: "where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department," This states "House of Commons Document", and the foreword (by the House of Commons Librarian, Strathearn Gordon) says "done by Dr. John A. Woods when he was attached to the Library of the House of Commons." This is similar to US government works, we don't require a copyright statement that it is a US government work for it to be a US government work, if it is published by a US government employee by a US government agency / department etc.
Keep. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to claim anything in the document. The 1911 act defined it as: "where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department," This states "House of Commons Document", and the foreword (by the House of Commons Librarian, Strathearn Gordon) says "done by Dr. John A. Woods when he was attached to the Library of the House of Commons." This is similar to US government works, we don't require a copyright statement that it is a US government work for it to be a US government work, if it is published by a US government employee by a US government agency / department etc.
- There is a parallel discussion concerning the File: at Commons BTW ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Sourced from https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Syria-constitution1950.txt, no sign of the translation being in the public domain. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Source seems to be https://archive.org/details/constitutionsele0000unse/page/401 (published in 1953, 1947 ed. registration A10614, 1953 registration A89061). I don't see evidence for renewal on a quick check. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Copypasted from https://www.royalhouseofromaniahohenzollern-sigmaringen.com/constitution-1866, there is no sign of the English translation being in the public domain. Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sourced from https://www.royalhouseofromaniahohenzollern-sigmaringen.com/text-constitution-of-1923, there is no sign of the English translation being in the public domain. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sourced from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20832714, but no sign of the English translation being in the public domain again. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Which is actually sourced from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25814482 which lists as a source a publication in Ankara, Turkey by Sadik Balkan, Ahmet E. Uysal, and Kemal H. Karpal. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- This can be viewed here: https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1961constitution.htm which lists permission granted by email. Without being able to see the email, I don't know what terms are applied.
Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding this. It seems that the email permitted it just to be reproduced at the site, it most probably did not release it into public domain or under some specific free licence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- This can be viewed here: https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1961constitution.htm which lists permission granted by email. Without being able to see the email, I don't know what terms are applied.
And companion Index:Journal of the Optical Society of America, volume 30, number 12.pdf.
I am placing these here because, I recently asked both Hathi and Google to review the access to other related volumes on the basis of the non-renewal. However the response was negative as to opening access to this, suggesting that there is additional information about the status of these volumes which the Online Books page of the Catalog of Copyright Entries does not record.
As far as could be determined when these were provided in good faith, there was no copyright, All three of the major scan archives now seem to apparently think there are reasons why post 1929 volumes of this Journal cannot be made generally available (IA as for example restricted this volume despite the non renewal.) Perhaps someone would like to definitively determine if this was in fact renewed, as I'd be extremely annoyed if I wasted my time on the basis of incomplete metadata at the source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/jopticalsocamerica says that pre-1950 volumes should be safe. I don't think there's any perfect way, but I wouldn't worry about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and that was the data alongside checks of the Catalog of Copyright Entries scans at Google/IA, at initial upload, I also can't find records to the 1930-1950 volumes on copyright.gov. However, that doesn't preclude a 'late' renewal post 1978, the record of which hasn't yet shown up in the online databases. Hmm...
- ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- There should be no post-1978 renewal of a 1943 work. It's 28 years, and no matter how you cut the edges, that's too much of a difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- You are also more than welcome to approach the major archive sites, with a carefully worded comment about the haphazzard nature of some of their curation practices! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've now flagged the entire Issue which was transcribed here (and in error marked as no-notice, when this clearly should have marked as non-renewal. ) as copyvio.
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Spacing of the Munsell Colors
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Trichromatic Analysis
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12/Analysis_of_the_Munsell_Color_System
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12/History_of_the_Munsell_Color_System
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12/Editorial_Comment
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Author Index
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30
Perhaps a contributor more experienced in the nuances would be willing to make a determination of the actual status, and provide direct scans of the original printed issues and volume in content, which IA has now restricted, despite originally uploading it in good faith.
Sometimes it's simply not worth the effort, when there are countless other clearly public domain works from the 19th century and earlier that Wikisource still doesn't have. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Parallel disccusions for the Commons files :
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I still can't find the renewal(s), I can't even at this stage find the original registrations. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Conclusion : "Agressive" publisher , as I've gone through the Virtual Card catalog with numerous permutations. Perhaps some here would like to clean up this train-wreck? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The linked source was published in 1960. That means the introductory text is likely copyrighted unless it came from an original publication. Presumably the text was published in English in a Communist International publication in the 1920s but it would be good to check. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I found it https://archive.org/details/per_daily-worker_1924-09-24_2_159/mode/1up MoAiSang (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not the same text, exactly. Probably another translation of a same text. Examples:
| ws page | that article |
|---|---|
| The British Government, led by the Labour Party | The British Government, a government put into power by a Labour Party |
| Before the eyes of the world and the international revolutionary workers' movement | Before the eyes of the whole world and in opposition to the desires of the international revolutionary labour movement |
- — Alien 3
3 3 10:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)- Updated with the version of Daily Worker MoAiSang (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well then, given that new current version of our text was extracted from a 1924 newspaper, which is {{PD-US}}, that's a Keep for me. — Alien 3
3 3 15:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)- Keep as my concerns have been addressed. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well then, given that new current version of our text was extracted from a 1924 newspaper, which is {{PD-US}}, that's a
- Updated with the version of Daily Worker MoAiSang (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- — Alien 3
Parallel discussion: Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A_Phonetical_Study_of_the_Eskimo_Language_by_William_Thalbitzer.pdf This originates from a danish orginal, the author Danish died in 1958. It may well be PD-US in case the file should be localised, as it shouldn't be on Commons, given the status of the Danish original. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. This is certainly in the public domain in the United States (published 1904), so it should be moved here if it is deleted elsewhere. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Checking back on something I no longer have confidence in the meta-data IA provided, or in this not having been renewed.
Doing some recent searches, I've found a near identical work attributed through to an edition in 1968 (reprinted in 1981 according to Hathi). (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL14242686M/Pattern_drafting_and_grading) for which a copyright exists in the relevant records (the earliest noted edition is 1938.) Given this I no longer have confidence in this not having been renewed although I can't find any renewals in respect of a 1961 or earlier editions, in the Catalog of Copyright Entries. The IA version include supplements which are undated.
Frustrating, but the solution is to delete and stat again with a scan that has clear provenance, which the IA one doesn't, given that it, it names a Micheal Rohr as author, which cannot be determined from the work itself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Given that this edition is from 1961, and that there is no renewal, then it can be presumed that it is in the public domain. I also don’t think that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to doubt the veracity of the scan, either, and while I’m at it, no copyright notice which applies to the whole of the work (just one notice, dated 1961, on a supplemental part). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I checked for the earlier late 30's versions, with no renewal showing up in the searches I did. Worldcat also mentions a revised 1950 (presumably a version that was revised prior to the 1961 edition), I've been unable to locate. If the earlier versions were not in copyright either.. then given the fahsion and costume changes between the late 30's and early 60's, there is potential scope for including the earlier editions, assuming we can 'prove' the licensing.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Checked 1960,1961,1962 for an original registration. By author surname and title, and hadn't found it yet. Perhaps you can do parallel searches to check I'm not missing something?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This was WILL have to be deleted - Per comments here https://forum.seamly.io/t/a-1961-pattern-system-from-archive-org/7896/16. If the original holder does want to keep the legacy available, they would have to fully the VTRS or donation procedures that are in place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Why? I haven't been involved in checking this one, but it shouldn't matter how pushy the author is, if it's out of copyright in the US, it's out of the copyright in the US. The WMF is pretty good at blocking invalid DMCA claims.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to do an exhaustive search of all the relevant catalogs, I am not stopping you, but based on the current information, I have no confidence in this being under a 'free' license, or expired. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
This is now REALLY confusing - Page:Pattern Drafting And Grading (1961).djvu/153 says 1961, but mentions two items for which I can only find entries for editions in 1967 and 1968 respectively. (If those mentioned items are earlier editions of those that were seemingly not registered, there's no easy to show that. This to me suggests this might be a scan of a later edition, and the "title" (or other pages) were not updated from a 1961 or intermediate printing, with the "Supplments" having other dates from the main work.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)- ShakespeareFan00: I agree with Prosfilaes: there is no evidence of potential copyright, so there is no need to search through the CCE. As for the two works mentioned, the Women’s and Misses’ book was published before 1957, and Children’s Garment Design at least by 1951; I don’t know where you got your 1960s dates from, but those two publications, at least, predate 1961. Even if this was a post-1961 reprint, it wouldn’t matter in terms of additional copyrights because there is no post-1961 copyright notice (and a notice was required at the time). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The 1967 and 1968 works were tile I found in the CCE/Card Catalog, and I'll be generous, and perhaps consider I am confused by simillar sounding titles or later editions. So in summary:
- 1961 work with visble notice
- No apparent renewal found,
- Possibly later editions being revised all the way to a 1981 printing (according to Hathi) I'm going to let the discussion run on the basis of the forum thread linked.
- I'm going to leave this discussion open, even if the consensus forming, seems to be different from mine. Commenters here might also want to consider the parallel discussion at Commons about the File: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I won't tag the file, but this lists a second author J.T. Iley that I've not been able to identify, in terms of date. The concern is that their contribution means the status of this is undetermined, and I could not narrow it down further with FreeBMD. At the very least the file should be made local as it pre-dates 1930. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also the 1900 date, looks like an IA generic date, as the actual one couldn't be identified. This cannot be later than the late 1920's, given Vincent's lifetime though, so just scrapes in as a pre 1930 work. (So could be hosted locally if Commons deleted it.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The file is File:Bengal Fairy Tales.djvu, File is currently on Commons, However, the author (British) died in 1963, meaning it perhaps should be hosted locally, unless this can be treated as US editon, it is pre 1930 so does this qualify as 'simultaneous' between the US and UK printings?. Hmm...
- Keep. It was simultaneously published in the United States, where it is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Simultaneous publication ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Index:The University Hymn Book.djvu The issue (and I appreciate this work was discussed previously) is that one of the contributors (Canadian) died in 1973, The cut off Canadian works (at 50 pma) is a 1972 death. Canadian terms were extended to 70pma) in 2022. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The file has already been localized, so this discussion is irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Withdrawn although I converted {{missing score}} to {{text removed}}, which solved the issue for me. You can revert if you wish, but I was being pragmatic. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Index:A contribution to computer typesetting techniques - tables of coordinates for Hershey's repertory of occidental type fonts and graphic symbols (IA contributiontoco424wolc).pdf
[edit]Files: - Index:A contribution to computer typesetting techniques - tables of coordinates for Hershey's repertory of occidental type fonts and graphic symbols (IA contributiontoco424wolc).pdf Index:FORTRAN IV enhanced character graphics (IA fortranivenhance5003wolc).pdf and related pages.
Given a specifc authors role at NIST/NBS is this actually Standard Reference Data (and thus in copyright) per the narrow exception to PD-US-Gov terms mentioned elsewhere? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Neither of these works has a copyright notice, so they are both
PD-US-no-notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I could not find anything in the CCE records either, but like to be sure I didn't miss something. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would assume that Standard Reference Data would need a copyright notice, but to quote a 1986 Usenet post, "Hershey Fonts, Part 1 of 5" by Peter Holzmann:
This distribution is made possible through the collective encouragement of the Usenet Font Consortium, a mailing list that sprang to life to get this accomplished and that will now most likely disappear into the mists of time... Thanks are especially due to Jim Hurt, who provided the packed font data for the distribution, along with a lot of other help. This file describes the Hershey Fonts in general, along with a description of the other files in this distribution and a simple re-distribution restriction. USE RESTRICTION: This distribution of the Hershey Fonts may be used by anyone for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, providing that: 1. The following acknowledgements must be distributed with the font data: - The Hershey Fonts were originally created by Dr. A. V. Hershey while working at the U. S. National Bureau of Standards. - The format of the Font data in this distribution was originally created by James Hurt Cognition, Inc. 900 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 (mit-eddie!ci-dandelion!hurt) 2. The font data in this distribution may be converted into any other format *EXCEPT* the format distributed by the U.S. NTIS (which organization holds the rights to the distribution and use of the font data in that particular format). Not that anybody would really *want* to use their format... each point is described in eight bytes as "xxx yyy:", where xxx and yyy are the coordinate values as ASCII numbers. *PLEASE* be reassured: The legal implications of NTIS' attempt to control a particular form of the Hershey Fonts *are* troubling. HOWEVER: We have been endlessly and repeatedly assured by NTIS that they do not care what we do with our version of the font data, they do not want to know about it, they understand that we are distributing this information all over the world, etc etc etc... but because it isn't in their *exact* distribution format, they just don't care!!! So go ahead and use the data with a clear conscience! (If you feel bad about it, take a smaller deduction for something on your taxes next week...) The Hershey Fonts: - are a set of more than 2000 glyph (symbol) descriptions in vector ( <x,y> point-to-point ) format - can be grouped as almost 20 'occidental' (english, greek, cyrillic) fonts, 3 or more 'oriental' (Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana) fonts, and a few hundred miscellaneous symbols (mathematical, musical, cartographic, etc etc) - are suitable for typographic quality output on a vector device (such as a plotter) when used at an appropriate scale. - were digitized by Dr. A. V. Hershey while working for the U.S. Government National Bureau of Standards (NBS). - are in the public domain, with a few caveats: - They are available from NTIS (National Technical Info. Service) in a computer-readable from which is *not* in the public domain. This format is described in a hardcopy publication "Tables of Coordinates for Hershey's Repertory of Occidental Type Fonts and Graphic Symbols" available from NTIS for less than $20 US (phone number +1 703 487 4763). - NTIS does not care about and doesn't want to know about what happens to Hershey Font data that is not distributed in their exact format. - This distribution is not in the NTIS format, and thus is only subject to the simple restriction described at the top of this file. Hard Copy samples of the Hershey Fonts are best obtained by purchasing the book described above from NTIS. It contains a sample of all of the Occidental symbols (but none of the Oriental symbols).
- So even though it doesn't actually say it in the file, it's not unrestricted. Delete, given that the problematic section cannot be detached from the core document. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00, @Prosfilaes: Keep. Standard Reference Data does need a copyright notice. Per [1], it says
the Secretary may secure copyright and renewal thereof on behalf of the United States as author or proprietor in all or any part of any standard reference data
. This implies that copyright is not assigned by default, but reserved. This agrees with the NIST help page on this topic. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -uselesscontributions} 20:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Matrix: So what to do? Clearly in 1986, NIST(Or NTIS) did not want 'free' distribution of their specific format(and the specfic NTIS computer 'tape') (which the print publication would seem to transcribe in print form.). That 1986 caveat should be respected, after all I would understand why they NIST (NBS formerly) or NIIS, as a scientific publisher in this instance, would not want to have to deal with transcriptions that are inaccurate at best, or worse maliciously altered, an issue of dataset integrity, which for a scientific or standards agency is entirely justified. Blanking the tables, or using an alternative updated format, would not at least to me be an accurate transcription, and thus defeats the rationale for the documents inclusion irrespective of the actual status. Voting 'Delete on that basis.
(The same argument also applies in relation to a previous discussion above concerning a different dataset.)
And to be "really sure" - Index:Calligraphy for computers (Hershey, 1967) (IA DTIC AD0662398).djvu should be rexamined as well, given that the above discussion even calls into question the status of the original. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also : Index:NBS Technical Note 11176 (1983) (IAutilityprogramsf1176dick).djvu (from 1983). which although an NBS publication, is post 1978 and the the need to have outright notices. It does however still have the agency imprints. Delete all 4 due to the confused status. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's a shame to delete <rant tone="polite">but this is why datasets (including government held one's) need clearly stated licenses, instead of the general "It's 'Federal' so don't stress presumption." </rant>
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I may reconsider, if a solution avoiding the 'problem' format can be found.. Otherwise I still hold to a Delete position. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is pretty clear that none of these are Standard Reference Data:
- 1. Per the definition until 2017: "The term `standard reference data' means quantitative information, related to a measurable physical or chemical property of a substance or system of substances of known composition and structure" Computer fonts are removed from the "physical or chemical property of a substance"
- 2 If it is was SRD it would have been published in the National Standard Reference Data System, e.g. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NSRDS/nbsnsrds2.pdf or labeled as SRD
- 3. The number of SRD is quite low, 116 per https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1223.pdf in 2018, with 1 in the Information Technology Lab and 1 in in the Engineering Lab.
- MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would think that the only thing that might be of concern is Appendix A, of Index:A contribution to computer typesetting techniques - tables of coordinates for Hershey's repertory of occidental type fonts and graphic symbols (IA contributiontoco424wolc).pdf in that exact format, per the usenet thread above. Note that https://github.com/usnistgov/dataplot/tree/master for example contains these fonts in Fortran format. Given it is an Appendix, I think it should be relatively straightforward to strip out. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- In it's current form this has to go, (along with the Commons file, If someone then substitutes a redacted version, fair enough. I don't have the editing tools for PDF to do this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- MarkLSteadman, ShakespeareFan00: I have the ability to redact the appendix, but I don’t see why it’s necessary. Isn’t the appendix a part of the whole technical note? Why would it have a separate copyright status? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Here is a simple version with it simply removed entirely: File:A contribution to computer typesetting techniques tables of coordinates for Hershey's repertory of occidental type fonts and graphic symbols - redacted.pdf. My take:
- 1. Per the original question, none of these works are Standard Reference Data and should be Keep absent some other concern raised.
- 2. The only other concern was raised specifically about the single case outlined above, which only covers Appendix A. It sounds like there might be some claim based on https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB263925.xhtml by Robert Thompson which does mention the Office of Standard Reference Data. So only this file might have been published as Standard Reference Data and hence the licensing claim in this particular format. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would think that the only thing that might be of concern is Appendix A, of Index:A contribution to computer typesetting techniques - tables of coordinates for Hershey's repertory of occidental type fonts and graphic symbols (IA contributiontoco424wolc).pdf in that exact format, per the usenet thread above. Note that https://github.com/usnistgov/dataplot/tree/master for example contains these fonts in Fortran format. Given it is an Appendix, I think it should be relatively straightforward to strip out. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @MarkLSteadman:
Move pages (the safe ones anyway to the redacted version. It solves the issue, irrespective of the actual status. of Appendix A.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)? A redacted version exists, The pages (other than Appendix A) can be migrated. Once migrated the original Index and Appendix A pages can be deleted, which resolves this, and this discussion can be concluded. (Aside, It would be nice if someone was able to find a 'free' version of the Hershey fonts, to replace the infile diagrams with SVG longer term.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)- ShakespeareFan00: I’m still not sure what the issue with the Hershey font is: after all, fonts can’t be copyrighted, so there should be no protection on them at all. I also oppose redacting and replacing the file unless there is consensus that there is some restriction on Appendix A. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- (tldr summary) - The concern is that Appendix A, is in content and presentation thereof in a format over which rights were apparently asserted in 1986.( The format potentially being that also on a master tape, representing a digital version, of the data.). Where there is a reasonable doubt as to something being 'free', Wikisource has generally redacted or removed portions of documents it can't definitively pin down the status of.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t want to rely on a 1985 Usenet post which rather vaguely describes what rights are being asserted, but in any case that appears to be a non-copyright usage restriction, which we do not honor, so this should be kept. In any case, it is not at all clear what rights even could be asserted. They seem to claim a right in the specific format in which the Hershey font was stored. This could imply a patent as to that specific method of storage, but that wouldn’t prevent people from using the results of that method (the results, in this case, being the Hershey font). There can’t be a copyright interest, either, because the font itself can’t be copyrighted and the underlying data going to produce that font isn’t copyrightable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, my understanding of the issue is that https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB263925.xhtml is both standard reference data (and hence has the copyrightable exemption by NIST) and computer software implementing the font (and hence copyrightable as computer software rather than a typeface). If so Appendix A would be a reproduction of the copyrighted software, per the link: "The first file contains tables of coordinates which make it possible to generate 1377 different alphabetic and graphic characters on either COM devices or on digital plotters. ... The tables are those published in NTIS documentation PB-251 845 entitled: 'A Contribution to Computer Typesetting Techniques: Tables of Coordinates for Hershey's Repertory of Occidental Type Fonts and Graphic Symbols.'" That argument would align with the Usenet post description, without relying on it. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t want to rely on a 1985 Usenet post which rather vaguely describes what rights are being asserted, but in any case that appears to be a non-copyright usage restriction, which we do not honor, so this should be kept. In any case, it is not at all clear what rights even could be asserted. They seem to claim a right in the specific format in which the Hershey font was stored. This could imply a patent as to that specific method of storage, but that wouldn’t prevent people from using the results of that method (the results, in this case, being the Hershey font). There can’t be a copyright interest, either, because the font itself can’t be copyrighted and the underlying data going to produce that font isn’t copyrightable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- By that logic, I say all the Appendix are potential problem (given that they are ultimately output using the software), and thus there isn't anything left in the file that can be usefully or reasonably included. Delete all Index, pages and the other items listed. Commons:COM:PCP applies. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- No, the output isn't. The content on Wikisource isn't copyrighted because I am typing it on Firefox (copyrighted) and it is hosted on Linux (copyrighted), by wiki software (copyrighted) etc. In fact by defintion if it is generated by software, it cannot be copyrighted because it lacks human authorship. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- And as mentioned typefaces as typefaces aren't copyrighted. We don't say a government work is copyrighted because it uses say Times New Roman (invented in the UK in 1931) from Word etc. A PDF of a page of text set Word in Times New Roman isn't copyrighted by Monotype, Adobe, and Microsoft even if it merely repeats a type specimen, A, B, C, etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- No, the output isn't. The content on Wikisource isn't copyrighted because I am typing it on Firefox (copyrighted) and it is hosted on Linux (copyrighted), by wiki software (copyrighted) etc. In fact by defintion if it is generated by software, it cannot be copyrighted because it lacks human authorship. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- By that logic, I say all the Appendix are potential problem (given that they are ultimately output using the software), and thus there isn't anything left in the file that can be usefully or reasonably included. Delete all Index, pages and the other items listed. Commons:COM:PCP applies. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm... I no longer understand enough to continue in this discussion. Perhaps other can thrash out what if anything is actually the problem? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe this helps. When Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes, he received copyright on both the exact words in the book and the "character" of Sherlock Holmes, which covers the idea or usage. If I then use the character of Sherlock Holmes in my own story, I would infringe on Doyle's copyright (while it lasts). Now since Holmes is in the PD, I can add an illustration of Holmes as an appendix and secure copyright on that. That doesn't mean I can sue anyone else who decides to illustrate Holmes, only if there version infringes on my particular image. That might contain it's own distinctive ideas (e.g. the look of his cap and pipe, his mustache, etc). If someone copies those elements their might by trouble.
- If I write a computer program to generate a typeface, it's more limited, I only get copyright on the exact program code, I don't get a copyright on the "idea". The idea is that there is enough creative decision making in the manual writing of a particular program to merit copyrightable. For a typeface, I can't copyright a particular shape of r and claim it is "mine." If someone uses that program to make a page of text, I don't get a copyright on the image of the page produced because it contains my "special r." And if someone then decides to write their own program to reproduce the text, they can do so. There isn't anything magic about the fact that a computer program is runnable. The only derived works would be derived from the program code, nothing else.
- So in this situation, the question is whether someone secured copyright on that particular program before it was published as an appendix (and hence they lost the copyright as publication without notice). Having that copyright is completely irrelevant to anything else besides that particular program. There is good reason to be skeptical that NIST actual bothered to go through the process, but it is conceivable the bothered to publish the software with proper copyright (under the SRD exemption).
- MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for that example, and explanation. How to 'find' the specifc computer software copyright (if it exists though.) Hmm..
- Hmm... I no longer understand enough to continue in this discussion. Perhaps other can thrash out what if anything is actually the problem? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Digital data can be subject to copyright, and where I am based font's can be copyright, but this is US work.. hmm.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Adding this as I no longer have confidence in this being under the licence concerned, the concern is the attached computer program. Transcribed in good faith based on information available to me at the time. Subsequent discussions have suggested that this might not be unrestricted as thought. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I don’t see why the computer programs would be under a different license than the technical note itself, given that there is no copyright notice anywhere in the document. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Computer code can have a different copyright from the containing work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- ShakespeareFan00: It is true, of course, that it can have a different copyright; but why would this code in this document have a different copyright? There is no evidence of it here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep While true that the program (like anything else incorporated as an appendix) could have a pre-existing copyright from a different publication, there is no indication that is the case in this situation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
This is marked PD-CN - but is it also public domain in the US ? (I am not marking this as copyvio at the moment, waiting for comments). -- Beardo (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like a pretty clear {{PD-EdictGov}} to me? — Alien 3
3 3 07:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have seen many of these around; I have always interpreted the language as a general prohibition on the enforcement of the copyright on behalf of the Chinese government, although I suppose we don’t have VRT documentation of that. In any case, it is not
PD-EdictGov—this publication originates in the executive, whilePD-EdictGovonly covers the judicial and the legislative. It is analogous toPD-USGov, but because this is not a U.S. government document, 17 U.S.C. 105 doesn’t apply. So, in theory, China could enforce its copyright in this report in the United States, but not in China. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)