Wikisource:Copyright discussions

From Wikisource
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)

Index:The Aryans - A Study of Indo-European Origins.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, simultaneous US publication and not renewed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Australian author working in Britan (died 1957). So despite not being renewed, this one might possibly have been revieved by URAA. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the title page, I would assume that Alfred A. Knopf published it with in 30 days of the UK publication; someone could certainly check the original copyright registrations. If so, it was a work first published in the US for the purposes of US copyright law, and therefore wouldn't be revived by the URAA. Someone should probably move it from Commons, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on a quick search of Stanford and the USCO by last name, no renewals of this specific work are evident...other works by Gordon Childe pop up, but not this one. Also, a quick check of the copies of the 1926 and 1927 registers at the Internet Archive don't show an initial registration. Revent (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(not to claim this was an authoritative search, a manual check of the renewals for the early-to-mid 1950's would be in order. Revent (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Two questions:
  1. How would you find the exact date of publication? Without an exact date of publication, you won't be able to tell whether the first United States publication was within 30 days or not.
  2. Where does the 30-day rule come from? c:Template:PD-URAA-Simul says that the answer is given at w:WP:NUSC, but I can't find it there. 17 U.S.C. § 104 A only talks about countries other than the United States and only about publication in multiple countries on the same day, and doesn't mention any 30-day rule. The Berne Convention states that in the event that a work was published in more than one country within 30 days, the source country is the country with the shortest term, and "no renewal" is not a copyright term according to the French supreme court.[2] If a copyright term is defined in the same way in the United States, it would seem that you would instead have to determine whether the full US term of 95 years from publication is shorter than the British term of life+70 years, and restore the copyright if life+70 years is shorter. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: The Berne Convention, article 3, subsection 4... "A work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication."
17 USC 101.. "a work is a “United States work” only if—(1) in the case of a published work, the work is first published— (A) in the United States; (B) simultaneously in the United States and another treaty party or parties, whose law grants a term of copyright protection that is the same as or longer than the term provided in the United States; (C) simultaneously in the United States and a foreign nation that is not a treaty party;"
Also, 17 USC 104 (b)(6) "... For purposes of paragraph (2), a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party within 30 days after publication in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States or such treaty party, as the case may be." Revent (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As an even better explanation, after a bit of searching... from "ESTATE OF Gunter S. ELKAN v. HASBRO, INC., and its wholly owned subsidiary Milton Bradley Company (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2007)"... "In order for a foreign copyright to restore an expired United States copyright, a published work must have been published first in the foreign country and "not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country." Id. § 104A(h)(6)(D)" Revent (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
According to 17 USC 101, the source country depends on the length of the copyright term: USA is only the source country if USA has the shortest term. If the other country has a shorter term, then that country is the source country instead. This means that U.S. courts have to find out whether life+70 is shorter than publication+95 years in a lot of situations where less than 25 years have passed since the first publication of the work and the author still is alive. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but it is a point that would seem to be a bit moot in most cases, since the US does not, and has never had, a 'rule of the shorter term'... if the US is not the source country simply because the other country is a treaty partner with a shorter term, through 'bilateral recognition' the work is still entitled to the longer term in the United States under 104(b)(2), which allows for a foreign work published in a treaty partner to be protected under the US terms. If such works then lost US protection (because of a failure to renew, for example) they would normally then be eligible works under the URAA. Revent (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually no, the U.S. does not use the definitions from the Berne Convention. The "source country" is the country of first publication (even if 1 day before another country); if even that is a tie then the source country is the one "with the greatest contacts to the work" (more of a common-sense definition). The URAA "source country" is analogous to the Berne "country of origin" but there are some differences, particularly in the simultaneous publication case. However, the URAA does take advantage of the 30-day publication window to claim such works as U.S. works, and those are not subject to URAA restoration (since they do not qualify as a "restored work" in the first place) so there is no need to identify a source country. This is the definition of restored work in 17 USC 104A(h)(6)(D). The "source country" is defined in 17 USC 104A(h)(8), but that only comes into play if something is a restored work to start with. There is no definition of source country in 17 USC 101, and the length of the copyright term elsewhere is irrelevant for U.S. status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Not certain if you were disagreeing with Stefan, or with me... I think it was with him, as regarding the 'source country' being dependent on the term of copyright... my point was that in such a case which country was the 'source' in such a case would be irrelevant... even if the US was considered the source in that situation (and you are correct that it would not) it would not make any effective difference, since it would get the US term anyhow through bilateral recognition.... a work can be treated as a "US work" even if the US would not be the "source country" (horrible terms, tbh). I was admittedly a bit vague about the difference between a work that has the US as the 'source country' and a 'US work' above.
And yes, it should be understood that 17 USC 104(c) explicitly states that no US copyright is dependent on the terms of the Berne Convention, but only on provisions of US law. My starting with the Berne Convention '30 day' rule was just a starting point, there are actually multiple '30 day rules', that all come down to 'simultaneous publication'. Revent (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was responding to Stefan, sorry. His statement looks to be quite wrong (which is strange for him). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a fairly clear case of published in both country essentially simultaneously according to OCLC 4562992all editions, front matter, etc., so it is a US work, and it was not renewed in the US making it PD US, but it may not be PD in the UK due to both author and editor and UK publishing, but that is a problem for Commons to care about...? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

*comment -- if deleting it, please move/copy it to ? it's PD as PMA-50 there. Lx 121 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, based on the discussion above it looks like there is no reason to consider it copyvio in the US. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted aready —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Per Commons notice and note in work - "(C) World Health Organization 1981

Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. For rights of reproduction or translation of WHO publications, in part or in toto, application should be made to the Office of Publications, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. The World Health Organization welcomes such applications."

Nothing a request for OTRS wouldn't resolve though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00:, Given this is a widely used media file across Wikimedia projects, and doesnt have a high impact on English Wikisource, and we have ignored it for over a year!, Commons would be a better spot for a centralised discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No progress since 2016, Scans Nominated for DR at Commons, per copyright note on second page of scans ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Now Deleted at Commons, And despite the comment in the DR, no one at commons thought to let people here know :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 8 February 2017

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).[3] 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: [4]. --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)

Hino Nacional do Brasil[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, moving translation: ns and attributing as user generated translation — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The translations are not cited, and I could find no info about the translator. They might be original translations by the uploader, or not, but if not they are unlikely to be PD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. The translation added by the anonymous contributor in 2005 (column "Free Translation") may very well be an original translation, since any other reference to the same lyrics on the internet is a later publication. But without the miraculous reappearance from the same IP user, I don't know how we'd ever be able to prove such a thing.
The other column ("a more literal translation") is almost the same one currently on the Norwegian Wikipedia article for this work, and its addition there significantly predates its addition here (eg see the original noWS article from 2004-12-20). We may be able to ask a contributor there for the provenance of this translation. (There's a few minor differences -- cry instead of clamor -- but otherwise appears to be the same. Other translations use significantly different structures/word choices.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Stick it into Translation ns? If we cannot find identical copy on the web it is very possible to be a community translation, as it is that type of work. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think it's reasonable to assume that an otherwise unidentified translation is user-created, I'm willing to take that position also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone volunteering to move to Translation: ns and convert the header template? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'll take care of it when I also do National Anthem of the Soviet Union. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Letter to Editor of the Time and Life Magazine (5 October 1956)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
article published in magazine in 1956, author died 1990s. No evidence of further release to public domain. I have not found evidence that we can reproduce without a license. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. If proved to be copyrighted by the magazine, we will check if it may be kept here or Canadial Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jusjih (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Gender at Azerbaijan[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This would appear to be a copy-paste of the 2003 book "Gender in Azerbaijan" (Google Books) by Zumrud Kulizade (or something like that, transcriptions vary and I don't know Azerbaijani). No evidence of PD or a suitable license release by the author. It was published by the United Nations Population Fund, but I don't see how it could meet the criteria for Template:PD-UN. BethNaught (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete both and coyright their website — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per above. Clearly copyvio and {{PD-UN}} doesn't apply. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jusjih (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Legislation-CAGov, a.k.a. documents hosted under the auspices of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Templates updated to indicate PD in USA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this is not a proposal for deletion, or at least I hope not—there are a lot of works hosted here under this legislation, and it would be a shame for them to be removed. However, I notice that the order requires as a condition of reproduction that "due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced", which to my understanding does not allow for derivative works. If I am correct, then this may not be compatible with our copyright policy, and I think a discussion on this matter is warranted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Note, I am putting this forward under the assumption that this category is broader than {{PD-EdictGov}} allows for. I could be wrong about this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting conceptually as we would always look to reproduce faithfully, though we would say derivatives can be generated, though derivatives can be described as a omnibus, or components, rather than accurate reproduction. I am comfortable stipulating in our licence tag that derivatives should still represent the condition of reproduction. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
That could be reasonable, though not in the spirit of our policy's "without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)", though reproduction accuracy could be added to the list of acceptable limitations in the copyright policy.
More concerning to me is the fact that, since there is no explicit release to make derivative works, the phrasing of the reproduction order in my mind does not only restrict any such derivative works, but actually removes any implied license to create any in the first place.
An acceptable solution to my thinking would be to treat this license as purely informational, but to require that works so licensed also be licensed under an acceptable license such as {{PD-EdictGov}}, which most of them would be regardless. This approach is already used with some licenses such as {{PD-old-50}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: For the assistance of the community, could you please provide a page and anchor link to the statement that you cite. I personally don't want to get caught up in an overarching concept where a more nuanced set of statements is appropriate. The licences have developed over time, and numbers of governments approach to licensing. It is not WMF's position that should be our approach, so let us explore it appropriately. To crack the vernacular, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is the line from our copyright policy, describing the content we may host: "Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)." Emphasis mine, with the explicit allowances being specifically "simple attribution" and "transmission of freedoms".
More explicitly, from our licensing compatibility page: "Non-derivative works are prohibited on Wikisource, whose license allows end-users and redistributors to make derivative works from all Wikisource content." This page also lists past discussions that establish this consensus.
I actually do want to get caught up in overarching concept: I want to make sure that all works that are hosted under any license that only allow reproduction are actually hostable. I think a nuanced set of statements could address the overarching concept sufficiently, by either clarifying that these licenses aren't non-derivative, or by taking simple and appropriate steps to ensure that such works are also hosted under a different, compatible license, or through some other means I haven't thought of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this accuracy clause any different from the one in the crown wavier license which proceeded {{OGL3}}? A big ask would of course be for Wikimedia Canada to lobby for OGL implementation on Canadian Govt (Crown) works, but I don't see that happening very quickly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
{{OGL3}} explicitly allows anyone to "adapt the Information" and only requires attribution, neither of which is true of {{Legislation-CAGov}}. I don't know whether we have any works based on a comparable crown waiver that preceded {{OGL3}}, but if we do then my concern would apply to those as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is what we do considered a derivative work? We're presenting the original text and graphics without annotation. I think an annotated work -- like Constitution Act, 1867 (annotated) -- would be derivative, but reproducing the unadulterated content appears to be in line with the spirit of the law. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
What we do is not derivative, but our copyright policy mandates that all hosted works are licensed such that anyone can create derivative works if they so wish. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Oooooh. I understand now.
So, firstly, I think anything that we're hosting that's annotated by enWS users is clearly against the original license since that's a derivative work. There's a few works like that, like the Constitution Act I linked previously. And secondly, I do believe that our own CC-By-SA 3.0 license, which allows for derivatives works, is incompatible since we'd be releasing our hosted work with a more permissive license than the original.
From my non-lawyer perspective, I think you're correct in that the license is incompatible with our own licensing. But I think we may want to confirm with a real lawyer? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten about annotations (and user translations too) which are as you say derivative works created by WS users. Good catch. To your other comment: CC-BY-SA applies only to our contributions, and not to third-party content such as hosted works. Third-party content is available under whatever compatible license that it was already under: PD, CC, or whatever. (It would be nice if we had a real lawyer to confirm all our discussions; it would make curating WS:CV so much easier!) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any further thoughts on this? I'm currently thinking to add a US-specific phrase inside {{Legislation-CAGov}} that states: "This work is in the public domain in the U.S. 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.""

I'd be curious whether it's even possible for a work to meet {{Legislation-CAGov}} but not {{PD-EdictGov}}. The former includes "consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada" and "reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals"; do those count as "edicts of government" under US law? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Further note: {{PD-INGov}} appears to have the same problem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In PD-INGov, (section 52-1-r, Indian Copyright Act) derivatives are not prohibited (except when the Govt. is selling a parallel version), condition being that a disclaimer be put up that the version is not authorised by the Govt. Hrishikes (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
52-1-r appears to be talking about translations. I think the relevant section is 52-1-q, which makes no mention of a disclaimer. But I could be wrong, it's kind of hard to read Indian Copyright Law with how it's formatted. I think {{PD-INGov}} is fine. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Section 52-1-q permits "reproduction" and "publication" of certain works; 52-1-r permits "translation" of works; neither appears to permit other modification of works. It may be fine, but I think that it's unlikley for INGov to be fine and CAGov to be not fine at the same time. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Derivatives like annotated versions are allowed for INGov material; please see the court judgements cited by Mahitgar at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Problematic work Indian Copyright Law Hrishikes (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: This article linked by Mahitgar states "The judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority is exempted from copyright protection." This sentence itself, if it is part of Indian copyright law, is enough to make such judgments and orders hostable. In that case, if that were the wording used in {{PD-INGov}} I would gladly concede that this license is sufficient to host the judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority. However, neither {{PD-INGov}} nor Indian copyright law appear to provide such broad copyright exemptions, nor do I see these exemptions applied to documents other than court orders and judgments. (I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that I still don't see, in the linked legislation, the freedoms required by our copyright policy. —And keep in mind, that even if {{PD-INGov}} doesn't provide a suitable license, most if not all of these works are still hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, so I'm not suggesting the removal of works that are licensed that way either.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Not that article; please go through para 6 of this landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India and this judgement, based on the earlier one. The cases were about copyright of derivative works (annotated court judgements). The court ruled that copyright of the annotation portion belonged to the editor, and this judgement was based on 52-1-q. This interpretation of the Supreme Court is therefore applicable to any item mentioned in that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Again, only applies to "The act of reproduction of any judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority" (quoted from para. 6), and mentions in passing "the very purpose of making these judgments in public domain". The other document says "The website [i.e. JUDIS] is easily accessible to all and the information available falls within the public domain." So here we have evidence that court judgments are explicitly PD, but not (necessarily) other works covered by 52(1)(q), nor does 52(1)(q) actually say they're PD. In fact, {{PD-INGov}} says the opposite: "This work still copyrighted".
Do you think {{PD-INGov}} could be updated to say that, based on court precedent, works covered by 52(1)(q) appear to be in the public domain, even though 52(1)(q) itself only gives allowance for reproduction and translation, and even then only under certain conditions? And that such documents aren't actually copytrighted after all? OR, that court judgments are explicitly PD based on court precedent, but other works covered by 52(1)(q) are copyrighted and subject to the restrictions of 52(1)(q), and therefore can only be hosted if an additional license (such as {{PD-EdictGov}}) applies? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: The judgement of a court is basically an interpretation of the law of the land. Here 52-1-q was explicitly cited in the judgement. The section itself does not discriminate between various items covered by it. So the items are not separable. All or none will apply here. If the court judgement gives a certain interpretation, it will apply to the whole section, because of lack of discrimination within that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Based in the info you've provided, I've drafted a new, more accurate version of {{PD-INGov}} at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/pd-ingov. What do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Citation should be to the original judgement at . Please read pages 36-39 for understanding the viewpoint of the court. As per my understanding, the term "public domain" as used by the court is different from the sense ascribed in wikiprojects. Basically, the court says (p. 39) that the items covered in the INGov template comes under the definition of "government work" as per section 2(k) and the Government owns the first copyright to these items as per section 17(d). But because of exemption under section 52(1)(q), these are in the public domain and derivative works are permissible. This means that copyright actually does exist; the court uses the term public domain in the sense of a CC license; but permits derivatives without any restriction. Moreover, addition of commentary and other original matter to legislative acts is permitted in 52-1-q itself; the court judgement extends it to court documents. Hrishikes (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. If the term "public domain" were used in the same sense as used in our copyright policy we'd be completely in the clear. If it's used in another sense then I don't know how we are to determine if it is compatible with our policy. The works do need to be "in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition" [namely that they] "can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation" with the only exceptions being simple attribution and transmission of freedoms. This is our policy. If, in your opinion, the words "public domain" used in the Supreme Court decision grant these necessary freedoms, then I am happy with the drafted replacement license tag and I think we can agree that this is sufficient grounds for hosting all of these works at Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Freedoms are not restricted, as far as I can see. Moreover, in practice, annotated versions of laws and judgements are regularly published by reputed publishers. So the template is OK, I think. Hrishikes (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Query, Does Indian law implement database rights? Some of what I was planning very long term was compilation of "Table of effects" where there wasn't one in the scans?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Original matter can be added while reproducing Indian laws as per section 52-1-q-ii of Indian Copyright Act. Hrishikes (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept. Only specious arguments have been advanced for deletion. If the outcome of the Commons discussion (unnecessarily started at the same time) is to delete, then we can host. However, that's looking like a SNOW keep. We don't need to spend any more time on this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here, because of an unusual situation that arose:-

These are PD-US based on the date:- Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha (Volume 2).djvu Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha (Volume 3).djvu

However, other than a publisher there's no editor/translator noted for what seems to be an early 20th century translation (or update of an earlier translation). It's not clear if this was ever published in the US (other than that the source copy on seems to have been in the archive of a US organisation.)

At best it's a UK published work, with the translators/editors uncredited, which means that it may not suitable for Commons hosting.

Despite efforts having been made in respect of this work, in good faith I am therefore requesting that's it's status is reviewed cautiously ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the text not just the KJV? I'd be more worried about the images, myself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Per IRC, despite what you might think the KJV has a 'freak' copyright, that owing to history doesn't expire in it's origin country w:King_James_Version#Copyright_status, This means that as such the KJV was technically still in copyright in 1996 in it's origin country, even though an awful lot of US publishers have overlooked this for years. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's irrelevant in the US; the KJV was published before 1923 and thus is out of copyright in the US, URAA or no. (Even the questionable Ninth Circuit decisions would push that back to only 1909.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The three volumes are now in DR's at Commons, based on an disscussion in the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
According to commons:Category:King James Bible, "The UK Copyright Act 1775 established a type of perpetual copyright under which the King James Bible was allowed to be printed only by the Royal printer and by the printers of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This provision was abolished by the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, but under transitional arrangements (Schedule I, section 13(1)) these printing rights do not fully expire until 2039. However, images of King James bible pages are allowed on Commons since electronic copies do not infringe this printing right."
In that case, the files are ok on Commons, and they are trivially ok in the US (pre-1923) so they are okay here too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Which Commons DR came to that conclusion, or was it from higher up? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
In any event the claim suggests that until 2039, it is (potentially) copyright in it's origin country, which means it can't necessarily be hosted

at Commons, if you are applying the strictest interpretation of Commons policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind simple issues being brought up here, but if you want to interpret fine details of Commons policy, go to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The other issue as raised in the Commons DR, concerns the added artwork, which although (potentially) PD-US given a 1911 date, aren't necessarily PD elsewhere, given that the artists aren't credited (elsewhere the criteria has been "reasonable research" to determine them.). If the longest term is applied, given that this is clearly a UK published edition initally, and it's not been determined when US publication occured, then it's not necessarily safe to assume the artwork is public domain until at least 120 years after it was created (which nominally given the 1911 publication date, is 2031).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:King James Bible which would affect more than just the above mentioned indexs.
At the very least, KJV stuff can't be edited by UK contributors notwithstanding any efforts made in good faith previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
As Beleg Tâl pointed out, the law doesn't restrict electronic publishing the KJV, and even if it were illegal, that's between an editor and their laws; they are more than welcome to edit it under our rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the regular approach to push boundaries on copyright violations. It seems that you are looking for reasons to delete, and some purity of site. Put your best case forward and leave it at that. If there is a problem with these files we will bring them here. They are are pre-1923, and out of copyright outside of the UK. Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deletion upheld, but alternate acceptable translation found and uploaded —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This was published at least in 1924 in Tibet: Past and Present by Author:Charles Alfred Bell who died in 1945. This is in PD, at least in PD-India, since Charles Bell was an official of British India. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a different translation than the one that was deleted. Was this translation PD in 1996 in the country in which it was first published? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
To try and answer my own question: it looks like this translation was first published in India, and India was (and is) a 60 PMA country, so the translation would not have become PD in India until 2005. Because it was copyrighted in 1996, the URAA would have made it copyright in the USA until 1945 + 95 = 2040. So unfortunately, unless I am misunderstanding something here, we won't be able to host this translation either for a good while yet. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The book by Bell was published in 1924 originally (Tibet, past & present by Charles Alfred Bell( Book ) 83 editions published between 1924 and 2012 in 5 languages and held by 753 WorldCat member libraries worldwide, see also [5]) therefore, it is PD-India and PD-UKGov. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Bell died in 1945, so his books, published in India, were copyrighted upto 2005, irrespective of publication year. Therefore, this work is copyrighted in USA and not hostable here. Hrishikes (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok for Bell, BUT, he cites a source With The Russians In Mongolia by Perry-ayscough , H.g.c. And Otter-barry, R.b., published in 1914, page 10 to 13 : [6]. This is in PD. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that book is hostable in Commons, having simultaneous pre-1923 US publication. The proper way would be to upload the whole book, instead of a few pages, and then proofread-cum-transclude. Hrishikes (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I found this book here [7]. I do not know how to transfer it. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll take care of it. Hrishikes (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: c:File:With the Russians in Mongolia.djvu -- Hrishikes (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Impressively fast @Hrishikes:. Is it possible to copy and paste the translation of Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913)? The text has an importance in its own. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: -- Done: With the Russians in Mongolia/Mongol-Tibetan Treaty. Although the book has it as a part of the Introduction, it is actually a piece between Introduction and Chapter 1. Hrishikes (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Many Thanks. As it is a translation that differs from Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913), I propose to have this page entitled With the Russians in Mongolia/Mongol-Tibetan Treaty linked to w:Treaty of friendship and alliance between the Government of Mongolia and Tibet. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
India was 50 pma until 1991 when they non-retroactively went to 60 pma. Doesn't necessarily change this one, although there have been some arguments that a drafting error in the law may have meant that existing works were not extended (although that was the intent of the 1991 change). The U.S. term is 95 years from publication, not death, so a 1924 publication should become PD in 2020 (if it was indeed restored by the URAA). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Can you please elaborate on the drafting error? The original intent of the 1992 amendment was to extend copyright of Tagore's works (see here) and copyright of Tagore's works was indeed extended by 10 years (that's why his post-1923 works are not allowed here), so was the case with other works then under copyright. Therefore, can u pse elaborate about how copyright of Bell's book was not extended due to drafting error? Hrishikes (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I did find this editorial (by a former judge) on the matter. I think the argument is that the 1957 law, in its transition section at the end, said that the *scope* of existing copyrights was changed by the new law, but the *term* of existing works would still be determined by the previous law. That law really only changed the term of photographs (went from 50 years from creation to 50 years from publication), and that section may have meant that existing photographs should still have a term based on creation. The 1956 UK copyright act made a similar change, but had a section which explicitly stated that the publication-based term of photographs is only for photographs created after the new law came in force, i.e. earlier photographs were still based on year of creation (which of course the EU retroactive changes made irrelevant in 1996). So, the India transitional section may have been a more subtle way of doing that same thing, saying that photographs created before 1958 are still based on year of creation, not publication. When the law was modified in December 1991 (by a presidential ordinance, see (here) and confirmed by a law once parliament reconvened (here, retroactive to the date of the ordinance), it simply said that the 1957 law was modified by replacing "fifty years" with "sixty years". So, the argument would be that since article 79 was not changed by the 1991/1992 amendments, and that Tagore's works were created before 1958, then his copyright term is still 50pma because that was the term under the earlier law. The editorial does cite a 1977 decision where a technicality of the earlier 1914 law (reversion of rights from an assignee to heirs at 25pma for the remaining 25 years of the term) was held to be still valid after the 1957 law, based on that clause, so the effect of the 1957 law does seem more clear. But I don't think there has been an explicit ruling after the 1991/1992 change, i.e. a ruling that the term was not extended despite the clear intention to do so, so I would be hesitant to follow that logic unless we get a court ruling to that effect. But if true, that would have some effect on the URAA restorations -- the line would be 1946 not 1941. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Many thanks for this great exposition. @Mahitgar, @Bodhisattwa: please take note. Hrishikes (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Halkin Sesi (People's Voice) Party Program[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
People's Voice Party is a defunct Turkish political party. Its program can be found on Wayback: Turkish, Google Translate. This text is a fluent English translation of the program; no attribution is given to any translator, if it is not the uploader themself. In any case, I can see nowhere where the original text could have been appropriately licensed, but because I don't know Turkish, and Google Translate can hideously mangle stuff, I wanted to check. BethNaught (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sokoli Tomari Iccha[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted per nom, can be undeleted if further data shows it to be PD —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Tagged a while ago by Jayantanth (talkcontribs), presumably as the linked source does not have a free licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have not seen this book] physically ie Grace and Mercy in Her Wild Hair : Selected Poems to the Mother Goddess 2nd Edition

by Ramprasad Sen (Author).But the traslalator is Clinton Seely (Translator), Leonard Nathan (Translator), Andrew Schelling (Foreword). I presume that translation is copyvio. Jayantanth (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Jayantanth: This discussion requires more data. Original is not by Ramprasad Sen, but by Narachandra Ray, see alternate translation here. So the translation present here is not from Nathan and Seely's book. The song is present in section 18 and section 22 of Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, several English translations of that work exist. Online source of the version here is this blog, which also contains another translation below it, taken from chapter 43 of The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (1942), a translation of the Kathamrita by Swami Nikhilananda. So the first version (the one present here) is possibly from another translation of the Kathamrita. The 1907 translation of Kathamrita by Swami Abhedananda, present here as Index:The Gospel of Râmakrishna.djvu is an abridged version, and I could not locate this song in the work. So, the work's copyright status can be determined only by getting more data. Till then, it is suspect copyvio. Hrishikes (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Naya Kashmir[edit]

From the talk page:

Naya Kashmir was adopted as a manifesto of the National Conference and has not been copyrighted being a public document of a political party.I have not copyrighted my English translation .

But it automatically has copyright unless the documents are specifically put into the public domain. Being a public document or of a political party I do not believe would exclude it from copyright laws. So this means that you either need to demonstrate that the document is excluded from copyright, or we need to go through a permissions process aligned with Commons:OTRS. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please understand the history of this document:

1.It was a memorandum submitted by Sheikh Abdullah the president of National Conference to the ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh in 1944.

2. I fail to understand how a memorandum submitted to a ruler which is in the nature of an official document can be copyrighted.

3. It has no single author being a collaborative effort of the friends of the National Conference

4. It was adopted as a manifesto by the National Conference but that does not make it a property of the National Conference

5.Post 1947 the Maharaja was deposed after he ran away from Srinagar. Sheikh Abdullah was arrested and the National Conference converted into Plebiscite Front which reconverted itself into National Conference decades later.The National Conference whuich exists at present is not the same National Conference which existed in 1944.

6. In plain and simple words the so called "Naya Kashmir" is nothing but a petition submitted to a ruler by some of his subjects.By no stretch of imagination can a petition submitted to a ruler be considered to be a copyright document.

8. Neither the Ruler nor his State exists at present(except perhaps on the agenda of the United Nations and its Security Council which has resolved that the final status of the State would be determined solely after the will of its inhabitants is ascertained by a plebiscite). Indeed there is no single person or group of persons or party who are owners of this document.

7.This is precisely why Raheed Taseer reprinted the Urdu Version of the entire document in his book without infringing any copyright law nor has it ever been challenged on that ground in the more than thirty years that have elapsed since the publication of his book in 1973.

8. As mentioned before I too have not copyrighted my English Translation

9. I may mention that I am also taking steps to publish my translation as a work in the Public Domain( Without copyright)

Taffazull (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of these reasons would put the original in PD in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: As a matter of Indian copyright this may be within your area of knowledge. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
As per my understanding:
  1. The work originated in Kashmir in 1944, then a British vassal state, therefore subject to the Indian Copyright Act of 1914, later replaced by the Act of 1957.
  2. The translator claimed it as a public document, i.e., copyright-exempt from the beginning, being a memorandum submitted to the king.
  3. As per Indian Copyright Act, only certain government works are copyright-exempt from the beginning.
  4. This document is not a government work as defined in section 2 (k), therefore not a public document.
  5. This is a case of organisational authorship (section 17-dd-iii) or a case of joint authorship (section 2-z).
  6. Therefore copyright subsisted for 60 years after publication (i.e., submission to the king) or 60 years after the death of the last-dying author (if all are dead).
  7. Therefore it was not PD-India on URAA date.

Hrishikes (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Prize acceptance speech (Schweitzer)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Clear copyvio Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Published 1952 (in French) in Les Prix Nobel, whose copyright is owned by the Nobel Foundation. If I'm not mistaken, this puts it under Swedish law, which is (currently at least) life + 70, which puts this particular entry under copyright in source country until 2035, and in USA for even longer. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Clear copyvio—the blanked out Title page is also a clue to be suspicious. Deleted and a notice put on the Commons file Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The author died in 1951, so I am thinking this can't be hosted on Commons, as it's post 1921. (It will expire in 2021). When was it originally written?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the Stanford entry. Published March 1925, renewed May 1952. Hence still in copyright in USA and should also be deleted from Commons. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with above. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Didn't realize they renewed it. Sorry. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I know it says it's PD on Internet Archive, but as this example proves, you can't trust them. You need to investigate the situation yourself and use the correct copyright tag, not just the default that the IA-upload tool uses. Not that I couldn't say the same thing to some other people around here... BethNaught (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Platform of Demands of the Seventh Indigenous March of the Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East, Chaco, and Amazon[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted for no license--Jusjih (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Another social movement document which, while clearly intended to be widely distributed, has no evidence of release under a suitable license. The source is from here, though the document itself is unavailable. Another document issued by them is here. No sign of copyright statements or releases anywhere. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel[edit]

Despite {{PD-Israel}} (which seems to be both confusing and wrong), this work published in 1948 would not have passed 50 years since creation in 1996 and therefore would still be copyvio in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

On further investigation, it looks like creation+50 only applies to photographs, and works would have been subject to life+50; my argument still holds though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Images used in The Higher Education of Women[edit]

Jasonanaggie has uploaded the following images to Commons: File:Anchoraspsi.png, File:Chapt2header.png, File:Lettert.png, File:Chapter1header.png, File:Letteri.png. They are extracted from File:The Higher Education of Women.djvu. Therefore they are PD/1923. However they have no authorship indicated. The problem is that although the front matter would appear to indicate publication in London and New York, I cannot find information about exact dates, meaning it might count as a non-US work, which might invoke Commons requirements for UK licensing information. This would be the stringent rules of c:Template:PD-UK-unknown, which have nt been shown. They are arguably de minimis in the whole work, but suggest evacuating the individual files to Wikisource? In any case, better licensing information should be given.

Also, if you look at commons:Special:ListFiles/Jasonanaggie, there are many other files with deficient information, i.e. no mention of original author or copyright status of the individual work. It appears Jasonanaggie is simply using the default settings without understanding what they mean, or what the requirements for licensing and attribution are. This would appear to be the issue with #Index:Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925).djvu above as well. BethNaught (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm not convinced about de minimis because the whole work is deliberately included. Is it better to evacuate the whole djvu? Or will Commons let us get away with it since it's 150 years old and so probably OK? BethNaught (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think this is rather overkill. If we have to identify the illustrator of dropinitials and text headers we won't be able to host anything. I think that if an illustrator isn't specified then c:Template:PD-UK-unknown is fine. I myself would just copy-paste the license from the containing work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
...we won't be able to host anything. No—I wasn't advocating deletion for any of these files, merely asking whether we should move them to Wikisource where we can host them under PD/1923 without needing to identify the authors. The problem with PD-UK-unknown is that I have no idea what or how much research is legally necessary. I myself would just copy-paste the license from the containing work. But there is no way of knowing where the UK PD rationale for the text (death year 1921) applies to the images... BethNaught (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
My problem with this line of thought is that we have hundreds, possibly thousands, of works ornamented by graphical text decorations and dropinitials, all (or almost all) of which are uncited, and almost certainly created by the publishing house itself. This leads to two observations: 1) the number of cases which don't satisfy PD-UK-unknown is so vanishingly small, that any serious research into the identity of the graphic artist is not worth more than a cursory Google unless someone kicks up a fuss; and 2) If graphic ornaments and other creative embellishments created by the publishing house are not PD, then the containing book is not PD either as it contains copyvio material; since the publishing house is a corporate entity, in jurisdictions like the UK the book as a whole would then not become PD until 70 years after the death of the last surviving person who was a member of the publishing house on the date of publication, which I think is far beyond anyone's reasonable expectation of how this works. Instead, since the book is considered PD after the death of the authoring contributors, I would say that if the book is PD then any publisher's embellishments contained within are PD for the same reason the containing work is. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I let it slide when uploading the djvu to Commons, because it was published 150 years ago: minus 70 years is 80 years, so if the artist was aged say 15, they would almost surely have died before 95 and so would be PD in the UK if we knew their identity. I was "kicking up a fuss" about Jasonanaggie's incorrect and insufficient tagging. If you're going to upload them individually, you really should check their individual copyright status. If someone is happy to take on themselves the burden of proof for PD-UK-unknown, or just to upload the files locally under PD/1923, fine.
I'm not happy with your attitude: you're assuming a "reasonable expectation" and arguing from it, rather than from the law, and I think your analysis about "last surviving member" is faulty. That said, I would have let slide the question about the djvu if you hadn't started spouting dubious and wrong assertions ("just copy-paste the license", "we won't be able to host anything"). Now the separate images have been removed from the transcription, it's a matter for Commons, and I suggest this discussion be closed. BethNaught (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught: I apologise if my words were inflammatory. I admit that I was rather exaggerating the situation. If you want to leave this discussion alone, I understand. I do hope, however, that my dubious and wrong opinions will be corrected, and that a good consensus for how to deal with this sort of situation can be reached. If you want to leave that for someone else to deal with, that's perfectly alright.
I do think that a DJVU (or other) file that contains an illustration that is copyvio, cannot be hosted unless that illustration is excised. This is true here and also on Commons. If File:Anchoraspsi.png does not meet the conditions for hosting as free content, then neither does File:The Higher Education of Women.djvu. Conversely, if File:The Higher Education of Women.djvu is actually PD, then any excerpt from it must also be PD. For this reason, I do sincerely believe that you can just copy-paste the license. The only time I can think of that this will fail, is if the license of the DJVU file is wrong in the first place. Of course, the excerpts may be also hostable under a different license or PD rationale as well, but that's beside the point.
It has also been my experience that graphical embellishments of this kind rarely, if ever, identify the creator. It is my understanding that, unless otherwise noted, they are pretty much always the creation of the publishing house itself. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have based on the works I've proofread and researched. I do not know whether to treat such illustrations as the work of an anonymous person, or the work of the publishing house itself. In the former case, c:Template:PD-UK-unknown is correct. In the latter, then, by UK law for copyright to a group of people, the copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the last known member of the group. That is my understanding. I am no expert in copyright law. I could be wrong.
Again, I apologise for any offence given, for bad attitude, and dubious or wrong assertions. It is my hope for this, and every other discussion on WS:CV, that we all can improve our understanding of copyright laws and their application to the works we want to host. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I think I understand you better now—thank you for explaining more clearly. You are indeed correct that if the DjVu has been properly tagged, it is OK to copy the relevant tags to the file descriptions. My beef with your statement is then, that the DjVu tagging may be faulty. In this case, the solution is to have more detailed tagging of the DjVu files on Commons to ensure that all the different parts of the book are accounted for. At some point soon I will go through my Commons uploads to ensure this is the case. BethNaught (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Works that are commissioned by the publishing house at that point of time had the copyright of the publishing house (corporate ownership), rather than independent copyright of the author. So it is my understanding that we would have had fifty years from the time of publication. This was the case even to later in the 20thC 1956 Act. They are not PMA-rated. Either way, these works are soooo old, a 21 year old in 1866 would have been 100 in 1945 [PD-70+], it sounds reasonable to call it PD-old and let us move on. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    The 1995 regulations extending the UK to 70pma revived some old copyrights, but I don't pretend to understand the nuances, and as you say, it's almost certainly fine under current law. So at this point I'm happy to go with it. Sorry for the drama... BethNaught (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    Could you perhaps point me to the legislation that says copyright belonging to a publishing house lasts 50/70 years from publication? I used to think that was the case, but when I actually looked into the legislation the only relevant text I could find was the one that specified 50/70 years after the death of the last person in the group. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    BethNaught; Only for works where author died after 1944/5. Re corporate, Maybe I am mistaken, either way it does not belong to the author, and it will not be in perpetuity, it has to have some anchor. The 1867(?) and 1911 laws are what need to be applied to this work to bring it out of copyright prior to the 1956 Act. And for an 1866 work, I am not wishing to run around further. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Note @BethNaught: @Billinghurst: @Jasonanaggie: these files have been deleted at Commons per uploader request. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Merci, it is much appreciated! -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
FFS. The files should not have been deleted, they will now will be recreated for the work anyway. I will address at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 21 May 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)

Hanuman Chalisa[edit]

Source: (website claims self as translator and Google has no earlier listings for the text). No indication of free license or release. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Without further clarification and information, it looks like delete. Throwing in a ping for good measure @Ma.Sarada.Swamini:billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Stand in the Schoolhouse Door Speech[edit]

1963 work from US state governor, so not covered by USGov, and I can see evidence at the linked source ath the state archives that it is in the public domain, or has been freely released. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a scan; could this fall under {{PD-US-no-notice}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: thoughts? you are way more the expert here. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
and if we do keep, then we should grab the images. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oof. Well, it was done as part of his duties as governor, so the state would own the copyright. Unsure if it was issued as an official proclamation, though it has that form. Simply making the speech would not cause it to be published -- not even sure that transcriptions published elsewhere would count (those were not distributed by the copyright owner). Also don't think that throwing away a copy (the scans above) would count as publication, though there's a slight chance -- that's a pretty fascinating wrinkle. Giving copies out just so that commentators knew the content would not be publication (that was ruled in the MLK speech, which was not ruled published by such copies). But, if state or governor's office gave out copies to newspapers to be printed, that would have to be publication, so at the very least this would have been published with notice. I do see mention that the Tuscaloosa News published the speech in its entirety -- unsure if it was printed that same day, or the next. But, it seems likely then that copies were given to newspapers, so it probably should be considered published. At that point, since it was before 1964, a renewal would have been necessary, and I cannot find one on under Wallace's name or the state's. So, I'd probably Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as {{PD-US-not_renewed}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:59, 13 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)

Kansas Senate Prayer[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Not an edict of government, not a work of federal government, author still living, no free license, &c. Probably speedy-able, just want to make sure. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:11, 17 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)


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.[8] 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)

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)

The End and the Beginning: The Book of My Life[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted moved to user space —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The project has just started. Contributor intends to post translation of a German work under CC license. Original published in 1929, author died in 1951. Is the original PD as per Austrian law? Hrishikes (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
According to the OpenBookPublishers' website, the translation is CC-BY-NC-ND, which is not a compatible license for hosting on Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Translation by Syed Mohammad Askari Jafrey, first published in Pakistan in 1960 [9]. 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]

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 [10], [11]. 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)

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

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)

Translation:On Fortune[edit]

Author still living, no indication of free status. The original is also hosted at ja:運について, source (via Google Translate) is: Bottom: Yoshinori Shimizu "Fukuzawa Yukichi is full of mysteries. Psychological novel" October 10, 2006 first edition first press Issue ISBN 978-409386167-0Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

UK Traffic Signs Manual, and related materials[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept at Commons —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

and all related Page: and sub-pages.

These are brought here because in the course of trying to determine the status of another unrelated document(in relation to a DR at Commons amongst other things), concerns arose in response to comments in an e-mail correspondence; regarding the precise status of certain design elements contained in Road signs (namely the "Transport" and "Motorway" typefaces; and the "S" and "T" series pictogram artwork.). The relevant e-mail correspondence is on OTRS as [Ticket#: 2017052210016428].

Because of the ambiguity which had arisen, a series of DR's for the artwork were commenced at Wikimedia Commons. Whilst it would seem unlikely that these would fall outside OGL, comments were also expressed that Crown copyright or Crown assigned material should not be released under Creative Commons licenses.

The comments concerning apparent incompatibility between Crown copyright material (previously understood to be largely under OGL) and Creative Commons licenses were expressed in response to correspondence attached to a message now lodged under OTRS ticket [Ticket#2017052210014402], in relation to a different issue.

As the status of these works is in doubt, with respect to certain elements, as and as to their compatibility with Wikisource licensing, they have been brought here, for further discussion on the basis that Wikimedia projects don't like ambiguity.

A direct approach to the Department for Transport for an OTRS slip would be desirable, and I'm awaiting a response in relation to enquries in that direction. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Amended to make it clear where an apparent claim was coming from ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User talk notification has not been felt necessary as for the most part these were an effort by myself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment see Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#UK transport-related graphics for the umbrella discussion at Commons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of the discussions were closed as kept at commons, with the following rationale:

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The Final March for Reform[edit]

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)

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)