Wikisource:Copyright discussions

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'

Nigerian Works

There's a discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Template:PD-NigeriaGov requesting a template for government works which are public domain in Nigeria. There ended being a discussion about whether the following works were public domain or not.

• 100 Facts About Nigeria (start transcription)
• A March of Progress - Collected Speeches of His Excellency Lt. General Olusegun Obasanjo (transcription project)
• Ibos in a United Nigeria (transcription project)

I would like to ask the opinion of those at Copyright Discussions about this. ToxicPea (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment There are more than three recent works that may fall under this discussion. The listed three are merely representation of recent additions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act, 2022 says

"(3) Without prejudice to section 6 of the Interpretation Act, the repeal of the enactment specified in subsection (1), shall not affect anything doneunder the enactment."

This seems to imply that the act is not retroactive, but section 107(6) says

"This Act applies in relation to works made before the commencement of this Act as it applies in relation to works made after the commencement of this Act."

which would imply that the act is retroactive.

Does a work which has copyright protection under the 2004 act but not under the 2022 act lose its copyright protection? ToxicPea (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally does the Nigerian government retain copyright over works in the US which have had their copyright expired in Nigeria? ToxicPea (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Having looked at Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, it seems to me these works could be kept per Section 3(b) of the act stating: “The following shall not be eligible for copyright … (b) official texts of a legislative or administrative nature as well as any official translations, except their compilations.”. However, to include such works in our scope we need to have a proper licence tag that would reflect this, but the related discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Template:PD-NigeriaGov seems to have stalled. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

But would such works also be PD in the US ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean that pre-2022 Nigerian legislation could be uploaded on commons? For example the file File:Anti-Torture Act, 2017.pdf which could not be uploaded to commons until 2088 prior to commencement of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022. Could this file now be moved to commons? ToxicPea (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

According to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Nigeria - "The 2022 act is apparently not retroactive". If that is correct, only works after March 2023 are covered by the new rules. -- Beardo (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Maxwell Court Documents

The User @TE(æ)A,ea. has raised a deletion request at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Maxwell_court_documents over potential copyvio. I would like to get the opinion of the people here at Copyright discussions over whether there is merit to the request. ToxicPea (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Very late to the discussion, but US law is very clear. Transcripts of US district and bankruptcy court trials and hearings are considered works of the US Government regardless of who produces the transcript. As such, these transcripts are automatically in the public domain. See Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol. 6 § 560, which cites 17 USC § 101, § 105, and § 506(c), and several federal court cases. Jkudlick (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Australia Gazette/2025/Election Petition (Bradfield) – S100-2025

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept, released under CC-BY-4.0

While this was published in the Gazette, a government organ, it was written by a private party—Gisele Kapterian, who lost the election. The publication is not an official endorsement of it, either, as she withdrew her case before any decision was rendered. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The Terms of Use of the Federal Register of Legislation states that content unless "otherwise noted", is CC BY 4.0. I could not find the copyright noted otherwise for the petition, so I interpreted the CC BY licence as applying to the petition. An example of where the copyright has been noted otherwise on the Federal Register of Legislation is the Macquarie Lightstation Heritage Management Plan 2020.

Election petitions must be published in the Gazette in accordance with r 30.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004, so I do not think endorsement one way or the other is a factor here. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it really looks it has been released under CC BY 4.0. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Slee v. Erhard, Plaintiff's Motion for Sanction of Judgment by Default Pursuant to Rule 37 (1990)

A brief authored by a private (non-government) attorney. It postdates the last cutoff date for non-copyrightability. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of Finland

No source, no translation licence. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

According to the edit history, the original source was http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf - that link no longer works but it can be found on wayback machine. -- Beardo (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This translation appears to be from the Finnish Government which makes it public domain in the US. Therefore  Keep though the file should be uploaded to commons so the work can be scan backed. ToxicPea (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

First Poem of Amy Lowell

Cited to be from The Lowells and Their Seven Worlds (1946). This is the earliest work I could find the poem was published within; these results show much later publications only. The Lowells and Their Seven Worlds had a renewed copyright, so this poem may be under copyright until 2042, unfortunately. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)