Wikisource:Copyright discussions

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. You may join any current discussion or start a new one.

Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted.

When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions.

If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, Stanford Copyright Renewal Database as well as University of Pennsylvania's information about the Catalog of Copyright Entries may be helpful in determining the copyright status of the work. A search through or Google Books may also be useful to determine if the complete texts are available due to expired copyright. Help:Public domain can help users determine whether a given work is in the public domain.

Quick reference to copyright term

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


Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu[edit]

Raised a concern here back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

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

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

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

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)

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)

Relevant to this discussion, I think our copy of Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia (the basis for the distinction drawn above between {{PD-IndonesianGov}} and {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) may be out of date. Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia bills itself as a 2002 act as amended in 2014, but the 2014 revision legislation (available from WIPO, with a not-so-great machine translation into English) appears to be more in the nature of a replacement than an amendment. The rule against copyrightability of governmental works is now stated in Article 42 in terms that do not entirely overlap with Article 13 of the 2002 act; there is a new provision in Article 41 concerning limits on copyrightability of certain works; and there is a series of exceptions under new Articles 43–49, some of which may be pertinent for our purposes.

All of which is just by way of saying that perhaps this discussion needs to be tabled until we as a community develop a fuller sense of what Indonesian copyright law actually requires (and permits). Tarmstro99 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaymondSutanto, @John Vandenberg: Are you able to advise us on this matter? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, @Tarmstro99: is right: the template is out of date. The newest Copyright Act that we use is the 2014 edition (you can see it on Indonesian Wikisource: id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014). The Copyright Act says that all of Acts made by government doesn't have any copyright, on Article 42 (Tidak ada Hak Cipta atas hasil karya berupa: ... b. peraturan perundang-undangan). The 2014 edition is a replacement for the 2002 edition. RaymondSutanto (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@RaymondSutanto: is the legislation retroactive, does it affect government works published before 2014?—Also, this discussion does not cover Acts of government (which are hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, but rather works created by the Indonesian government that are not legislative. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is retroactive. Works that are not legislative are also counted (included) on Article 42, for example Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) and Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) that are not a legislative law. RaymondSutanto (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a (mediocre) translation of the 2014 law here. The changes that affect us aren't substantial. Government works that aren't listed in section 42 are still licensed in a non-compatible fashion (no derivatives except for certain purposes). The works listed in section 42 are the same as section 12 of the 2002 law, except that "scripture or religious symbols" are now exempt from copyright, and "decisions of arbitration boards or of other similar agencies" are no longer exempt from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 16 August 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)
@Koavf: Move to BiblioWiki? I am no longer able to do it.--Jusjih (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobel speeches/lectures[edit]

According to

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 on behalf of the Nobel Foundation who hold copyright. For information on how to license these, please contact

This is further confirmed on

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)
The URAA doesn't restore works that are solely by Americans. There has to be at least one author who is from an eligible nation, which explicitly excludes the US. I can't find a renewal, but I don't know when it was first published. If it hit the New York Times via telegraph, it could have been published within 30 days in a renewed work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the URAA would restore works by Americans if they were actually residing overseas at the time. But Faulkner would not qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, domiciled. Which I supposed mitigates against the undeletion of Three Stories and Ten Poems based on my proposal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Gore's speech. @Koavf: move Faulkner's speech to BiblioWiki?--Jusjih (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The Exilarch's Letter[edit]

I can't find any source for the English translation (Sod Ha'ibur by Richard Fiedler (2014) copies Wikisource). The Aramaic text should probably go to the main Wikisource, though it would be nice to have a source for that, too. We could make a local translation, if necessary; it's pretty short, but Aramaic is not a widely-known language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile wrote on my talk page that "The Aramaic comes from Mann in 1922:[1]. Published in the UK, and confirmed as being out of copyright by IA / Cornell. The English translation is from the same time period but I can’t find the source online (I think I took it from a library); this was five years ago." I wasn't truly worried about the Aramaic, but given that one year later is still in copyright, "from the same time period" isn't much help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Selected Essays by Karl Marx translated by Henry James Stenning[edit]

Set of translated works by Marc that have been held by us for a long period. They are noted as the translations being published in 1926, and confirmed as first published, and the author having died 1971 (FreeBMD date). Author is British, and the linked reprint was during the life of the author, so not a sign that the reprint was able due to no copyright. has numbers of Stenning's works[2], though they would all appear to be in copyright.

It would appear that unfortunately that these works are copyright in UK, and US and not out of copyright until at least 95 years after publication (2021). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the 1926 edition was a US publication (New York, International publishers, 1926); was its copyright renewed? Or, maybe, there wa an older British-only publication? Ankry (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope, I can see a book review in Marxian Essays. — Aberdeen Press and Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland), Thursday, April 01, 1926; pg. 3; Issue 1040.billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Question on upload policy[edit]

Is it permissible to upload a djvu source file to Wikisource if it contains material which is in the public domain in the US, but not in the country of its original publication? I'm asking because such files cannot be uploaded to Commons, and I have one which I would like to upload here if it's permissible to do so.
David Wilson (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as long as all the content is PD in the US. We allow local uploads to English Wikisource for such works if they are not PD in their country of origin, but are PD in the US. Commons requires PD for both, but en-WS makes the allowance for PD-US works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Template:Do not move to Commons reminds not to transfer the file.--Jusjih (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Works translated by Robert Elsie[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted as translation copyvios--Jusjih (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
* To the Adriatic

Albanian poems translated by Robert Elsie (1950–2017). Based on the source information provided, the first and last listed could be speedied. The others could hypothetically be PD based on the information available to me, but I think it's unlikely and I have no evidence for that. BethNaught (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Plays of Roswitha[edit]

Could people assist to determine whether (external scan) is out of copyright in the United States? The translator died in 1960, so it's still protected in the UK, but I'm unsure whether the book was registered for copyright in the US, and whether or not there was a renewal. It seems to have been published only from London, and anything post 1922 is confusing for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The translator is Christabel Marshall, who published under the pen names of Christopher St John and Christopher Marie St John. I do not know which of these names the copyright might (or might not) have been registered under. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't see why it would be PD in the US. (It is PD in Canada, which is why the University of Toronto may have felt fine about uploading it.) There's basically just two rules for restoration; it had not to be PD in its source nation in 1996 (or later if the nation joined WTO or Berne later, or is Vietnam, but 1996 for most of Europe) and "has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country." So it wasn't PD in the UK in 1996, the translator lived in the UK and it was published in UK with no following publication in the US.
Short of finding it was printed in the US at the same time, we'll have to wait until next year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
If you think it's useful, I would like to kickstart 2019 with a collection of books that are newly freed into the public domain in the US (i.e. works from 1923), and this would certainly be an option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I would think that this would be best considered as a subpage to WS:RT or a rejig of those pages. And to that we should also consider how we would list works that we have deleted that could be undeleted as coming out of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: This would definitely be useful. We have no medieval plays at all, or any works by Hrosvitha (except for the one I found that was in PD). Hrosvitha is the earliest post-Roman playwright whose works survive, and the first female playwright (we know of) from anywhere in the world. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: To some extent, WS:RT could work, but I also want a big bang on 2019-01-01, and that's going to take more off-wiki work and more preparation than WS:RT is usually associated with. I've been working on transcription projects for close to 20 years, starting not too long after the US PD was basically frozen. This is a huge deal to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I took this here, but there's also some serious WS:PD issues here. This has no source, and only the preface. The table of contents includes articles that according to the lengthy header description weren't published until 1925, and then in Russian. There's absolutely no source information for the translation. I can see cases where this is PD in the US, but then WS:PD comes in; there's only a paragraph long Preface here (Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism/Preface).--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete no source, no evidence of copyright, abandoned with no ready ability to be continued. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DNC Lawsuit against Russia, Wikileaks et al..?[edit]

Firstly is this in scope: ?

Secondly who is this copyright to? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would you think that it is not under copyright? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a formal submission to a US court. I wanted a second view on whether these are copyright (assumed) or not as public record. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted documents can be submitted to court and added to public record; they do not lose their copyright status when this happens. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
One of the more famous examples of a copyrighted work being included in a court decision (not just public record, the court decision itself) is a court decision about Superman that includes the entirety of Action Comics #1. That's generally been argued as not being repostable except in rare cases preserving maximum fair use aspect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming, that in the absence of anything saying otherwise that it is copyright, and thus can't be on Wikisource. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is correct. All works created in the USA since 1978 are automatically copyrighted (with exceptions such as government works) and need to be explicitly released in order for us to host them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Relevant prior discussion available at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2017#Copyright status of court submissions. To that discussion I would only add that pleadings, briefs, or other court filings drafted by U.S. federal employees (for example, DOJ, SG, or agency counsel) would fall under {{PD-USGov}}; copyright problems arise only with respect to filings drafted by private counsel (or attorneys for governments other than the U.S.). Tarmstro99 22:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

1934 Interview with Joseph Stalin[edit]

Pulled from the web, but I cannot access the source location. Is this in PD, or still under copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a scan of an early publication (for reference) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a British work from 1934, so it will be PD-US in 2030. Wells died in 1946, and Stalin in 1953, so it's okay for Bibliowiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

History Will Absolve Me[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the Historical Dictionary of Marxism, the translation of "History Will Absolve Me" by Pedro Álvarez Tabío & Andrew Paul Booth was publised in 1975 by the Editorial de Ciencias Sociales in Cuba. As Cuba is life+50, this wouldn't be out of copyright until 2059 at the earliest as Pedro Álvarez Tabío died in 2009. -Einstein95 (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nomination as it can't possibly be PD. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Index:Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology.djvu[edit]

Published in Baltimore in 1957. Is this edition in PD in the US? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Commons page claims it's not renewed, and doesn't turn up a renewal for it, so I don't see why not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It says that now, but didn't before. I have been in conversation with the person who uploaded the file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - AMENDMENT FIVE[edit]

The text of AMENDMENT FIVE in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China was translated by "NPC Observer" which was released under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 [3] . The official translation is not released yet.--QBear (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete the Constitution of the People's Republic of China entirely for no working source of the translation and I will restart by noting the Chinese governmental source if no objection.--Jusjih (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant but the original page did provide a link to the NPC's official English website. Assuming the translations there are official translations, they are in the public domain under article 5, item 1 of the PRC Copyright Law. --Ewan0707 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Is [4] back in 2004 your meant original page? I am reverting my added copyvio tag, but still waiting for proper license.--Jusjih (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


Published in India in 1941. Author died in 1947. Accordingly, was not PD-India on URAA date. Therefore, copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after publication. Also pinging @Rajasekhar1961:, the uploader, for comment. Hrishikes (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The author died in 1947, more than 60 years from now (2018). So I thought, it is in public domain in India. Is the copywright law say differently. Kindly clafiry. --Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but English Wikisource has to follow the somewhat inconvenient US rules. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: It is indeed in the public domain in India at present. But it was not so on January 1, 1996, when most countries, including the USA and India, entered the Uruguay treaty of forming the World Trade Organisation. On that date, the work was copyrighted in India, so the U.S. gave cognisance to this copyright retrospectively from publication. Once copyright got thus recognised in the U.S., the term of copyright would be as per the U.S. law, i.e., 95 years from publication. English Wikisource, unlike the Indic ones, follows U.S. laws only. So current PD-India status has no value here; the status in 1996 determines the issue. Hrishikes (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
So we can work on the books published before 1923. Does that mean we have to remove it from English wikisource.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
That's the issue we are discussing. Let's see what others say. Hrishikes (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree this was not PD in India on the URAA date: according to w:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, books by authors who died after 1941 are 60 pma. There's no US renewal in the Stanford database so it could be PD in the US if published in the US within 30 days of publication in India. However I see no evidence of that, so Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Martyrs (Foxe)[edit]

Although the original The Book of Martyrs, also known as the Actes and Monuments (1563) was written by John Foxe, who died in 1587, this book is a later edition that clearly contains a lot of material added by someone who could not have been Foxe, since it relates to events from the 17th up to the 19th century in some chapters. These texts have most likely been added by the editor William Byron Forbush, who published this book in 1926 and died in 1927. The licence PD-old is therefore wrong, this book containing original work from Forbush was published AFTER 1923. Moreover, it was most likely published in the USA because Forbush lived there, so PD-1996 would not apply. Finally, I checked and its copyright was renewed in 1954, excluding PD-US-no-renewal. By the way, this website confirms Forbush added a few new chapters himself, and warns the copyright may not have expired yet. So if I understand correctly, this work should not be on Wikisource yet. If the last website is correct about 95 years, this couldn't be on Wikisource until 2022. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the reasons outlined above. It can be moved to BiblioWiki. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


This work is identified as translated by "J. M. Ashmand", which seems to be the result of copying from a website that makes that claim.

However, the text seems to be the translation by Author:Frank Egleston Robbins for the Loeb Classical Library. The date I have for that text is 1940, though it might have been published earlier.

Can I get confirmation of my suspicions? This may need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the advertisement and proem is from Ashmand's, then it restarts with the proem of Robbins' through to the end of the text, judging from some randomly selected passages. Prosody (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This is volume 435, first published in 1940. The start of Book 2 is the same, so presumably it's mostly or completely derived from the Loeb. I don't see copies available online as public domain, but it was not renewed, and has no copyright notice on the "Printed in Great Britain" 1964 edition I'm looking at. It's generally believed that all the early Loebs are PD, but IIRC, WWII complicated the both sides of the pond printing and thus the PD status. I really don't know; @Clindberg:, are you more familiar with the legal issues here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I don't see a renewal for the Robbins work, published in 1940 apparently by Harvard University, and as an American (living in the U.S.) there are no possible URAA issues even if first published in Great Britain. So it would seem that text is in the U.S. public domain either way (Ashmand's translation being from 1822). I don't think that WWII would have any bearing. There may have been some forgiveness for renewals which needed to be filed during the war, but those would have all been pre-1923 works in the first place, and the original publication appears to have been in the U.S. (before the war started there) anyways. The renewal would have had to be filed by Robbins' estate in 1967 or 1968. It appears Robbins lived from 1884 - 1963. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Constitution of Excel Edu-Clubs and Election Code of Edu-Clubs[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted; copyright and scope — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
These appear to be cut-and-pasted from the (now-defunct?) web site of an educational organization. This archived copy of Election Code of Edu-Clubs includes an express copyright notice (“EXCEL Copyright 2012”). I have been unable to find an archived copy of Constitution of Excel Edu-Clubs, but if it originated on the same organization’s web site, then the same copyright notice likely applies. These documents appear to be related to content that was deleted from Wikipedia in 2014 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edu-Clubs), and the conclusion of that discussion may also be relevant for us under {{WS:CSD}} A2, but to my mind the existence of an express copyright notice is the more urgent consideration and we need not reach the question of notability. The fact that the copyright notice appears only on an archived copy of the site, however, made me think that the better course of action was to give our community a chance to weigh in on whether to delete. Tarmstro99 15:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete (if copyright doesn't get it, then scope should, not certain that it meets WS:WWI criteria) — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The communal award[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
A fragment that appears to be taken from Encyclopedia on Jennah, Volume 5 (ISBN 8126137797), by one Prakash K. Singh, published 2009, per Google Books, a contemporary work that most likely remains under copyright. Tarmstro99 19:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Samaritan liturgy/Al-Asatir[edit]

Seems to be a text published in London in 1927, written by a British citizen. Prosody (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as the text is copyright in the UK and would have been restored by URAA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have moved the works to portal ns. as a bare minimum as there is not the evidence of the published work by this name, and how the subpages were published is also unstated. I am tending to Symbol delete vote.svg Delete on the work itself based on Prosody's nomination, and we should investigate the others listed at Portal:Samaritan liturgy, it would appear Moses Gaster did publishing of Samaritan work in the 1900s which is out of copyright in the US.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After the move to a Portal: many of the links now point nowhere, and all the internal navigation links are broken, since they still point to the old locations. If we keep this, someone with a bot will need to retool all the navigation links on each page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done there was just the one set of links to update. regex editor tool works for this sort of thing, and its save feature is always useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I further nominate to Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Portal:Samaritan liturgy in total. The only work in the portal, besides the one nominated above, is yet another unsourced partial copy of the Authorized King James Version with a parallel text in a language that is out of scope on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status of Mao Zedong's work[edit]

Hello all,

There are a few Mao Zedong's work on English Wikisource citing the Article 5 of Chinese copyright law, which exempts all Chinese government and judicial documents, and their official translations, from copyright. However, Mao did not hold any government office after he left the office of the Chairman of the People's Republic of China in 1959. Further more, there is a report that royalties was paid for the translations of Mao's work published outside of China.

Granted the separation of party and state was unclear at time, does Article 5 applies for Mao's work in his capacity as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China? Furthermore, many of Mao's essays were written in his personal capacity, does Article 5 applies to these? -Mys 721tx (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, Article 55 of the 1990 copyright law states that "[t]he rights of copyright owners, publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations as provided for in this Law shall, if their term of protection as specified in this Law has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law, be protected in accordance with this Law." If Article 5 does not apply, then Mao's personal works will not enter public domain until 2027. -Mys 721tx (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many, if not all, unsourced translations of Mao Zedong's work were sourced from "Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung". I was previously transcribing it before it was deleted due to copyvio on both here and Commons. -Einstein95 (talk)
So, Article 5 would exempt anything Mao wrote -- including their translations -- while he was in office. According to the wikipedia article, that would be from 1949 to 1959. I'm not sure if his chairmanship of the Communist party (1943-1976) or his chairmanship of the Central Military Commission (1954-1976) count as government posts. So pretty much anything we have from 1949-1959 is probably covered by Article 5; anything outside of that date range, unless it was prior to the '20s, is probably not.
Unfortunately his author page does not list dates directly. I think it would be most useful to actually identify which of these many works are actually potentially copyright violations. Most of the works that I've looked at linked from that author page seem to be from the 1930s, which predate his holding government officeship, and which thus preclude the use of the Article 5 exemption. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There's also this, which is marked for cleanup, to consider at the same time: Index:Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung.djvu. Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The followings are on Wikisource:

  1. Communism and Dictatorship (November 1920. January 1921)
  2. The Second Anniversary of An Wu-ching's Martyrdom (1929)
  3. On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party (December 1929)
  4. A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire (January 5, 1930)
  5. Oppose Book Worship (May 1930)
  6. Decree Regarding Marriage (January 28, 1931)
  7. A Letter from the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army to Our Brothers the Soldiers of the White Army on the Subject of the Forced Occupation of Manchuria by Japanese Imperialism (September 25, 1931)
  8. The League of Nations is a League of Robbers! (October 6, 1932)
  9. Preliminary Conclusions of the Land Investigation Campaign (August 29, 1933)
  10. The Land Investigation Campaign is the Central Important Task in the Vast (Soviet) Areas (August 31, 1933)
  11. Report to the 2nd National Congress of Workers and Peasants Representatives (January 23, 1934)
  12. Pay Attention to Economic Work (August 20, 1933)
  13. How to Differentiate the Classes in the Rural Areas (October 1933)
  14. Our Economic Policy (January 23, 1934)
  15. Be Concerned With the Well-Being of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Work (January 27, 1934)
  16. Proclamation on the Northward March of the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army to Fight Japan (July, 15 1934)
  17. On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism (December 27, 1935)
  18. To Lin Piao (1936)
  19. We Are Not Going to Turn the Country over to Moscow! (July 23, 1936)
  20. Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War (December 1936)
  21. A Statement of Chiang Kai-shek's Statement (December 28, 1936)
  22. On Guerrilla Warfare (1937)
  23. To Hsu T'eh-li (February 1937)
  24. The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance to Japan (May 3, 1937)
  25. Win the Masses in their Millions for the Anti-Japanese National United Front (May 7, 1937)
  26. Letter to the Spanish People (May 15, 1937)
  27. Inscription for the Founding of the North Shensi Public School (1937)
  28. Speech at the Meeting Celebrating the Completion of the Building of the Anti-Japanese Military and Political University (1937)
  29. On Lu Hsun (1937)
  30. Basic Tactics (1937)
  31. On Practice (July 1937)
  32. On Contradiction (August 1937)
  33. Policies, Measures and Perspectives for Resisting the Japanese Invasion (July 23, 1937)
  34. For the Mobilization of All the Nation's Forces for Victory in the War of Resistance (August 25, 1937)
  35. Combat Liberalism (September 7, 1937)
  36. Urgent Tasks Following the Establishment of Kuomintang-Communist Cooperation (September 29, 1937)
  37. Interview with the British Journalist James Bertram (October 25, 1937)
  38. The Situation and Tasks in the Anti-Japanese War After the Fall of Shanghai and Taiyuan (November 12, 1937)
  39. Dialectical Materialism (April - June, 1938)
  40. Proclamation by the Government of the Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia Border Region and the Rear Headquarters of the Eighth Route Army (May 15, 1938)
  41. Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan (May 1938)
  42. On Protracted War (May 1938)

The following are published while Mao was in office (1 October 1949 to 27 April 1959) and may be considered for inclusion.

  1. Proclamation of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China (October 1, 1949)
  2. Reply to the Provisional People's Government of Xinjiang (October 21, 1949)
  3. Reply to the Xinjiang League for the Defence of Peace and Democracy and to People of the Tacheng-Ili-Ashan Regions (October 21, 1949)
  4. Preface to The Victory of New Democracy in China (October 14, 1949)
  5. Telegram to the Insurrectionists on the "Hailiao" (October 24, 1949)
  6. Inscription for the Inaugural Issue of Renmin Wenxue [People's Literature] (October 25, 1949)
  7. Telegram to Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions (October 26, 1949)
  8. Always Keep to the Style of Plain Living and Hard Struggle (October 26, 1949)
  9. Telegram to Stalin (December 19, 1949)
  10. Address at Birthday Celebration Meeting Held for Stalin (December 21, 1949)
  11. Telegram to President Prasad of the Republic of India (January 28, 1950)
  12. Speech on Departure from Moscow (February 17, 1950)
  13. Request for Opinions on the Tactics for Dealing With Rich Peasants (March 12, 1950)
  14. Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in the Nation's Financial and Economic Situation (June 6, 1950)
  15. Don't Hit Out in All Directions (June 6, 1950)
  16. Be a True Revolitionary (June 23, 1950)
  17. Reply to Ambassador of the Republic of India
  18. You Are Models for the Whole Nation (September 25, 1950)
  19. Order to the Chinese People's Volunteers (October 8, 1950)
  20. Comment on Hearing of Mao Anying's Death (November 1950)
  21. Letter to Huang Niantian (December 2, 1950)
  22. The Chinese People's Volunteers Should Cherish Every Hill, Every River, Every Tree and Every Blade of Grass in Korea (January 19, 1951)
  23. Main Points of the Resolution Adopted at the Enlarged Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (February 18, 1951)
  24. The Party's Mass Line Must Be Followed in Supressing Counter-Revolutionaries (May 1951)
  25. Strike Surely, Accurately and Relentlessly in Supressing Counter-Revolutionaries (December 1950-- September 1951)
  26. Pay Serious Attention to the Discussion of the Film The Life Wu Hsun (May 20, 1951)
  27. Great Victories in Three Mass Movements (October 23, 1951)
  28. On the Struggle Against the "Three Evils" and the "Five Evils" (November 1951--March 1952)
  29. Take Mutual Aid and Co-Operation in Agriculture as a Major Task (December 15, 1951)
  30. Letter to Li Shuqing (October 16, 1952)
  31. New Year's Day Message (January 1, 1952)
  32. On the Policies for Our Work in Tibet -- Directive of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (April 6, 1952)
  33. The Contradiction Between the Working Class and the Bourgeoisie is the Principal Contradiction in China (June 6, 1952)
  34. Let Us Unite and Clearly Distinguish Between Ourselves and the Enemy (August 4, 1952)
  35. Inscription on the Arts (September 26, 1952)
  36. Reply to Ambassador of the Republic of India (September 26, 1952)
  37. Inscription for Inauguration of the Tianshui-Lanzhou Railway (September 28, 1952)
  38. Toast on Third Anniversary of Founding of the PRC (September 30, 1952)
  39. Telegram to the Peace Conference of the Asian and Pacific Region (October 2, 1952)
  40. Letter to Qi Baishi (October 5, 1952)
  41. Telegram to the German Democratic Republic (October 5, 1952)
  42. Talk with Tibetan Delegates (Excerpts) (October 8, 1952)
  43. Letter to Song Qingling (October 10, 1952)
  44. Letter to Tan Zhenlin (October 15, 1952)
  45. Hail the Signal Victory of the Chinese People's Volunteers! (October 24, 1952)
  46. Combat Bureaucracy, Commandism and Violations of the Law and Discipline (January 5, 1953)
  47. Inscription Awarded to Soviet Troops in Lushun (February 23, 1953)
  48. Telegram to Inquire after Stalin's Illness (March 4, 1953)
  49. Telegram to the USSR on Stalin's Death (March 6, 1953)
  50. The Greatest Friendship (March 9, 1953)
  51. Criticize Han Chaunvinism (March 16, 1953)
  52. Solve the Problem of the "Five Excesses" (March 19, 1953)
  53. Liu Shao-chi and Yang Shang-kun Criticized for Breach of Discipline in Issuing Documents in the Name of the Central Committeee without Authorization (May 19, 1953)
  54. Refute Right Deviationist Views that Depart from the General Line (June 15, 1953)
  55. The Youth League in Its Work Must Take the Characteristics of Youth Into Consideration (June 30, 1953)
  56. On State Capitalism (July 9, 1953)
  57. The Party's General Line for the Transition Period (August 1953)
  58. Combat Bourgeois Ideas in the Party (August 12, 1953)
  59. The Only Road for the Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Comme (September 7, 1953)
  60. Our Great Victory in the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea and Our Future Tasks (September 12, 1953)
  61. Criticism of Liang Shu-ming's Reactionary Ideas (September 16-18, 1953)
  62. Two Talks on Mutual Aid and Co-Operation in Agriculture (October and November 1953)
  63. I. The Talk of October 15
  64. II. The Talk of November 4
  65. On the Draft Constitutionon of the People's Republic of China (June 14, 1954)
  66. Strive to Build a Great Socialist Country (September 15, 1954)
  67. Letter Concerning the Study of The Dream of the Red Chamber (October 16, 1954)
  68. The Chinese People Cannot be Cowed by the Atom Bomb (January 28, 1955)
  69. Speeches at the National Conference of the Communist Party of China (March 1955)
  70. In Refutation of "Uniformity of Public Opinion" (May 24, 1955)
  71. Preface and Editor's Notes to Material on the Counter-Revolutionary Hu Feng Clique (May and June 1955)
  72. On the Co-Operative Transformation of Agriculture (July 31, 1955)
  73. Rely on Party and League Members and Poor and Lower-Middle Peasants in the Co-Operative Transformation of Agriculture (September 7, 1955)
  74. Editor's Notes from Socialist Upsurge in China's Countryside (September and December 1955)
  75. Request for Opinions on the Seventeen-Article Document Concerning Agriculture (December 21, 1955)
  76. Talk at the Conference on Intellectuals Called by the Centre (January 20, 1956)
  77. Speed up the Socialist Transformation of Handicrafts (March 5, 1956)
  78. Contradictions Under Socialism (April 5, 1956)
  79. Stalin's Place in History (April 5, 1956)
  80. Speech at Expanded Meeting of CPC Political Bureau (April 25, 1956)
  81. On the Ten Major Relationships (April 25, 1956)
  82. U.S. Imperialism is a Paper Tiger (July 14, 1956)
  83. Chairman Mao's Talk to Music Workers (August 24 1956)
  84. Strengthen Party Unity and Carry Forward Party Traditions (August 30, 1956)
  85. Some Experiences in Our Party's History (September 25, 1956)
  86. In Commemoration of Dr. Sun Yat-sen (November 12, 1956)
  87. Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (November 15, 1956)
  88. Talks at a Conference of Secretaries of Provincial, Municipal and Autonomous Region Party Committees (January 1957)
  89. On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957)
  90. Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957)
  91. Persevere in Plain Living and Hard Struggle, Maintain Close Ties with the Masses (March 1957)
  92. Things Are Beginning to Change (May 15, 1957)
  93. The Chinese Communist Party is the Core of Leadership of the While Chinese Party (May 25, 1957)
  94. Muster Our Forces to Repulse the Rightists' Wild Attacks (June 8, 1957)
  95. Letter to Zhou Enlai (July 7, 1957)
  96. Comment on Class Education with Leaders from Shanghai Motor Power Institute (July, 1957)
  97. Comment to the Loatian Patriotic (Liberation) Front Representative on Education (1957)
  98. Wen Hui Pao's Bourgeois Orientation Should Be Criticized (July 1, 1957)
  99. Beat Back the Attacks of the Bourgeois Rightists (July 9, 1957)
  100. The Situation in the Summer of 1957 (July 1957)
  101. Talk at the Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the 8th Central Committee of the CCP (October 7, 1957)
  102. Be Activists in Promoting the Revolution (October 9, 1957)
  103. Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the People (October 13, 1957)
  104. No Power on Earth Can Separate Us (November 2, 1957)
  105. Speech at Moscow Celebration Meeting (November 6, 1957)
  106. The East Wind Prevails Over the West Wind! (November 17, 1957)
  107. A Dialectical Approach to Inner Party Unity (November 18, 1957)
  108. All Reactionaries Are Paper Tigers (November 18, 1957)
  109. Talks at the Nanning Conference (January 11, 12, 1958)
  110. To the Kwangsi Regional Party Committee on Newspapers (January 12, 1958)
  111. Speech at the Supreme State Conference [excerpts] (28 January 1958)
  112. Sixty Points on Working Methods - A Draft Resolution from the Office of the Centre of the CPC (February 2, 1958)
  113. Talks at the Chengtu Conference (March 1958)
  114. National Minorities (March 1958)
  115. Speech at the Hankow Conference (April 6, 1958)
  116. Introducing a Co-Operative (April 15, 1958)
  117. Speeches at the Second Session of the Eighth Party Congress (May 8-23, 1958)
  118. Speech at the Conference of Heads of Delegations to the Second Session of the 8th Party Congress (May 18 1958)
  119. Speech at the Group Leaders Forum of the Enlarged Meeting of the Military Affairs Committee [excerpts] (28 June 1958)
  120. Instructions (June-September 1958)
  121. Communes Are Better (August 9, 1958)
  122. Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958)
  123. Interview with a Hsinhua news Agency Correspondent (September 29, 1958)
  124. The Masses Can Do Anything (September 29, 1958)
  125. On Huan Hsiang's Comment on the Disintegration of the Western World (November 25, 1958)
  126. A Letter to Chou Shih-chou (November 25, 1958)
  127. Speech at the First Chingchow Conference (November 1958)
  128. On the Question of Whether Imperialism and all Reactionaries are Real Tigers (December 1, 1958)
  129. Talks with the Directors of Various Cooperative Areas (November, December 1958)
  130. Speech at the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee (December 19, 1958)
  131. Reply to Article "Tsinghua University Physics Teaching and Research Group Inclines Toward the 'Left' Rather Than Right in Handling Teachers" (December 22, 1958)
  132. Speech At Conference Of Provincial And Municipal Committee Secretaries (February 2, 1959)
  133. Talk At Symposium Of Hsin, Lo, Hsu And Hsin Local Committees (February 21, 1959)
  134. Speech At Cheng-chow (February 27, 1959)
  135. Intra Party Correspondence (March 1959)
  136. Comment On T’ao Lu-Ch’ieh’s Report On The Five-Level Cadre Conference (March 30, 1959)

-Mys 721tx (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The followings are Mao's early work published before 1922 and may entered public domain in the United States.

  1. A Study of Physical Education (April 1917)
  2. To Hakuro Toten (Miyazaki Toten) (Apri1 1917)
  3. To the Glory of the Hans (July & August 1919)
  4. Miss Chao's Suicide (1919)
  5. Communism and Dictatorship (November 1920. January 1921)

-Mys 721tx (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that only one essay was published before 1922. Should we clean up those that are not in PD as of 2018? -Mys 721tx (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The Elephant Man and other reminiscences[edit]

Hi. Is this work in PD?— Mpaa (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It is PD in the UK & Canada, but not PD in the US until Jan 2019. There is no copyright renewal that I can find (which is good), but the work was published simultaneously in the US & UK, so copyright law for works published in the US in 1923 still applies. We'll have to wait a few months before hosting it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
If there's no copyright renewal and it was published simultaneously in the US, it should be (under US law) a US work and thus out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
In the interests of laziness, I volunteer to take the appropriate action after a suitable discussion period of, say, five months. :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Status Quo in the Holy Places[edit]

As discussed at Talk:The Status Quo in the Holy Places this is out of copyright due to UK Crown Copyright expiring 50 years post publication. A copyvio tag was recently added for reasons I am unaware of. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, the evidence provided on the linked talk page supports a conclusion that the work is permissible under {{PD-UKGov}}. Tarmstro99 23:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thailand PD Exempt and speeches[edit]

Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:

  1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
  2. Constitution and legislations
  3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
  4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports
  5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.

It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.Tarmstro99 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
and Page:Antigua and Barbuda National Anthem.png.

No license template, no evidence that the text is PD. The underlying image has been deleted from Commons as copyright violation after this discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antigua and Barbuda National Anthem.pngBeleg Tâl (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, concurring with rationale at the Commons discussion. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Deleted. Tarmstro99 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Tarmstro99 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Rubicon" Address by South African State President PW Botha, August 15, 1985[edit]

This work has been created twice by 21pjohnstone (talkcontribs), with the second occasion being annotated with the claim

his work was created and first published before 1 January 1996 in South Africa and is in the public domain there because it is a speech of a political nature or a speech delivered in the course of legal proceedings.

According to the Copyright Act, 1978, § 12 (8) (a), "No copyright shall subsist [...] in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings."

1978 South Africa Copyright Act is at, the cite paragraph says

No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts, or in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings, or in news of the day that are mere items of press information.

If we accept the proposal, we will need to amend the text in Template:PD-South Africa for clarity. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to object to their reasoning. Go ahead and improve the template, or make a separate one for political exceptions as is often done in these cases. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
So what part of the copyright act does this fall under? The Wikipedia article is a little light, but according to Google translate's version of the German Wikipedia article, this was a speech given at a meeting of the National Party. I didn't think that political party meetings were considered 'legal proceedings'. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Or 'speeches of a political nature'. Having read it, I'd say it falls under this and retract my claim. However §12(8)(b) does say:

The author of the speeches referred to in paragraph (a) shall have the exclusive right of making a collection thereof

... which seems mildly contrary to what we're trying to do. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
We're not making a collection of just Botha's speeches, so I don't think we have an issue. Secondly, the right of collection given in the law is technically indepedent from the copyright in this work in particular. A selection and arrangement copyright is separate from the copyrights of the contained items; that the law gives an author that right should not be relevant to the copyright of the individual works. The only question is if Wikisource, by its very nature, counts as a violation of that separate right. To me, "collection thereof" means a collection of just his works, not any collection which contains some along with many others. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that we expect works hosted here to be usable for any purpose without restriction (besides attribution and sharealike), and so the restriction against using the work in a collection of just Botha's speeches may put the work afoul of our copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It says that there's no copyright in the work, so the URAA wouldn't restore the copyright. The right of collection wouldn't matter under US law, so it should be fine for the English Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Our Beloved Country[edit]

National anthem of Madagascar.

  1. Madagascar copyright law does not appear to make any exception for the anthem.
  2. Madagascar copyright is 70 years PMA, which for Rahajason will be 2041
  3. Also the oldest copy of the translation I could find is this explicitly copyrighted collection, though I could not say with certainty that the translation is original to that collection. Nonetheless, there is no reason I can find to consider it in the public domain.

It seems clear to me that the translation is obvious copyvio, but also that the original is copyvio as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Extension of Canadian term to 70 p.m.a[edit]

Not that it affects much on Wikisource, but apparently a new US-Canada trade pact could see Canadian copyright terms extended to 70 p.m.a for some works. (Most likely to be those still in copyright (as happened with the UK extension from 50 p.m.a to 70 p.m.a. ), or works published after whenever the trade deal is ratified in Canada.)

A quick scan based on what was tagged with {{PD-Canada}} indicated that there wouldn't be much on Wikisource that would need to be reviewed (given US non acceptance of the shorter term) apart from possibly works by Author:William Lyon Mackenzie King such as Letter requesting a copy of Adventures in Contentment. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If the copyright tag for Letter requesting a copy of Adventures in Contentment is correct (i.e. if the work was indeed published in the USA between 1923 and 1977 without copyright notice), the US copyright will remain the same for that as well. Since the US law will not be changing, there should be no change to what may be hosted here. I guess we'll find out more when the details are hashed out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Most likely Canada will make the extension non-retroactive, meaning there would not be anything to delete even if we did use Canada's law here (rather just a freeze on new expirations). Since we use U.S. law only though, it's highly unlikely that anything is needed -- the URAA remains unaffected. If there are tweaks to the U.S. copyright law due to the new treaty, we'd have to see what those are, but aside from that there should be no changes here. PD-Canada is just a helpful-information tag; I suppose if they make the law retroactive we may have to remove some of those but that will not affect hosting ability. The main effect will probably be that Wikilivres/Bibliowiki becomes less useful as time goes on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Face in the Pool[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Appears to be a contemporary retelling of a story from Greek mythology. The text appears to be from Mary Pope Osborne, Favorite Greek Myths (1989) (OCLC:859032019all editions, ISBN 0590413384), available via Google Books, except with the Greek names of the gods substituted for the Roman names used in Osborne’s book. The scanned volume at Google Books includes an express copyright notice reading: “Text copyright © 1989 by Mary Pope Osborne.” Although public-domain versions of the original story may exist, the version hosted here remains under copyright. Tarmstro99 17:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, I see no reason to doubt your analysis. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted 19th October 2018 kathleen wright5 (talk)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Letter to President Bush[edit]

A contemporary work (2001) by multiple authors, several of whom are still living. Although sent to a public official, it was authored by private citizens, who presumably collectively hold the copyright in their creation under the joint authorship rule of U.S. copyright law. Although issued as an “open letter” and undoubtedly intended for wide release, there is nothing from which we can infer that the authors expressly disclaimed their copyright. We have previously deleted similar “open letters” from private citizens to public officials on copyright grounds; for example, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2010-05#Henry C. Karlson III's letter to Barack Obama, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-04#John Nash Letters to NSA, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-11#The Dalai Lama's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-12#Letter to John Gunther Dean. The same outcome should follow here. Tarmstro99 18:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

UK works published in the UK before 1923[edit]

I've recently been transcribing articles that appeared in the 1922 issues of The English Historical Review, a scholarly journal which was published (I believe) solely in the UK. There are also a number of other works published in the UK but not in the US which I'm interested in transcribing. My question is: for the purposes of Wikisource, are they (or any other UK works published before 1923) public domain automatically or do some other rules apply because they were never published in the US? I didn't find our help page particularly helpful in this respect, so any advice would be appreciated. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

Actually, I've just checked and the publisher details on the front cover state:
"Longmans, Green & Co,
59 Paternoster Row, London
New York, Bombay and Calcutta"
Does this indicate that the work was also published in the US? —Noswall59 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
Everything published before 1923 is automatically in the public domain in the USA, regardless of where it was or was not published, and can therefore be hosted on English Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that's great – thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC).