Wikisource:Copyright discussions

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'

Translations of Omar Khadr Letter to his Mother and Omar Khadr Letter to his Mother II

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

No information about the translation is provided, and as such licensing cannot be confirmed. They might be user-translated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Industrial Society and Its Future

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept per previous discussion.

This work was re-added recently by TE(æ)A,ea.. It was deleted in 2011 after a lengthy discussion about the authors' ownership of the work with no consensus. I'm unsure whether this issue still applies after his death, so I'm bringing it up here. ~2026-25113-53 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment The last discussion was at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2025#Undelete Industrial Society and Its Future, in which it was concluded that it looked public domain. — Alien  3
3 3 15:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the redundant message then. I tried searching for all discussion of the work via searching it in the Wikisource namespace, but this didn't appear to me for some reason. ~2026-25113-53 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you go to the work and click on "What links here", that shows. -- Beardo (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• In fact, I had to go through a discussion to re-create it: in 2012, the page was locked to create: sysop after repeated vandalism. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how something being put up for auction has anything to do with its copyright status, or would prevent someone from putting a work in the public domain. It is free. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If the work was included in the auction, then the author no longer owned it and his statement that he was putting it in public domain was not valid. As it was not included in the auction, he did place it in public domain. -- Beardo (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Selling something doesn't mean you sell the copyrights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The question was whether the copyright was included in the auction or not. -- Beardo (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, which was what I was indicating, that is not the same thing as the thing being sold. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Charter of the Board of Peace

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Its license is not compatible with any ouf our licenses.

I'm pretty sure this so-called "Board of Peace" is not actually a part of the federal government so this charter is copyrighted. ToxicPea (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The website does say "© 2025–2026 Board of Peace." Although the charter is signed For the United States of America:

President Donald J. Trump", it seems that Trump has stated that he intends to remain chairman for life. -- Beardo (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the Charter is not a treaty (as the Senate never ratified it), but are there possibilities that it might be an executive agreement?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The Board of Peace has a term and conditions that reads, "Subject to these notices, users are authorized to view and download the information and other materials on this website for informational, educational, research, or other non-commercial purposes, with appropriate attribution, subject to retention of all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the original materials on any copies thereof. Users may not, without the prior written permission of the Board of Peace, “mirror” any material contained on this website on any other server. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting fair use or other lawful uses permitted under applicable law."

I do not believe Wikisource can lawfully host the Charter. Bravelake (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Student's Catullus

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Revisions containing copyrighted texts were redacted.

This revision is from the 2012 Student's Catullus, 4th edition, which is under copyright. The edit and following versions of the page containing the copyrighted text will need to be redacted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that I have done what is needed. -- Beardo (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Translation:I accuse (Neruda)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept.

A Chilean speech whose author died in 1948. According to Wikimedia Commons' guidelines, it would be in the public domain if the author's wife died (wikipedia:es:Delia del Carril in this case) prior to 1954. As she died in 1989, I'm not sure how it would be in the public domain. Additionally, I'm not sure if a speech spoken in the Chilean senate counts as being published. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a speech spoken by a Chilean senator on the senate floor which means it was created as part of his official duties as a senator. I think this work would be considered {{PD-EdictGov}} under Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. ToxicPea (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the PD-Chile template, and it's irrelevant anyway; we worry only about US copyright, not Chile copyright. I'm pretty sure that speech has seen publication many times over since then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not think the original falls under PD-US-no notice as it was first published outside the US.

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Index:Some Aspects of Indian Education Past and Present.djvu

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status in the US not proven

Although this work is in public domain in the UK now, it would have been still in copyeright in 1996, and so I believe it is still in copyright in the US, folowing URAA. -- Beardo (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Lac aux feuilles region

This and Lac aux Feuilles Region/fr were apparently made in 1959. Without knowing where (or if) the work was published as well as when the author died, I'm not sure how it could be in the public domain. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't know who is John Bérard, the author. No proof of publication, and if it is from Europe, the original is under a copyright anyway. Yann (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I have asked the user directly for the source - see if they answer. But Lac aux Feuilles Region/fr should certainly not be here anyway (that could probably be speedily deleted). -- Beardo (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like its a report from Quebec's Ministry of Mines -- https://www.cubiq.ribg.gouv.qc.ca/notice?id=p%3A%3Ausmarcdef_0000341788&locale=fr (That might be a different one, but Bérard authored several reports for the Ministry on the region's geography). I don't think Quebec has different rules for copyright than the rest of Canada, so published in 1959 would make a governmental report PD in 2009, assuming it's subject to crown copyright. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

But would it have been published in English or only in French? -- Beardo (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This looks like the English version. [1]. The license linked in that page would seem to limit the report's use though. Similar, but not the same report... —Tcr25 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, digging way too much into this. I see an English titled version of RP 384 in the bibliography of some reports; I see English translations of other reports by Bérard in the series; I'm not finding a scan of this report in English. Unless the linked Government of Quebec license would bar it, per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada a 50-year-old report for a provincial government should be PD in Canada since 2009. It would have been under copyright on the URAA date of 1996. I'm finding mention of an award given to Bérard in 2007 where he's described as a retired professor from the École Polytechnique de Montréal, but no indication that he has died. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If PD-Canada-Crown is the license, it applies worldwide. Yann (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

PWGSC administers copyright for the Government of Canada, but not for the provincial governments, so I don't think that license would apply. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Here is the scan of this report in English. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Execution of John Louis Evans May 4, 1983: First Person Account

The scan that this United Press International article was apparently based on, File:Evansexecution.pdf, was deleted by @Billinghurst: in 2017, meaning I don't see why this should remain. However, according to the creator, @Jackhmason:, it was released in the public domain by the agency under a GFDL license. If that can be proven, then the file should probably be restored and be used to scanback this. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Note the article scan has an accompanying photo that might have a separate copyright status than the text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion of the release is here: [[2]] "my colleague Mark Harris's [account for UPI] in 1983 of the execution of John Louis Evans. Mark wanted to include his article as part of the record on this execution, especially since there is no digital version available online anywhere. I think this is a totally legitimate and valuable addition to the entry on the execution, What's the right procedure for including this. Mark has given me a scanned imaged of one of the several places the original wire story ran." MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

In that discussion, Jackhmason was told that either Harris (the author) or UPI (the publisher) would need to release the copyright of the article. I see that the nominated article states in the header "UPI is in the process of granting the copyright permission". But that was 17 years ago, and I don't see any indication that such permission was granted. Thus, it seems to me that we must  Delete the article in question. We should also delete the associated author page Author:Mark Harris. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why the link to the first person story was removed. However, if all that is required for it to be restored is my permission, I grant it. I wrote the story in the Birmingham bureau of United Press International several days after witnessing the execution along with reporters from the Associated Press, and The Birmingham News. It ran, predominantly, in Sunday newspaper editions a week after the execution. My friend and colleague Jack Mason added it to the existing entry on Evans. ~2026-35512-24 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You might be interested in Commons:VRT, which includes info on how to formally release it. Nighfidelity (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I just want to add that you must go through Commons:VRT, in order to confirm that you are the copyright holder and have the right to grant permission to publish this under a compatible license. Also, we will need permission not only for the text content, but also for the source scan file, which was previously uploaded as File:Evansexecution.pdf (i.e. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Evansexecution.pdf). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I was the original source of the upload, on behalf of my colleague Mark Harris, who was the UPI author who wrote the account. What can we do to expedite restoring this first-person professional journalistic account of the execution? Jackhmason (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The procedure is documented here: Commons:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A Smithsonian Curator Reflects on Leonard Nimoy's Passing and Why 'Star Trek' Fans Loved Him

The Smithsonian isn't a federal agency and the footer at the bottom of the webpage used as a source included a copyright notice. Nighfidelity (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete. Apparently some Smithsonian content is PD-USGov (see commons:Template:PD-USGov-SI) but I see no reason to believe that this article is among them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The Smithsonian is partially federal and partially non-federal, and the copyright situation reflects this. I can’t see any indication that this specific essay is copyrighted. However, it is just a Web-site, which can be preserved by Internet Archive without our involvement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Some books by Author:Alexandra David-Néel

Hi, Could you please confirm that these books are OK here:

• File:Magic and Mystery in Tibet, by Alexandra David-Neel.pdf (I checked for renewal and couldn't find any)
• Initiations and Initiates in Tibet, 1931 [3] and [4]

Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Since David-Néel was French, her works can’t be posted on Commons until 2040. Magic and Mystery looks fine, but Initiations and Initiates looks to be copyrighted until next year, unless there was a contemporaneous American publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• OK fine. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

More questions about copyright renewal

Hi, Are these books OK?

• HathiTrust, Google Books Age of Surrealism, by Wallace Fowlie, 1960. It is available for full download at HathiTrust, so I guess it might OK. I don't understand why there are 2 copyright dates (1950 and 1960). Reprint? For which date the copyright should be checked?
• IA, vol. 1, IA, vol. 2 The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa, translated and annotated by Garma C. C. Chang, 1962. I can't find any copyright renewal for this. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Age of Surrealism was first published by Swallow Press in 1950. The 1960 Indiana U. Press edition added an epilogue. Neither edition was renewed. Hundred Thousand Songs looks good, too; the IA copy is a later reprint but no new copyright was asserted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank a lot for looking into this. Can they be uploaded to Commons? Yann (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• I asked HathiTrust if they could allow downloading The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa, but they do not have the resources to evaluate its copyright. Yann (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Oh, they always say that; it doesn’t matter how much evidence you provide, they will only reconsider copyright status on their own initiative. Both should be good for Commons: Milarepa lived about a thousand years ago, so original-term copyright shouldn’t be an issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Actually, they did allow downloading some French books I had asked a few years back, but the copyright status was easy. Yann (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about hosting a reproduction of the royal arms

A 2024 version of the UK royal arms was deleted from commons over copyright concerns, specifically the one used on File:Explanatory Notes - Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Act 2025 (UKPGA 2025-1 kp).pdf. The official guidance by the UK government states that "Re-use is also permitted in the context of copying a government report or legislation" see https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/use-of-the-royal-arms.pdf which makes it seem like any potential use within the scope of Wikisource would be permissible. Would there be any issues with hosting such an image directly on Wikisource? ToxicPea (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I cannot say definitively if there will be an issue or not, others would be better placed than me; but an alternative could be re-colouring a freely licensed version of the arms such as File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (2024, lesser arms).svg. That is essentially what I did for the two variations of the Australian coat of arms (File:Coat of Arms of Australia (stylised, monochrome).svg and File:Coat of Arms of Australia (conventional, monochrome).svg and the New South Wales coat of arms File:Coat of Arms of New South Wales (monochrome).svg. I have noticed that the 2024 official illustration is now used on new acts of the UK Parliament, see the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 (UK). —DraftSaturn15 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The licence offered on the linked page seems to restrictive, not allowing e.g. creation of derivatives, which would be a problem. However, if the coat of arms is commonly used as an integral part of various edicts of governments, could we use it per {{PD-EdictGov}}?

As for using a different version as suggested by DraftSaturn15: I am afraid that is not possible. Note that the two versions of the coat of arms are really different in many ways, e.g. the shape of both of the tails, the shape of chain links, visibility of individual letters of the inscription, etc. etc. We cannot publish the document with a different version of the coat of arms than the version used in the original document. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Cape Town Open Education Declaration

According to the source used for the declaration, it is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-ND license, clearly incompatible with Wikisource. Also it seems to be an evolving work (the current version doesn't include the signatures, which seemed to have expanded significantly), so it'd fail WS:WWI regardless. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

1. When that page was created it was licensed under a CC-BY license as seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110407075707/http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration

2. I am not sure we say that a treaty has no fixed form or is an evolving work merely because it is open to additional countries can add their signatures to it, the body of the text is fixed, the signatures are expressions of support / adoption of a treaty not changing the content of the work and but more akin to say ex libris stuff after publication. As an example I wouldn't say hey, the book catalog at the end of each printing is changing, therefore it is an "evolving" work.

3. The audio version produced is almost certainly fixed. 13:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say "List of signers to the Cape Town Open Education Declaration" is the evolving work, the text of the document is fixed, like "List of books currently published by Publisher X" or "List of subscribers/supporters of Foo" all would be evolving works. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say  Delete anyway on the grounds that this is just a transcription of a webpage. ToxicPea (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are two non-webpage versions that are compatibly licensed (CC-BY):

• January 2008 audio version that could be transcribed: [5]
• Booklet published on the 10th anniversary containing the declaration at the end: https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/cpt10-booklet.pdf

MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The booklet would be the best in my opinion. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about determining the eligibility of a published paper

I'd like to know if anyone else can help with figuring out if "North Uist dialect (The University of Edinburgh, 1945) MacPherson, John" would be able to be hosted here. I couldn't find anything out about the author, so I don't know if it qualifies for the "70 years after death" rule. I also don't exactly know if the criteria for inclusion change due to the fact that it was published by a university rather than a regular book publisher. There isn't a copyright notice anywhere on the document itself, but there is one at the bottom of the page it's hosted on. Altronic (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a British work from 1945, therefore it will be in copyright in the US for the full term of 95 years from publication, or until 2041. We use the US copyright rules here, so life+70 is rarely relevant, except in works unpublished until recently.

ChatGPT gives as a guess "The author is very probably Rev. Dr John MacPherson, M.A., Ph.D., Gaelic An t-Oll. Urr. Iain Mac a’ Phearsain, 1901–1980. A later place-name publication identifies him as “Dr. John MacPherson (An t-Oll. Urr. Iain Mac a’ Phearsain 1901–80)” and as minister of Daviot and Dunlichity from 1943 to 1970; another church history source gives him as minister of Daviot and Dunlichity from 1929–1970, so there is a small date discrepancy in secondary summaries." which would make him copyright in the UK until 2051.

I don't see any real problem with inclusion; our interpretation of such things is rarely that strict.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

So it depends on when it was published as it looks to be a PhD thesis:

• If published 1945-1978 --> 95 years from publication date (2041 earliest)
• If published > 1978 --> 2051 (max(life + 70, 2048))

MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of Texts Published by Organization

I found this book by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that was published by a department of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1924, which is clearly more than 100 years ago, but I didn't find any relevant discussion whether these type of texts could be hosted in here. Could anyone help to clear whether a text published by an organization over 100 years ago is automatically public domain or is it just personal works only? Thanks :) Mbee-wiki (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mbee-wiki: Hi, This book is OK for Wikisource. You can upload it to Commons, and start proofreading here. Please ask if you need more help. Yann (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Index:How-To-Be-A-Yogi.pdf

This text is still under US copyright because of URAA. The scan is in a deletion discussion at Commons, but its Index and Page:(s) on Wikisource would also need to be deleted since this work is still under US copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That version is the 10th edition. A version of first edition was published in New York in 1902, so the index and pages could be switched to that scan (minus the introduction to the 10th edition), if necessary.—Tcr25 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually this should be OK, according to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India: Works by authors who died before 1941 entered the public domain after 50 years and copyright has not been restored. Yann (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

When did the author of the Foreword die? The foreword was not written by the same author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Unclear, there's no individual's name given just "The Publisher".—Tcr25 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Ramakrishna Vedanta Math is not a person, but an organisation. I think that should be counted as anonymous. Yann (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It could refer to one of the organization's presidents. The most likely, in my opinion, is Swami Virajananda, who according to the organization, headed the organization at the time of publication and died in 1951. Nighfidelity (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Either way, it's an anonymous or pseudonymous Foreword, and so gets 60 years of protection under the Copyright Act of 1957, which would mean it was protected for purposes of the URAA, and thus 95 years of copyright protection from the date of publication under US copyright law. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No. As I have mentioned above, the law didn't restore copyright before 1941. Yann (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the Foreword was published before 1941? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Best I can tell, the 10th edition was first published in 1943. But it also was published with an anonymous/corporate author; even if we can guess who the publisher was, it seems to be the intent was that the company gets the credit (and the copyright). So anonymous author and 1943... How does that line up with URRA?—Tcr25 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's what my earlier comment was laying out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What you said above is "Works by authors who died before 1941 entered the public domain after 50 years...", which would apply to the author of the main text, but the Foreword is not by the same author as the rest of the volume. It is an anonymous or pseudonymous text, so its copyright is separate and different from the rest of the text, and the rules for copyright on anonymous and pseudonymous texts is different from that of authors with know dates of death, both under Indian and under US copyright law. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Index:Hanuman Chalisa with English Translation - Khemraj Publishers text.pdf

While this index at least originates from a public domain author and has English text, the translation is modern and it features a copyright notice in the fourth page. Nighfidelity (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It had a copyright at the time of its publication. However, on Internet Archive, it has CC0 1.0 status, indicating that since the publication it was released into the public domain. I would not have put in this much work transcribing it otherwise Ftrhi (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the account that uploaded it to Internet Archive is the publisher, who presumably would have rights to release it with the CC0 1.0 license.—Tcr25 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Though is "looks like" enough? Or do we need something more? -- Beardo (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to look myself, and you know what, I can't find any proof one way or another. Additionally, doing some experimentation, anyone can upload anything to the Internet Archive like this and set the copyright level. Also, these seem to have been done in a quick 2020 burst, not extended in the way a publisher would've done it, which indicates it's probably a guy digitizing the collection. Nothing for sure, but we need for sure for copyright

I'm sorry all for not doing my due diligence. I guess I was so excited at looking at a Hanuman Chalisa translation that seemed in public domain after a lot of searching. I didn't do proper investigation. Feel free to delete this, I suppose I'll have to translate it myself Ftrhi (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The South Vietnamese point of view

The book at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102145263 is a collection of four speeches. Could someone confirm that speeches contained in this booklet are all individually public domain as well? ToxicPea (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (2016)

No source, translation of unknown origin, thus the public domain status cannot be proven with certainty. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks to be the same version as this one: https://archive.org/details/constitution_202002 MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

SealandConstitutions

File:SealandConstitutions.pdf

Sealand is not a recognised UN member, Thus normal copyright applies, as this cannot be considered an edict of government. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the edict of government policy restricted to UN members ? Where does it say that ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, it doesn't say that directly. The issue is that the document is not an edict of a 'recognised' government. So to my reasoning it's in the same category as niche speculative fiction. Its author did not die 70 years ago, and thus as effectively British, normal UK terms would apply. There is no explicit CC style release in the document itself. Also for this to be an edict of government, the US would have to effectively recognise Sealand as being so for the exemption listed to apply, otherwise normal copyright terms apply. If you have evidence Sealand is recognised by the US , please post that below. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.thoughtco.com/principality-of-sealand-1435434 ; and https://legalclarity.org/is-sealand-a-recognized-country-in-international-law/ indicted Sealand is not a 'recognized' govenrment in the US ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete (on copyright grounds). Prior precedent limits the edicts of government doctrine to U.S.-recognized governments (whether U.N.-recognized or not). Thus, the laws of Abkhazia were considered Georgian works, and as they are not Georgian governmental works, the edicts of government doctrine does not apply. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• @Beleg Tâl as the person who worked on this: anything to answer to the copyright concerns? — Alien  3
  3 3 07:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  We had a discussion on the subject in 2018 in which we decided to keep this work under {{PD-EdictGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: anything to reply to the argument in that discussion? — Alien  3
  3 3 13:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Alien: I disagreed, and still disagree, with the decision in the Aiaaira case; I mention it only because it is our established precedent. If they claim to be a government, and they are presumed to know the law, then they would be factually estopped from claiming that they weren’t a government if they brought a copyright infringement lawsuit. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Moved to WS:CV — Alien  3
3 3 13:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The Applicant (Plath)

1963 work by noted poet. Is it in the public domain? Nighfidelity (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume first publication is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_(poetry_collection) which is the UK so it would be URAA covered. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

According to w:The Applicant "It was first published on January 17, 1963 in The London Magazine". I suspect that URAA still applies. -- Beardo (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

So I vote  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Modern Japanese Stories

Since this work was published in Britain and the editor, Ivan Morris, who contributed an introduction, died in 1976, would this still be copyrighted or am I mistaken? Nighfidelity (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If it was published at UN HQ in New York within 30 days it counts as a US-origin work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. You are mistaken. This discussion already happened, and it’s not copyrighted. I’m tired of people who don’t know about midcentury copyrights trying to delete my files. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  The 2024 discussion was on a few stories that had to be deleted. Additionally, it was published by Eyre & Spottiswoode, and according to the copyright section, was printed and published in London. Regardless, it should probably be localized as it would still be copyrighted in Britain. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete; there's no evidence it was published at UN HQ within 30 days. And the final work is by w:Yukio Mishima (1925-1970), and as far as I can tell he didn't publish anything outside Japan. US midcentury copyrights are relatively easy. Public domain non-US works from the mid-century are rarely out of copyright, and I wouldn't touch an anthology with a ten-foot pole. Maybe if you dotted your i's and crossed your t's, but you'd need to establish the anthology is in the public domain (questionable in this case), that all individual translations were first published in the book (???) and establish that each individual works are PD in the US, i.e. published before 1930, first published in the US, or PD in its source nation on its URAA date. This is a lot of work and unlikely to be true for all the works in a book like this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000131231 country of publication: "United States of America", Ivan Morris was chair of the Columbia East Asian department, https://lccn.loc.gov/61011971 etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  This seems to be a separate edition, with that version being published by Charles E. Tuttle a year later. Nighfidelity (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  The UNESCO link shows a work of 512 pages with illustrations by Masayuki Miyata. The scan has 528 numbered pages and no illustrations. I don't think that you can claim that the copyright status of one applies to the other. -- Beardo (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  It has the exact same table of contents. If you think Ivan Morris made two completely separate compilations in the same year with the same title but with different texts merely because one had illustrations and one didn't or one had slightly different pagination, that seems a reach to me... MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's a 1962 work. The 1961 UK publication came first; unless the the US publication was within 30 days, it doesn't matter for the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Separately we already had a discussion where we went through every one of the stories, which is why they are a bunch blanked out that had their URAA copyrights restored. The fact that you are asking prove that these translations were never published anywhere else or your work will be deleted in a week and do this ever few years is why I have given up on doing basically any post 1930 works. 13:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Marking a page problematic is not enough. It fails on both ends and in the middle; we still have the text in the PDF, no indication in a frontend that a work has been removed, and even on the Index page, I saw no signs that pages were removed because that's not what problematic is for. I wouldn't have been as hurried on it if it had been properly handled.

  A novel by an American author is usually pretty simple to check. As I said, this is a work I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole because there are so many layers and cross-checks that need to be done. If you don't want to work on them, I entirely understand it, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't dot our i's and cross our t's. I've been worried as the various sources have started to reveal that non-renewed Weird Tales issues with no individual renewals still have English works published in the UK first that have probably been restored by the URAA. Doing modern works translated from a language I don't think any of us speaks is a nightmare.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Have you proved that the American novel by an American author wasn't offered for publication first to a British publisher triggering the publication date? Are you asking to go through detailed archives to chart the whole publication history? Oh you don't have the letters from such and such day can you prove it wasn't offered in a letter on such and such a day? If you want absolute proof for anything that is impossible. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are currently:

  • No standardized way of doing the search asked for or way to document.
  • No clarity that even if done, someone won't just ignore it , nominate without mentioning and delete in a short period of time. Previous nominations and discussions are ignored all the time, as happened here.
  • No standard so someone can just come along and say "I think this is copyrighted" and delete anyways if not responded to, even with any such documentation.

  MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Offering a work to a publisher doesn't mean it's published; only when they print it is it published. Moreover, if the only copyrightable work is by an American author, then it doesn't matter where it was published; the URAA would not have restored it.

  Not having a standardized way to do the search is not a justification for keeping a work without doing a search. I don't recall any prior mention of a standardized search, so why would anyone have created one? Any work can always be returned to copyright discussions; what's new? The last discussion on this matter was far from complete.

  This has clear copyright violations, works first published in Japan by Japanese authors that was in copyright in Japan on the URAA date. Despite the previous discussion, the works were never removed from the PDF.

  If you want a standardized form, it would look like identifying every work in the volume, identifying the author and translator, including the first publication of the translation, the name of the original work and its original publication, then justifying why the original and translation are in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Prosfilaes: No, I’ve dealt with your ilk before, and I’ve had enough. The last time this happened, you continuously refused to provide any evidence that the work I had uploaded was copyrighted, despite my frequent requests. I’ll ask again: Do you have any evidence of your claims? Any evidence that would even tend to help prove your claims? Or are you just making baseless assertions of potential copyright issues—again!—to get one of my indexes deleted? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

    日本語なら理解しやすいでしょうか？私は機械翻訳を使わざるを得ず、そのような助けがなければまったく理解できません。もしあなたが日本語を理解できるのであれば、日本の文献を調査するうえで、私よりもはるかに有利な立場にいるはずです。もし理解できないのであれば、もともと日本語で書かれた特定の作品が米国で著作権の対象となるかどうかについて、私たちには判断する能力がないということになるでしょう--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

    Would it be easier to understand in Japanese? I am forced to rely on machine translation; without such assistance, I would not be able to understand it at all. If you can understand Japanese, you are certainly in a much more advantageous position than I am when it comes to researching Japanese literature. If you cannot, then it would seem that neither of us is in a position to determine whether a specific work originally written in Japanese is subject to copyright in the United States.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Replaced with English version—TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Wrongly, of course. Don't edit other people's comments.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

    • I don’t know why you thought it was appropriate to engage in such a bizarre stunt, but I have replaced your machine-generated text with an English version. As for your arguments, you again fail to provide any evidence of copyright issues; you only point to the potential of copyright issues, not to any actual evidence that would tend to prove your point. By way of comparison, you mentioned in another comment that some Weird Tales stories may be copyrighted; by your logic, you could nominate all post-1930 issues for deletion, and have them deleted, because some of them might be copyrighted. All this could be done, simply by you saying as much; you don’t need to provide any evidence that any of the stories are copyrighted (not that you ever provide any evidence,) your word is all that matters. At this point, I’ve learned my lesson: I’ll stop asking you for proof. You don’t have any, and have never had any. You just lie and make up issues to harass me. I’m happy to actually discuss copyright issues with some of the stories in this anthology, but without evidence there is nothing to discuss. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
      • • I don't have to provide evidence. We don't keep works just because we can't prove they're copyrighted. This is a book published after 1930 in England. That's enough right there. It contains works first published in Japan by Japanese authors who died after 1946; even if the translations were first published in the US and not renewed, they would still be copyrighted; and again, no, just marking the page in the index problematic is not good enough.
        • The big difference with Weird Tales is that Weird Tales is a US magazine that generally ran first printings of works, its contents, titles and authors are all listed on Wikisource, and I can check ISFDB for the history of anything published in it. This work doesn't link authors on its table of contents or anywhere else, and doesn't notice translators at all except at the end of proofread stories. "On the Conduct of Lord Tadanao" is translated by Geoffrey W. Sargent, an obscure translator who died after 1968 and probably graduated from Cambridge and spent time in Australia. Page 33 of the introduction seems to imply that this was the first printings of this work, but we still need to show that this was first published in the US.
        • I made it pretty clear why I did that stunt; neither of us can check anything about the bibliographic history of these works. Even what information is buried in the book you haven't bothered pulling out to make these details checkable. Without evidence, we should delete any work; we have to be reasonably certain the works are in the public domain to keep them. As I've said, I have a hard time imagining any work harder than "Modern Japanese Literature" for being reasonably certain the work is in the public domain, and you demand everyone else do that work for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Index:Democracy and the Survival of the Third Republic in Nigeria 1992.pdf

A 1992 work published in Nigeria. The Commons file seems to have an invalid Nigeria PD licence tag and no US licence. I can't see how this could be PD in the US. -- Beardo (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Author:Abderraouf bin Habib bin Yousef Jdey

Although the translations are from the US government, I'm not sure how the letters he wrote are in the public domain. Nighfidelity (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume since they are found in Afghanistan they are Afghan origin works which didn't have copyright relationship with the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)