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 Archive.org 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'

Discussions[edit]

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 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Interoperability_between_Creative_Commons_licenses_and_GFDL ). 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)
"The WMF simply didnt want to tackle more than they could chew, so they allowed GFDL photos," no, actually there was an attempt to abolish GFDL 1.2 only, and the commons consensus was to keep them (not a WMF problem) see also c:Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of all GFDL-only works[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tolstoy on Pascal[edit]

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

The reference for the text "Pascal" is: "The complete works of Lyof N. Tolstoï : Patriotism, Slavery of our times, General articles, New York: Carlton House, 1928, pages 382-390, - "copyright 1899, Thomas Y. Crowell & Co; copyright 1927, Nathan Haskell Dole; published 1928, Thomas Y Crowell; "Printed in the United States of America". There is no mention of any "volume" although indicated as "The complete works...". It is written on the cover of the blue book "Tolstoi's essays on life" (with the golden image of a man like the thinker by Rodin on a red background) and "World's great thinkers". AB, Qc unsigned comment by 24.50.79.184 (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:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu[edit]

Raised a concern here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Index:To_the_Victor_Belongs_the_Spoils.djvu back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

Bringing it here, so that there is at least a disscussion.

The problem is the inclusion of 'third-party' images which are NOT necessarily under the same Creative Commons license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs taken before 1955 are public domain now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Wrong country: Wikisource is hosted in the United States, not in Australia. It says that the document was published in 1999, and if this was when the photographs were first published, then they will be unfree for several more decades in the United States. I can also not find any evidence that the Creative Commons licence claim for the text is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
My recollection is that the uploader of the original PDF, which was then moved to Common and converted to DJVU because the PDF wouldn't display, said his contribution was CC. This probably need someone with admin access at Commons and English Wikisource to do trace back what the originals were linking to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Australian photographs created before 1946 were public domain in Australia in 1996 and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. It is unlikely that photographs taken from external sources would have been first published in that paper. If the Creative Commons license is not valid, that is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Australian photographs were in the public domain 50 years after the making of the negative, nothing to do with publication.section "Provisions as to photographs" Again having and researching an evidence base for any argument would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
When you state that something is in the public domain, you must also state in which country it is in the public domain. This is in particular important in countries which do not use the rule of the shorter term, such as the United States. No Australian photographs created before 1955 entered the public domain in the United States 50 years after creation of the negative. That's when the copyright expired in Australia, but USA uses different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The vast majority of such works expired in the U.S. when they were published without a copyright notice. Photos created 1946 and later could well have an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. Australian photographs which were published usually entered the public domain either immediately upon publication (no notice) or 28 years after publication (no renewal). There could be some which were published with notice and renewal, but I suppose that's uncommon for non-US works. The main problems are photos not published until after 1963 (no renewal needed) and photos created after 1945 (URAA automatically added any missing notices and submitted any missing renewals). In either case, the copyright didn't expire in the United States 50 years after creation; that was only the case in Australia and in countries which recognise the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Unless there is some evidence that a photo was kept unpublished for some time, the usual assumption for foreign photos is publication without notice. That also precludes renewals being an issue, though that is also a fallback sometimes if it turns out there was a notice. But yes, the main problem would be photos created after 1945 -- those would have had their U.S. copyright restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Newspaper photographers seem to take lots of photographs of each event but only end up publishing one or two of them. Family photographs are also usually unpublished. Some of these unpublished photographs might later end up somewhere and become published a lot later. Therefore, it seems that most photographs are unpublished and that we can't assume that a photograph is published unless we have some indication that this is the case. Also, it does not seem safe to assume that a photograph was published without a notice, in particular not after many countries started signing the Universal Copyright Convention which mentions copyright notices. Most European publications currently contain a copyright notice, although this was a lot less common in the past. The only thing we can safely assume is that pictures were published without a renewal as there should have been very few people outside the United States who bothered submitting a renewal to the United States authorities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the images post-date 1955. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I've brought up a few times some works that are hosted under a non-US copyright tag, like {{PD-INGov}} or {{PD-Israel}}. These tags indicate that a work is PD in the source country, but don't indicate whether a work is PD in the USA.

I would like to add a little notice on the end of all of these tags based on the one used at {{PD-Russia}}, saying something to the effect of:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. because it was in the public domain in (country) in 1996, and no copyright was registered in the U.S.A. (This is the combined effect of (country)'s joining the Berne Convention in (year), and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)

Or, in the case of foreign government edicts:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

That way, the copyright tags can indicate both the information about source country copyright, but also the crucial US copyright status that allows the text to be hosted here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The only license that we require is the US license, the additional licenses are niceties, not requirements. If people wish to double license, then they should be wrapped in Template:license container begin and "... end". — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem that I wish to address is that works get uploaded with non-US tags but don't have a US tag added. I think that the non-US tags should either be able to function as US tags also, or have a warning saying that a US tag must also be provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
We are not catching their absence during patrolling? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I'm finding quite a few that have been here for years by digging through various maintenance categories, which is why I'm bringing it up. Already there are discussions in progress on this page regarding works that have been uploaded under {{Legislation-CAGov}} and {{PD-INGov}} and {{PD-Israel}}, and I expect to find quite a few more. I just want to generalize our approach so that I don't need to make a new discussion every time I find another one.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the thought to retrofit.--Jusjih (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1922 non-US renewed works[edit]

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

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

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

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

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov[edit]

The license {{PD-IndonesianGov}} (not to be confused with {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) is explicitly nonderivative and therefore unacceptable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How many of these works have the correct license? Are there any of the works that ought to have a different license? Otherwise, I agree that we cannot / should not host works under the stated tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are listed with multiple license tags and can be kept. Some of them I'm not sure. Maybe we should discuss each individually. I'd delete the license tag though, or at least make a note on it that works cannot be hosted under the license unless they are PD in the US for some other reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:HistoryOfDharmasastraancientAndMediaevalReligiousAndCivilLawV.2.1.djvu[edit]

Also: Index:HistoryOfDharmasastraancientAndMediaevalReligiousAndCivilLawV.1.djvu

In checking the author for this I found that the author was still alive in 1972. (see w:Pandurang Vaman Kane).

I fail to see how these are PD either in the origin country, or in the US , 1972+50 being 2022 or so. Once the status is determined here, I will consider putting the scans up for deletion at Commons based on the outcome there. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems they're in copyright in the US now, and out of copyright in the US 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Story of Ichalkaranji.pdf[edit]

Published in India. Near as I can tell this is by Horace George Franks, born 1895 in Sussex, as listed in Who was who among English and European authors, 1931-1949 by Gale Research Co. in 1978, and which doesn't appear to list a death date or mention citizenship. Doesn't seem to have followed US formalities or to have been published in the US at any point, if he were still alive in 1978 it wouldn't meet Indian or UKish copyright expiration needed for URAA exception. Prosody (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if he was alive in 1978; it seems likely he just died and his death wasn't noted in the literature. HathiTrust just has him as 1895- , and he'd be 122 if he were still alive. He's listed on books from 1960 and 1970 there, and while I'm not sure when he wrote his part of the 1970 bureaucratic tome, he seems to be the only author of the 1960 Pocket Holland. For URAA purposes, I'd assume India would be the relevant nation, but that doesn't help us. As it's a 1929 work, we can undelete in 2024 2025.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Found an article in the Dutch paper Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant which appears to place him alive and at the age of 80 in 1974. Describes his career including his time in India, confirming the identification. Prosody (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
A similar search shows this, which apparently states he died in December 1987 at age 93. Either the age is one off or he was born in 1894 (which would also correspond to turning 80 in 1974 the above article). Still under copyright just about everywhere then. Can undelete here in 2025, for a 1929 publication. Commons would be considerably longer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Index:Story of Ichalkaranji.pdf was apparently already started by others. Those pages would also need to be deleted? .ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Coming of Wireless[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Exported to wikilivres:The Coming of Wireless--Jusjih (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
See Wikisource:Scriptorium#BBC_Radio_Times. Not published before 1923, and as a British work published in the 1930s, surely restored by the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
surely forum shopping. please go to commons for the URAA enforcement, rather than a transclusion site. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This document isn't scan-backed, discussion is still necessary here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Not scan-backed?? What are File:Radio Times - Christmas 1935 - William Temple a.png and File:Radio Times - Christmas 1935 - William Temple b.png, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment scan-backed meant a scan at Commons, with the text in the Page: namespace here. If you have scans of these works, then we should be creating issues in the index namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
i can accommodate you there, if that is your objection. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
How is such formatting trivia relevant to a discussion on whether to delete content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since the author died more than 70 years ago, this article is in PD in the UK. Why would it be under copyright in the US? Do we have any evidence the BBC's Radio Times was registered for copyright in the US? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA. The specific example the US Copyright Office gives is: "A French short story that was first published without copyright notice in 1935 will be treated as if it had both been published with a proper notice and properly renewed, meaning that its restored copyright will expire on December 31, 2030 (95 years after the U.S. copyright would have come into existence)." Registration is not required for copyright under US law, and to the extent it was, the URAA is designed to retroactively remove that requirement for foreign works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Just checking. Do we know whether these were published in the US within the prescribed period? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
no registration here for 1934 to 1935. [1], no renewal (after 1978) at [2]. Slowking4SvG's revenge 04:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
registration and renewal would mean publication in US; no commentary means not published, or published with no care. I would tend to favour that it wasn't published in the US until we have evidence to the contrary. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Prosfilaes. BethNaught (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Move to Biblio.wiki?--Jusjih (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
comment you realize it not up for deletion at commons? File:Radio Times - Christmas 1935 - William Temple a.png. you realize that, anyone could thus recreate it at will? or by extension, the entire series of the periodical? will you now be "holier than commons"? are we now going to allow URAA editors now to relitigate their "out of consensus" views here? yeah - i guess we need to take all the "unpure" cases to the more un-american websites. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be preferable Slowking4 that you address the subject matter, not attack a person, or point to a lack of action at another site. So please put your case about why this reproduced work is not under copyright, and keep your insults for your own mind. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
If there is a deletion discussion at Commons, can we please have a link to such discussion. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
that is not a personal attack; that is a statement of fact: no DR; so periodical can be uploaded at any time and an index created, both for this page, and the entire periodical. is this a new URAA policy more stringent than commons?; the fact is that there is no DR for the periodical page, while blanked here. i wonder what is the process for cross wikimedia copyright "enforcement"? what kind of a selective enforcement is this? Slowking4SvG's revenge 05:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's use neutral language, instead of going on about pure and holy. We have different rules than Commons; Commons deletes many works that are PD in the US, but at the same times permits works that are in copyright in the US, depending on the source nation. Commons claims that it accepts only "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work", but that's clearly not true, and I don't see any reason to make a nomination for deletion on Commons that's clearly going to fail. I've made the argument, there's consensus on Commons against me, and refighting that fight would be quixotic and frustrating to all involved.
(I'd note that it's slightly more complex; some Israeli photos were deleted because the copyright owner argued for it on Commons, despite the fact they were PD in Israel. They were first published in the 21st century, so this was not a URAA case. I think 1984 is going to be another exception, because the Orwell estate is not going to care about UK law when demanding its removal from a US site.)
An index can be created at any time, but that's true whether or not the periodical is available on Commons. We and Commons have no way of forcibly stopping people from uploading Harry Potter either in scan form or text form except for deleting the work and possibly blocking the user.
If Wikisource is willing to assume that this was not renewed by the URAA, then let's assume that. If that is true, we keep all works that are PD in the US, and this work in whole is PD in the US, so we shouldn't work from a mutilated copy with pieces that PD in the US cut out because they aren't PD in the UK. Whether or not a work that was in copyright in its source nation on its URAA date (1996 for most nations) is currently in the public domain in its source nation is irrelevant to whether or not it's PD in the US now.
The rule of the shorter term sucks. It is the major reason works published in 1923 aren't leaving copyright in the US until next year, because that US extension gave US works twenty more years of copyright in foreign nations. If Europe didn't have the rule of the shorter term, then works first published in 1943 might leave copyright next year in the US. It's also a mess; as long as I stay in the US, I should never have to argue Italian or Chinese case law to establish my legal rights, and US courts aren't competent to rule based on Italian or Chinese law. Commons rules, by including all that law, are vast and complex and unknowable; say what you will about US copyright law, it's vastly simpler than US copyright law + UK copyright law + every other nation's copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Using neutral language (as requested) perhaps Prosfilaes support base is not quite as strong as Prosfilaes thinks it is? Perhaps his past intransigence (oops: is that really neutral?) has come home to bite just a little? 114.74.62.196 01:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There's two vd's above and no vk's. So when you can make a case, you make a case; when you have the majority on your side, pound on the majority; when you have no case and no majority, pound the table.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep bad faith nomination. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is close to libel. I nominated a work I believed violated Wikisource policy for deletion. I don't recall any other interactions with Andy Mabbett, though I've probably encountered him in passing on Commons, and I make no habit of ignoring works that violate this particular policy on Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
talk is cheap: either bring your legal action in the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court, or keep your legal threats to yourself. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I made no legal threats. I think my words were entirely clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
your game playing skills are clear, it is so sad that they are not matched by skill at getting content work done. Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
By law (URAA), this is probably not PD in the U.S. It could easily be nominated on Commons as well. Commons does delete for URAA reasons, but it can be haphazard, especially for files used on non-English projects (which are not always as strongly tied to U.S. law like en-wiki and en-ws). Works like this are particularly aggravating, because it did enter the PD in the UK in 1995, but then got re-copyrighted in both nations one year later (the EU extensions for the UK, which in turn triggered the URAA restoration in the U.S.). As such, it would be copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years from publication. The only hope it has for the U.S. is if it was simultaneously published in the U.S. in 1935, which seems unlikely. I don't like long copyright terms, and will try to find ways to keep works, but also do believe we should follow the law -- and the URAA is the law. The WMF will follow the URAA when push comes to shove, such as the Anne Frank diaries. Like Prosfilaes, I will typically vote delete on Commons if the URAA is an issue (and they do get deleted sometimes), but I don't nominate myself for that reason either. May add the Not-PD-US-URAA tag from time to time though. The only other possible thing would be if 17 USC 108(h) applies, which may be arguable, but may require some clearance from the WMF for usage (the Internet Archive may start using that for some works). It's more arguable when you are making scans for out-of-print works available; not as sure when simply copying scans from another archive, but maybe. It would only make it legal though, not "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
another good reason to reconsider "fair use" of the orphan. it is out of print, i.e. cannot order print copy, except at print out of digital copy (showing the obsolescence of the concept) Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete this is one of those few cases that we face where the work is out of copyright in the home country, but no in the US; usually we have them the other way around. The work has no evidence of being published in the US, it was published in non-US jurisdiction after 1923, so it seems 95 years post publication is the copyright period for this article. Move to Bibliowikibillinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand why there is controversy about this. The author died in 1944, so the work was copyrighted in the UK until 2014 (70 years pma). Because the work was copyrighted in the UK in 1996, it was restored by the URAA and is copyrighted in the USA until 2039 (95 years pma). Because it is copyrighted in the USA, we must delete it. I don't see why it's more complicated than that. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it is more complicated, in that the risk of lawsuit is so low, that commons has reached a consensus not to delete URAA files (or to avert gaze and stop mass deleting). (i believe wikipedia hebrew was incensed; WMF filed briefs against the decision by the supreme court) the prospect of gaming communities, and relitigating every consensus that is not delete is ugly. when an admin chooses to bite an editor to import drama from elsewhere, it tends to undermine the credibility of wikisource. there are plenty of transcription projects manned by wikipedia editors who have left. more glory them. a prudent admin might reflect on the failed wiki, wikinews. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, I think I understand. No one is denying that the work is copyrighted in the USA, and no one is denying that the work is against Wikisource policy. Instead, the argument is to keep the work regardless (and presumably others like it). I get it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
i am denying it is against policy. the consensus on how to interpret policy is very clear on commons. it would be unfortunate if the reputation for welcoming on wikisource, should be tarnished by admin behavior, more often seen on commons. cultural institutions do take note of admin behavior. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
keep in mind policy does not necessarily follow the law slavishly - i.e. PD-art.Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
What does Commons policy and consensus have to do with Wikisource? And why do you keep bringing up fair use, given that the consensus on how to interpret policy is very clear against fair use on Commons and here? (And while there's no consensus against changing policy here, there's also no consensus for it.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
why do you keep bringing your deletionist bad attitude where ever you go? you are clearly forum shopping to find new communities to foist URAA on. did you seek a consensus for that? this behavior is a net negative for these projects: you destroy more than you create; and rest assured there will be a cost for this behavior.Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The URAA has generally *always* been followed here to the letter. There are some users who I consider on the deletionist side -- looking for any doubt of PD status -- but Prosfilaes is not even close to one. He simply follows the "free" policy, and orphan works and URAA restored works are absolutely not free. Yes I understand that you would prefer that WMF be like other large Internet sites which pretty much allow stuff until someone complains -- but to me, that is not the premise the sites were founded on, and there are people who care deeply about that aspect, and the WMF doesn't want to be seen doing that either. I dislike people stretching possible copyright situations to ones that have never been litigated and that sort of thing, but the URAA is plain, straight, unambiguous law. Commons can be frustrating because there are often two very different copyright laws to satisfy -- you finally get by one and there is the other -- but en-wikisource does not care about the law in the country of origin (outside of how it affects the URAA); it is based on U.S. law alone, and the URAA is part of that law. I am always looking for new, reasonable legal arguments to keep works, but for me I draw the line there -- no orphan works, no ignoring inconvenient laws, etc. If we can get the law changed, great, but that's the only way out for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Battle-Retrospect (1923)[edit]

Does anyone know when a 1923 work by an author who died in 1993 will be in the public domain? Specifically, Battle-Retrospect by Author:Amos Niven Wilder (Yale University Press, copyright 12 April 1923; renewed? 4 May 1950). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's my understanding that such works are 95 years pma, so 2088. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
When will 1923 works enter into the public domain in the US? Will this work not be included at that time? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is as bad as 95 years PMA. Works published before 1978 are at worst 95 years from publication, and works published since 2002 (or since 1978 by authors who died since 1978) are 70 years PMA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Next year. It does seem to be renewed. I suspected that the poems were previously published, but if and where they were, they don't seem to be turning up in HathiTrust.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Another year then. I could only find "Ode" previously published (from Battle-Retrospect). Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I see you've already searched and found sources for several poems. It'd generally be better if you uploaded the PDF of stuff like The Yale Literary Magazine, Volume 85, even if you're only going to do a partial transcription.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I was young and foolish back in 2011 ;) No issues with overwriting when the time comes... Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned, U.S. works are 95 years from publication when properly renewed, so that will expire in January 2019. In many EU countries, it may not expire until 2064, as 70pma is often the term there (and many EU countries have old bilateral treaties which may prevent them from using the rule of the shorter term for U.S. works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Question @Clindberg:: If a contributor lives in the US but moves overseas, are they subject to the copyright laws of the country to which they move for editing purposes? Does it matter if they live on a US military installation? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Infringement would be prosecuted in the country where the infringement takes place, subject to that country's laws, and the copyright owner's desire to press the issue. As for if a US military installation would matter... oof, may depend on the w:status of forces agreement, which could get very weird if a U.S. author were to sue (those agreements are usually more for legal issues involving locals). The odds are usually lower that a foreign entity would sue overseas in the first place, and I'm guessing extremely low for a case where items could simply be deleted and re-uploaded by other users which would not be infringement, most especially for something out of copyright in the source country. I think Germany is the only country which confirmed the 70pma aspect for U.S. works via court case, but most of those old bilateral treaties were worded similarly. It's always possible another country's court system could rule differently. And lastly, the location of websites vs. location of users has blurred a lot of the lines where infringement actually takes place, and courts can vary wildly on those matters and how older law relates to them. Would seem highly, highly unlikely, but as always the uploader has to make the judgement -- if there is a particularly litigious author, or a work is still making lots of money for someone, those are the ones to tread more carefully on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed response. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Librivox, which uses US law, deleted readings of Agatha Christie's early works, which are still in copyright in Canada where the founder lives, because her estate got threatening. I'd imagine any Wikimedia contributor would have to really piss off a copyright holder before they would directly get sued; unless you're leaking documents or posting Harlan Ellison™ works, I'd find it quite unlikely. Pick the level of risk you're comfortable with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
except when admins pick your level of risk for you. Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (UKSI 2016-0362).pdf and related pages[edit]

This document has been raised here not because the status of the document is doubtful, but due to the inclusion of a small number of third-party logos present in Schedule 12 of the scans (not yet transcribed) which would from subsequent examination of the relevant working drawings appear to be outside the scope of OGL terms. The document is thusly NOT purely OGL, and would appear to be incompatible with the licensing model Wikimedia sites use.

The issue of the relevant logos has also been raised on Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Traffic_Signs_Regulations_and_General_Directions_2016_(UKSI_2016-0362).pdf

Because this is not a high profile work which is available on other sites (such as legislation.gov.uk), I would vote for deletion, until someone can provide scans in which the 'third-party' logos have been appropriately removed or redacted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In any case , the effort here is incomplete, and the scans have no OCR layer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks to be about 100 pages, some proofread, most not. No pages are transcluded. No qualms with deleting if the uploader is the requestor. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
No objections to deletion as the majority contributor on this12:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
So anyone want to speedily close and clean this up as I am not seeing objections? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bible/Peter and Bible/Acts of Philip[edit]

Note: the works in question have been moved to The Apocryphal New Testament/Peter and The Apocryphal New Testament/Acts of Philip. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

These appear to be from The Apocryphal New Testament by M. R. James, published from what I can tell from Google Books snippets in London in 1924. Can't tell if it was ever published in the United States. The author himself is an Englishman who died in 1936. Prosody (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently copyright was life+50 in the UK until 1995, but it was retroactively extended for any work which is under copyright in any other EEA state at the time on 1st July 1995, which is a pretty intimidating research question. Prosody (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Also the extension took effect on 1 January 1996, same as URAA... Statuatory instrument in question. Prosody (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Given the timezones, that would make the UK law take effect before the URAA, which I understand was part of the intent. Iceland was a EEA state without that rule of the shorter term, that I believe was life+70, meaning that the law restored copyright on just about everything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to think it's not copyrighted in the US. I believe it was published in the US, but much later and not by the copyright holder. I think we're going to have to wait a couple years here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that we only have snippets, and not the whole work, and not likely to have whole work, it probably should be deleted for other reasons outside of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Chapter 8 of Traffic Signs Manual.[edit]

Being-

In reviewing the same issue as with the TSGRD 2016 arose, namely the inclusion of non OGL content, in this instance the former Highways Agency logo, It's also been over 6 months since attempts were made to contact the relevant contact within "Highways England" with no response. Therefore as the majority contributor on this, I am requesting deletion on the following grounds :-

  • It's not been possible to confirm with the documents authors (nominally Highways England) what is and is not OGL in the relevant document.
  • As the relevant document contact never responded, it has not been possible to obtain reasonably high quality version of vector artwork used in these volumes rendering them incomplete.
  • Whilst the text of these works is largely complete, said text is useless without the accompanying diagrams, so it could not be described as a 'faithful' reproduction, even though it has been made in good faith.
  • These chapters do not seem to have been transcluded yet.
  • The information in these volumes are now considerably outdated, (It's appreciated that of itself isn't grounds for deletion given that Wikisource's primary function is to hold historical "source" documents.)

The underlying PDF's, along with a subsequent update covering the changes in TSGRD 2016 is still on the relevant gov.uk page so it's removal here will not result in a loss of resource.

A courtesy DR will be filed at Commons for the underlying PDF. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe sligtly OT, but if the documents are OGL-licensed do they fit m:ToU 7. c) CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requirement for texts uploaded to Wikimedia projects? If no, maybe the OGL-licensed content should be deleted as ToU infridgement? Ankry (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
OGL is fine, see meta:Open Government Licence. BethNaught (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@BethNaught: could you be more precise, please?
  • Is m:Open Government Licence an official WMF position that overrides m:ToU, or
  • Is OGL fully compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0, so OGL-licensed content can be treated as CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed, or
  • I misread the ToU 7.c and it does not apply for Wikisource content for some reason that you know and I do not?
BTW, if you say that CC-BY-SA-3.0 license limitation is stupid, I fully agree. But it is an existent rule. Ankry (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
m:OGL asserts that OGL is compatible with CC BY. CC BY is compatible with CC BY-SA. However, digging deeper:
  • OGLv1 says "These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights." So we can go with CC BY-SA 3, fine.
  • OGLv2 and OGLv3 state "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0". I believe, although I am definitely not a lawyer, the CC BY 4 is compatible with CC BY-SA 3. But in any case, the WMF legal team are planning to convert Wikimedia wikis to CC 4 licenses, which would resolve the issue. BethNaught (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Per a DfT response obtained this morning, the Commons DR was withdrawn.. I will now wait for OTRS to provide confirmation of that response.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

2003 Utah State of the State Address[edit]

By the Utah Governor, and unless the State of Utah says otherwise, life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Work for hire, so probably 95 years from publication, but... still Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address[edit]

Barack Obama was not an employee of the Federal Government when this speech was given, and I see no reason it's not life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A Tryst With Destiny[edit]

See w:A Tryst With Destiny. This is a 1947 speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Current copyright law in India gives it a copyright as a government work of 60 years, so it would be out of copyright in India in 2008. (Or so sayth Wikipedia.) I don't see it as PD in the US, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless it was published in the U.S. within 30 days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Dog and the Cat[edit]

There's a wiki source listed, but that Wiki doesn't mention where the translation comes from. A Google Books search turns up this reference, which is a modern 1971 translation by Dorian Rottenberg and Brian Bean. (HathiTrust link.) I can't be sure this is the source, without seeing the whole book, but it looks right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through snippet view and there were only 2-3 very slight differences (probably just transcription error). That is the source, unless there was an earlier translation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I[edit]

Jesus Christ (Raffel)[edit]

This is tagged {{PD-IndonesianPub}}; even if this is a valid license in some situation, I don't see why it's for these files. "I" has no clear source, and I don't know anything about the translator. "Jesus Christ" has a source, "The Complete Poetry and Prose of Chairil Anwar", published in the US in 1970, so PD-IndonesianPub is clearly irrelevant for the translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chipmunkes: contributor
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as I don't see that the works are in the public domain in the US in Indonesian; and the template as well. The licence template has no apparent basis relevance to our English works. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this discussion also will entail the page Author:Burton Raffel as works would be copyright. I would think that it should also entail Author:Chairil Anwar as they won't have works in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobel speeches/lectures[edit]

According to https://www.nobelprize.org/faq/questions_in_category.php?id=5:

Can I use or translate a Nobel Lecture, speech or a biography?

Nobel Media administrates the publishing rights of the Nobel Lectures, speeches and biographies on Nobelprize.org on behalf of the Nobel Foundation who hold copyright. For information on how to license these, please contact media@nobel.se.

This is further confirmed on https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelmedia/nobelprize_org/copyright/legal_notice.pdf

Nobel Lectures, Speeches and Biographies

To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a presentation speech, a banquet speech or a biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.

If granted, "© The Nobel Foundation" and relevant year must be stated, the text correctly quoted and the author identified as the sole author of the text.

All Nobel Lectures, presentation speeches, banquet speeches and biographies are also published in the book series "Les Prix Nobel" and "Nobel Lectures."

This brings into question the following works:

-Einstein95 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Roosevelt's speech is out of copyright because it was published before 1923. I don't see any reason why Al Gore's speech would be out of copyright, given he wasn't in a federal office in 2007. Barack Obama was President at the time of his speech, and we've generally read the copyright law to put pretty much everything the President creates into the public domain. (And it's possible it was written for him by a White House official.) But accepting the Noble Prize is generally not a Presidential duty, so...? I'm leaning towards it being a work of the US government. Faulkner's speech in 1950 may not have been copyrighted and renewed, and the URAA didn't restore copyrights of Americans like Faulkner, so that's probably in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Gore Symbol delete vote.svg Delete contributor is also known to be open-minded with their interpretation of copyright; Obama Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, we have called USGov; Roosevelt Symbol keep vote.svg Keep pre-1923; Faulkner, ??? was it published in the US, and within 30 days?. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)