Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2006-11

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Author:Jean Giono

This author died 36 years ago, and his works are most likely copyrighted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This works was explicitely released into the public domain by Giono. The French version is available on the French Wikisource. See fr:L’homme_qui_plantait_des_arbres#Droits_d.27auteur for the details. Yann 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolution/1718

I am not sure exaxtly how Jusjih figured out which ones we could definatively not have, but this one is sourced from the UN site.[1] Not a US goverment site. --BirgitteSB 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have further explained to the uploader how to search. Perhaps from now on, we should further require all recent UN resolutions to have evidence of US Governmental authorship. Recent UN resolutions without evidence of US Governmental authorship should be considered copyvios here due to incompactible license. In addition, can we really have works first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and the author failed to subsequently register that copyright? What if the author subsequently register that copyright? Then we would have to delete?--Jusjih 14:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't all UN resolutions be in the public domain by definition? Jet Fuel 14:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As {{PD-UN}} says, Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention done at Paris on 24 July 1971 requires copyright protection for works published for the first time by the United Nations. Resolutions are not exempt. Since the USA is party to it, it has amended its Copyright Law, but even before it, works published at the UN Headquarters were already subject to the same copyright law as other American works.
Rare as it is for me to come down against a finding of copyvio, a Security Council resolution is binding on the United States by Art. 25 of the United Nations Charter. As such, it comes under the public policy exemption in U.S. copyright law for laws and other decisions: "If either statutes or decisions could be made private property, it would be in the power of an individual to shut out the light by which we guide our actions." Wheaton v. Peters 33 U.S. 591 (1834). Practices of the U.S. Copyright Office apparently prohibit the registration of foreign laws (e.g. U.K. laws, which are protected by Crown Copyright), but I can't find an official online reference to this. Physchim62 08:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I know the United States Copyright Office practice that is not a law. It considers that laws everywhere should not be copyrighted. I know that UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions are generally considered legally binding, but since the UN is not a world government UN resolutions can possibly not be considered edicts of governments. Since so many countries extend automatic copyright without regard to negative cultural impacts, we should support the w:Public Domain Enhancement Act to reclaim abandoned copyright. If passed, American publishers and the UN Headquarters will have to pay small renewal taxes to have full copyright terms or send their works into the public domain 50 years after publication.--Jusjih 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

These can be considered to be laws (as they are binding on the U.S. government), international agreements under 1 U.S.C. 112b or de facto decisions of the U.S. government (which did not veto them): take your pick! Insofar as they are published, they are not eligible for U.S. copyright protection 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5) notwithstanding. Physchim62 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See below: resolutions are released into the public domain by the United Nations. Physchim62 15:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Draft United Nations Guiding principles on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

I have found no indication that Draft United Nations Guiding principles on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty is in the public domain (see {{PD-UN}}) --Benn Newman 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

See also User talk:XavierV. --Benn Newman 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it is OK. "As a general rule, documents bearing a United Nations symbol or working papers that have been distributed before copyright protection is.sought are regarded as being in the public domain and cannot be protected by subsequent copyright." ARTICLE H 6. COPYRIGHT IN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS, PERMISSION TO REPRINT, AND PERMISSION TO PUBLISH OUTSIDE THE UNITED NATIONS XavierV 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Where exactly did you get that quote? I believe it is out of date, because currently it is not neccessary to "seek" copyright protection, it is granted automatically. However this was not always the case. --BirgitteSB 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"Copyright policy and disclaimers 5.1 Pursuant to the established copyright policy of the Organization (ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2), all published materials of the Organization are generally copyrighted, with the exception of parliamentary documentation and public information material not offered for sale. " Qoted from United Nations Internet publishing Document ST/AI/2001/5
What is UN parliamentary documentation :"An output category of reports prepared by the Secretariat on relevant issues in response to approved mandates or at the initiative of the Secretariat. It also includes reports of intergovernmental/ expert/other bodies for which the substantial assistance of the Secretariat was provided. Other reports considered parliamentary documentation are United Nations official records; sessional notes and other documents prepared for scheduled meetings; conference room papers; legal and financial/budgetary opinions/statements provided to intergovernmental, expert and treaty bodies." UN Glossary XavierV 07:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your quoted UN pages are very interesting and important. If they can prove that the United Nations has given up copyright on UN resolutions, I can undelete deleted ones.--Jusjih 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This would be great news! It just goes to show how every time you believe a copyright issue is clear, it can be turned on it's head. Do you remember who was all involved in researching this issue before, so we can solicit their opinion on this "new to us" information?--BirgitteSB 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I checked with the Official Document system: there is no other official UN document on that subject. And no rev.3 to ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 (english only) which applies to printed material. This document is available in print, not only on the web. Please undelete deleted. XavierV 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go, extracted from paragraph 2 of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 (the boldface is mine):

2. The following categories of material will, as at present, be left in the public domain, i.e., the United Nations will not seek copyright therefor unless, prior to issue and in exceptional circumstances, the Publications Board decides otherwise, in consulation with the Office for Legal Affairs.
(a) Official Records: a series of printed publications relating to proceedings of organs or conferences of the United Nations. 2/ They include verbatim or summary records, documents and chck-lists of documents, issued in the form of annexes to those records, including periodic supplements, such as the quarterly ones of the Security Council; and the reports of those organs of subordinate or affiliated bodies, compilations of resolutions, certain reports of the Secretary-General, and other selected publications, which are issued in the form of supplements;
(b) United Nations Documents: written material officially released under a United Nations document symbol, regardless of the form of production, although, in practice, the term is mainly applied to material offset from typescript and issued under a masthead. The term also applies to written material issued simultaneous or sequentially in the form of documents and publications;

That about settles it, doesn't it? Physchim62 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very great and positive discovery! After having major turmoil of copyright concern of the UN resolutions, I will undelete deleted UN resolutions here (see /Archives/2006/04#UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1154) and /Archives/2006/05#UN_Security_Council_Resolutions_after_1_March_1989) and at Chinese Wikisource after notifying the community there. I will also notify Wikipedia, French Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons of this very important discovery. However, as of this writing of mine {{PD-UN}} is too complex, so I would like to suggest moving "UN for sale publication" US public domain to {{PD-US-no-notice}} and {{PD-US-no-renewal}} while they may still be copyrighted in countries without the rule of the shorter term. To avoid confusion, we should not mix worldwide public domain--Jusjih 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please go ahead with undeletions. I do not completely understand what you mean to do with the templates. Can you explain again and specify what template is meant to be used on what type of document?--BirgitteSB 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased that this will allow wider dissemination of UN texts, including in other languages. I am however, worried that the text of the "Draft United Nations Guiding principles on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty" is still deleted. This text will be discussed soon, and the opportunity to access it through Wikisource is a definite advantage for those who live in extreme poverty as well as those who work closely alongside them. For this reason, we respectfully ask for the ban to be lifted. Alternatively you could tell me how to do it. Thanks! XavierV 22:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It was never deleted, just hidden (you could have seen it being looking at the page's history). It has been restored. --Benn Newman 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Good news indeed. Just a word of caution on point (b) cited by Physchim62 above: this seems to contradict the "not offered for sale" quote from ST/AI/2001/5. It appears that §I.2(b) has been superseded by the more recent ST/AI/2001/5, or maybe already in ST/AI/Add.15/Rev.1 (see also section 4 of ST/AI/2001/5). Lupo 09:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading through ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 last night made me wonder about a couple of points. For one, that instruction was experimental and supposed to expire in 1989: however it is still quoted as "established copyright policy" in ST/AI/2001/5. To make things more complicated, ST/AI/2001/5 speaks of policy being 'default copyright' (my term), whereas ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 describes a situation of 'default public domain'. It also seems inconsistent with the view of U.N. image copyrights on Wikipedia, which is based on the license given in the annex to ST/AI/2001/5. Two points appear clear from reading the two texts:
  1. Material which the U.N. publishes on commercial terms is copyrighted.
  2. "Parliamentary documentation and public information material not offered for sale" are released into the public domain.
As far as Wikisource is concerned, resolutions and treaties seem to be parliamentary documentation as official records (see definitions above). I think the two terms are [parliamentary documentation] and [public information material not offered for sale], i.e., parliamentary material can be offered for sale (as compilations, etc.) but is still released as PD, whereas public information material which is offered for sale (a category which appears further down) is copyrighted. Where this leaves the question of images I do not know. Physchim62 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to BirgitteSB, I have undeleted hundreds of UN resolutions that were deleted when no one proved them ti be in the public domain. For {{PD-UN}}, I have just moved for-sale publications information to {{PD-US-no-renewal}} and {{PD-US-no-notice}} so {{PD-UN}} can concentrate on worldwide public domain. At this time, I would like to ask if Secretary-General's speech at Qing Hua University qualifies for PD-UN and undeletion based on its nature?--Jusjih 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to Physchim62, if Parliamentary documentation and public information materials not offered for sale have incidental inclusion of images, I suppose that they are released into the public domain together since they are pats of the UN-PD materials.--Jusjih 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
On images, we need to be extra careful: only UN images fall under the UN's copyright policy, but they may—and that applies in particular to their web sites—also publish images from third parties for which they have acquired an appropriate license! See ST/AI/2001/5, §3.29. Lupo 08:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, particularly as they appear to want to protect the typographical arrangement (and any underlying coputer programs, such as PDF files) of the material on their web sites: not a problem for Wikisource, which only reproduces the PD text. It appears quite difficult (though not impossible) to make a PD claim for images which are not integral parts of PD text (e.g. by being referred to in the text). As for third party images, these remain under copyright, regardless of their use by the U.N. The situation is exactly equivalent to the use of third party images in U.S. government works: from House Report 94-1476 (referring to 17 U.S.C. 107),
The Committee has considered the question of publication, in Congressional hearings and documents, of copyrighted material. Where the length of the work or excerpt published and the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the circumstances, and the work itself is directly relevant to a matter of legitimate legislative concern, the Committee believes that the publication would constitute fair use.
Physchim62 08:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What did they say is the case when the length etc. does not constitute fair use? --BirgitteSB 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 15:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

William Styron - interview

William Styron - interview: No indication that the contributor is William Sytron William E. Marks. Presumably GFDL, no mention of a specific license though. What about the hosts' interviewee's copyright? (#Author:Chris Mar, above, is about the same issue.) --Benn Newman 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (Wikipedia:Thread-mode Disclaimer!)

Hi Benn - thank you for your comment. I, William E. Marks, am the author of this article (please see preface of article re: copyright ownership). Bill Styron died a couple of weeks ago. He is heralded as being one of America's greatest writers in the 20th century. I crossed paths with Styron at various Vineyard functions over the years - and several times in 1989 when he was allowing few interviews. It wasn't until 1990 that his writings about depression were made public. As you can read, I am also the interviewer of Styron. I am also the founding publisher of the magazine (Martha's Vineyard Magazine) that published the article in 1989. I knew Bill Styron personally from contact here on Martha's Vineyard, where he had his summer home. I also have some photographs that relate to the article - ie: Styron sitting at his writing desk, and reading the newspaper while relaxed in his backyard hammock. However, I will need some guidance in uploading pictures with your software into the article. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Williame 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The text does not seem to say who the actual owner is. Telemedia? Martha's Vineyard Magazine? You? Though it talks specifically about Wikipedia, Confirmation of permission may be of some help. The Image use guidelines should point you in the right direction for using images. --Benn Newman 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An interviewee does not typically hold any copyright, so that is a moot point. I assume the user Williame can provide an eMail from his publisher's eMail ISP or something along that line to prove he is who he says he is. (Not to bite the newbies, but c'mon, if you were going to pretend to be somebody online, wouldn't you probably impersonate somebody more impressive than Styron/Marks? My gut instinct says he's telling the truth :P). I don't know whether the interview is currently considered property of MVM or WEM, but it's presumably being released under GFDL and hosted it doesn't even really matter, assuming Marks is basically just able to toss a fax on his letterhead to WMF or something if we want to be delightfully anal. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Easier to catch it right away that in a few years. Williame is here to clear everything up. :) --Benn Newman 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Without doubt, I, William E. Marks, am the uncontested owner of all copyrights relative to the so-called William Styron Interview. FYI - Telemedia only provided a public access channel for people in the community to produce and exhibit self-created programs. I was the creator/producer/host of The Vineyard Voice program, and always held all rights to same. As well, as the Founder/sole owner/and Editor of Martha's Vineyard Magazine, I published this interview which I am now sharing with Wikisource. By the way, Bill Styron died a couple of weeks ago - therefore I felt it would be nice to remember his thoughts by placing this interview with a vehicle such as yours. As far as proving I am who I say I am - you have my email - Also, you can check me out on; www.Yahoo!.com; and, etc. - since I am a public speaker and the author of many published magazine and newspaper articles; have five articles in the recently released international Water Encyclopedia published by John Wiley & Sons, as well as being the author of the book, The Holy Order of Water, Healing Earth's Waters and Ourselves. Other than this, I guess I can scan and send you the cover, masthead, and Styron article from the 1989 issue of Martha's Vineyard Magazine in which the interview was published. I am open to suggestions here.
Thanks again, Williame 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to upload this. There are some formalities we need to take care of. I would sugeest that you send an emial to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org" stating you are the copyright holder and explictly declaring what sort of license you which to release this under. I am not how familar you are with the licensing requirements here. Most everything is Public Domain or GFDL and other permissions may or may not be acceptable. I quick explanation of the GFDL (thanks w:User:Quadell) is that it would allow anyone else to use the work without the copyright holder's permission -- so long as the resultant product is also licensed under GFDL. So a website that copies Wikisource content could copy this work and use it on their site without asking anyone's permission. It also means if someone wanted to use the work for their own flyer or whatever, they could do so without asking anyone's permission, so long as the flyer (or whatever) is released under a free license. Most big companies won't use material this way, since their business model depends on keeping tight reins on their copyright. You would still own the copyright, and if another publisher wanted to use the work in a book or magazine or whatever, they could purchase the copyright from you, or you could license them specifically to be able to use it for a fee, and then they wouldn't have to license the whole magazine or book under a free license. Public Domain of course has no restrictions and would mean you are giving the copyright entirely. Feel free to ask any more questions as these issues are unfortunately quite complicated.--BirgitteSB 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay - I am beginning to see the light as the fog thins in Wikikingdom. Thank you Birgitte. Per your suggestion, I will follow through with contacting """permissions…""" Williame 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello out there in Wikikingdom - users BirgitteSB and Newmanbe please take note - I sent in an email to "permissions" per Birgitte's suggestion - and have received no reply. In my email I indicated that GFDL was fine with me relative to the William Styron - interview. I have been a publisher/author/editor for 26 years - so I believe I have some cognizance of copyright law and public domain issues. To be honest - my impression of how my submission was handled is that I am unimpressed by the way something can be so quickly judged by those who apparently lack experience. The more people who walk away from Wikisource with my type of negative experience - the less likely we will be to support Wikisource with our submissions and money. Have a nice trip Williame 00:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We are just all volunteers with no legal experience so you probaly have more understanding of certain copright issues than us. If you have any suggestions of how we should handle things to both protect authors copyrights and prevent willing contributers from having a negative experience I would certainly like to hear them. The permissions emails are handled by other volunteers not neccessarily working on this particular project, who answer email for all WMF projects. --BirgitteSB 01:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The permission email has been received, and I have unblanked the page. Apologies for the delay. Robth 01:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

KeptBenn Newman (AMDG) 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Author:Robert W. Service

He was born in Britain, moved to Canada, and died in 1958. Unless otherwise proven, his works should be considered copyrighted.--Jusjih 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

17 U.S.C.&nbsp.104A: his works are copyrighted in the U.S. Physchim62 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at the dates of the works that were published. Most of them were published in America before 1923, and so are no longer under copyright. Some of his later works might be, but we currently only have those works which are PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
US copyright restoration is applicable if the work never entered the public domain in the United States. Not all of his works are copyrighted in the US, so I am withdrawing this report, but we need proper copyright tags.--Jusjih 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The works are still under British and Canadian copyright (70 and 50 pma respectively), despite the 1923 rule. In case anyone has forgotten, the current policy is to respect all copyrights "as best we can". Physchim62 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"the current policy" . . . of en.WP. Although I agree with you position, I would really appreciate if you do not quote mailing lists of other projects as policy. None of us (that I know of) subscribe to wikien-l and there is no reason we should have to stay on top of the various rumblings there to know our policy. So no-one here has forgotten the policy!
I actually do agree that we should generally respect other copyrights. Especially those of anglo-phone regions in regards to their native sons and daughters. I would not want to hard rule that we must follow every copyright law under sun. But I really think we should make an effort to respect the intellectual copyrights in many of these cases. General respect with room for exceptions in special cases is what I would like to see. However the last time this issue came up consensus was against me.--BirgitteSB 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I was the first initiating this report based on Canadian 50 pma. Based on your concerns of British and Canadian copyright, shall we vote to decide whether to consider copyright laws of major English-speaking countries and areas, such as Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, New Zealand, and the UK, for our copyright policy even if some of his works are now in the public domain in the USA?--Jusjih 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally do not think we should do that. We should properly tag the works so that people in other countries like UK and Canada know it's protected under copyright in their country, but I see no reason why we should consider not allowing clearly US-PD works on a project with all its data servers in the US.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"Major English-speaking countries" is, excuse the language, pretty damned self-centric. The world does not revolve around white, English-speaking middle-class denizens - we need pay no more attention to Canadian copyright law, than Ethiopian. (and ftr, I am a Canadian). We build upon the foundations of US copyright law. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess the world revolves around the US in your estimation? I find surprising that you find it self-centric that some people think it is a good idea to respect the copyrights of native sons and daughters of other anglo-phone countries. I think the focus on anglo-phone areas is because that is the majority of origin of most of the texts and we can actually read the copyright laws directly. Ethopopian copyrights are pretty safe to leave on a case-by-case basis as depending on the information we can get on that rare Ethopian text. Canadian texts are far to numerous to deal with case-by-case.--BirgitteSB 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"I only speak English" isn't really a legal justification for ignoring Ethiopian copyright, when you are bound to. "Let's make it so Wikisource follows the laws of countries that speak English" is ridiculous - either we agree to only host works that meet the criteria for public domain in all 200 countries (which would be very few works...), or we follow the rules of the country where our server is located. But "omg, George Bernard Shaw isn't public domain in the UK" isn't reason enough to keep him off the US-based WS. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Most Dangerous Game

The Most Dangerous Game was published in 1924. --Benn Newman 03:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The (American) author also died 60 years ago, which implies we'd have 10 more years to wait on this work. On the other hand, I do remember seeing it included in a (Canadian) textbook full of public domain texts, so it's possible it's either legal in Canada (doesn't matter to WS), or there's some specific loophole for it. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It is PD in Canada, but probably under US copyright (assuming that copyright was renewed) until 2020. Physchim62 15:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete.Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. There does not seem to be a renewal record on [2] (only for a 1963 novel of the same name by a different author).--GrafZahl 11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The discussion here might be of some relevance. Physchim62 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Could be copied to Yann 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept, published before 1978 without a copyright notice (see Help:Public domain and Template:PD-US-no-notice). —{admin} Pathoschild 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A Country Doctor

According to w:Franz Kafka the earliest english translations of his work were published in the late 1940's.--BirgitteSB 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Similar to below, This translation, which has been prepared by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College in Nanaimo, BC, Canada, is in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, provided the source is acknowledged, released October 2003, last modified December 2003. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment This website has an explict notice from Ian Johnston prohibiting commmerical use without written permission [3] --BirgitteSB 05:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it appears to be a retroactive attempt by him to pretend he never listed them as Public Domain...which he obviously can't do. Since he is now a retired University professor, I'm guessing that his retirement saw him decide to "quietly change" the copyright notice on his translations. Could always eMail him for details, but I'm guessing knows damned well what it's talking about, and Johnston is just trying to suddenly restrict the use of his translatoins....illegitimately. (btw, I suggest merging these two suggestions, since they'll doubtless both be decided the same way?) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. The Kafka Project is a one-person project, and is as fallible as we are. Unless we can find a reliable reference demonstrating that the works were placed in the public domain, we should assume that the author's current license applies. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept; see the release into the public domain in the February 2004 archive of the page. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Penal Colony

this is an explictly a non-commercial translation.[4] --BirgitteSB 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep/Comment - This translation, which has been prepared by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, is in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged, released October 2003. ||| also states it's PD, - as of October 2003, it seems that his books were widely held to be PD, to the point that you can download free eBooks off traditional "download free ebook" websites. No indication when he updated his copyright page on his personal page, but an author cannot retroactively withdraw his works already released. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment it says we have to give attribution. I am leaning toward keep. --Benn Newman 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
CommentCommercial publication of any of the material in book form is prohibited, without the written permission of the author or translator. --BirgitteSB 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it appears to be a retroactive attempt by him to pretend he never listed them as Public Domain...which he obviously can't do. Since he is now a retired University professor, I'm guessing that his retirement saw him decide to "quietly change" the copyright notice on his translations. Could always eMail him for details, but I'm guessing knows damned well what it's talking about, and Johnston is just trying to suddenly restrict the use of his translatoins....illegitimately. (btw, I suggest merging these two suggestions, since they'll doubtless both be decided the same way?) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Are we certain these translations are identical. He could have made an update and released it under new terms. In any event I think we need to contact him and get more details.--BirgitteSB 20:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Our version was uploaded on April 18, 2005; it appears to have been taken from Johnston's web site as of Dec 2004 (cf. Until February 2006, Johnston's page said the translation was PD. The 2004 edition is textually identical to the 2006 version (confirmed by running a diff over the two texts). Lupo 07:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept, released into the public domain. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


FSF Licenses

Free Software Foundation licenses don't allow derivative works to yours own texts. Keeping that licenses on main domain isn't a copyvio action? Lugusto 555 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the article in question?--Jusjih 07:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License, GNU General Public License Discussion Draft 1 of Version 3, GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.1, GNU Free Documentation License. Lugusto 555 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, all of these licences state Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed or similar. I guess that's the problem that you're referring to, Lugusto. Copyright licences are some sort of "meta-text". They define distribution and modification rights for other texts. However, their own making was an act of creativity and thus they themselves probably fall under copyright. Whatever their status, I really think we should have the licence texts for the copyleft works we host here on Wikisource, for the convenience of our users. So I propose:
  • We clarify whether derivative works of licence texts (possibly with a different name) are really disallowed (someone with legal expertise can do that, perhaps?).
  • If the licence texts are genuinely incompatible with Wikisource, we
    • (optionally) place the texts in a separate (pseudo-)namespace "Licence:" or similar,
    • amend the copyright policy to allow text, which can legally be kept on WS, to be placed on WS (optionally only in the aforementioned namespace), if it is a licence text specifying the licence of another work on WS which satisfies the copyright policy.
--GrafZahl 09:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Should the non-commercial license texts be excluded or included in a special way? See also Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006/09#Template:Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_Reference_License.--Jusjih 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. These works are copyrighted, and while we have permission to distribute them, we do not have permission to change the documents in any way. The ability to create derivative works is one of the pillars upon which Wikimedia is based. Anything that shows up on a Wikimedia project comes with the tag of "do whatever you want with/to this document." However, these licenses do not carry that tag. By hosting them here, we are telling people to do something with these documents which we have no right to tell them to do. As such, they must be removed.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep only needed licence texts, with special warning and/or in a separate namespace, or at least hyperlink to the licence text on the FSF website, delete all others. From the above comment by Zhaladshar, I take it the licence texts' licences are incompatible with Wikisource, so as works they should be deleted. However, if we offer some work under any of these licences, we should make the corresponding licence text readily available to our users in some form, e.g. a hyperlink to the FSF website, if it is reliable, or add a warning, making the non-free status of the licence texts perfectly clear.--GrafZahl 08:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The license texts' licenses are incompatible with WS's license because the license texts are actually copyrighted (no license has been given). I know of only GFDL texts here (no GPL), and a copy of the GFDL is linked to twice (one on WS servers, one on FSF servers) here. It's readily available for people to access, and if we need to make it more accessible, then we should edit {{GFDL}} and add a hyperlink to the actual document.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find the link on Special:Version but Meta has a protected copy. Template {{GFDL}} was altered to point to there.--GrafZahl 10:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. GFDL isn't linked on the Version page. It's the GPL. Sorry about that. Yes, the link to Meta would be much more preferable than any link to WS.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The only FSF license text needed is the text from GFDL. Move it to Wikisource: namespace (like in anothers Wikimedia wikis), remove link from Wikisource:License documents (because it isn't a primary source, it is a doc. from Wikisource project) and delete the anothers FSF licenses texts. Lugusto 555 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted these licenses.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech

The text says this is copyright 2001.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeking permission from the author. Maniwar 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Any permission from the author? If not, this article will be deleted.--Jusjih 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II's Prayer at the Western Wall

I believe this is under copyright--BirgitteSB 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking without authority, unless it is specifically listed as being under copyright somewhere, I imagine it falls under the same genre as speeches. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Speeches are uncopyrightable because they are not in tangible form. According to the page: On Sunday morning, 26 March, John Paul II visited the Western or "Wailing" Wall in Jerusalem, where he paused in prayer and left a written message imploring God's forgiveness for those who have caused the children of Abraham to suffer. Here is the English text of the Pope's message.
So this is written prayer and tangible form. Plus I just realized there is a translation issue as well. Since this was certainly not written originally in English.--BirgitteSB 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted while no one argues for its retention.--Jusjih 14:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Author:Houston Davis

This author died 6 years ago, and his works are most likely copyrighted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A Time to Heal

The description on this text reads: An article by Prince Charles, first published in Temenos Academy Review 5, Autumn 2002 and reprinted in Resurgence magazine, July/August 2003. No. 219 --BirgitteSB 15:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Liturgy of St. Tikhon

The Liturgy of St. Tikhon was produced in the 1970's This is certainly under copyright--BirgitteSB 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Author:Philip Emeagwali

This author page states that "The unqualified phrase "Permission to reproduce is granted" is posted on top of the speeches below. This has been treated as an effective placement of those works into the public domain." However, copyright law works in such a way that all rights are reserved unless expressly waived. The license stated does not allow noncommercial use, modification, or redistribution. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --Benn Newman 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

All deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley instant message chats with Congressional page

This is probably a candidate for speedy deletion under G5 and G6. No licensing asserted, and it conveniently provides the link to ABC News, from where it was copied. There are verifiability issues with the content, and it has already been used at least once this morning to violate Wikipedia's policy on bios of living persons. Blanking with copyvio template. Crockspot 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • To assert this is a copyright violation and should be removed means ABC owns the copyright. What proof/reason do you have that ABC News owns a copyright on the email conversation this congressman had?unsigned comment by GH45 (talk) .
  • Since the contributing editor is aware of this discussion, and no attempt has been made to document the copyright status of the content, I recommend immediate sdelete per G6. Crockspot 16:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
How is an email conversation copyrighted? How does any news agency have a copyright? Oh wait, I just read over at wikipedia Crockspot is a conservative and pushing an agenda. GH45 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source to back up that statement? My politics are no secret, but I at least attempt to be objective. I'm not the one who is using a different account name on Wikisource, Arbustoo. Crockspot 14:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think we need to get somebody (Brad?) to look into the copyright status of these sorts of things - if there were any claims of copyright over it, then ABC wouldn't have been able to publish the entire thing - as a very strictly-controlled part of w:Fair use in the media is that they are only allowed to publish small excerpts and quotes from copyrighted material, for the purpose of critical analysis or illustration. It's a grey area certainly, but one that could really benefit WikiSource if we were able to host these sorts of "current events' files. While I'm at it, I'd like to put a lot of distance between those on the intellectual Left, and those like this editor who seems to have lost a few braincells. And of course, I still support deleting this for now...I'm just saying for future reference, I'd like to see a policy that allows us to use similar files - since it's clear that ABC isn't claiming "Fair use" Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright does not apply. The right to have the knowledge necessary to oversee our government applies. 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Copyright applies to everything written. As these were not created by gov't officials in their official capacity they are not Public Domain by Federal Goverment. I certainly do not understand what argument you believe can overide the minor's copyright ownership. --BirgitteSB 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of Mark Foley instant message chats with Congressional page The content of this page, which keeps getting deleted, is as follows:


No copy and paste, just links to legitimate content. This is clearly NOT a copyright infringement, but Republican sysops abusing power. People have a right to this information!

Greetings, allow me to introduce myself. I am w:User:Sherurcij, a leftist. This has nothing to do with conspiracies to keep Mark Foley's chats from the world, personally I find them equally amusing and revolting - and I've shown them to many friends - but Wikisource, as explained to you, is not the place for them. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 03:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I've made my case and future readers can make their own decisions. If wikisource doesn't want to be the SOURCE for current information ... if it likes users coming from Yahoo only to find NOTHING ... then go for it. Users can distribute information many other places, just thought that wikisource was interested in being a reliable source for pertinent information; controversial or otherwise. The team has successfully "won" this argument. Congratulations, you WIN. I'll do my best to never return and point others to these threads.

Just a point of fact. I just double checked the deleted revisions and they are both the actual transcripts. The version with links was rolled back as it against our inclusion policy to have pages cosisting of links instead the actual text. That revisision is still in the history [5]
BTW I think being called a Republican is a boderline personal attack ;) --BirgitteSB 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This was deleted (and redeleted and protected) for being clearly outside the scope of Wikisource's inclusion policy. Please read the policy. You clearly do not understand what the purpose of Wikisource is. If you have two good working links for the source, why do you find it necessary for there to be a Wikisource as well? Just use your links to source articles. I cannot vouch for the second link, but ABC News links are not transient. - Crockspot 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


In the article where it is used, Ganesh pooja, the author gives the source of this image as "Artwork © courtesy of The Ganesha Book Trust": [6] This website is mostly not readable to me, but the front page does have a clear copyright notice: "Copyright © 2006 MarathiWorld All Rights Reserved Worldwide". Note that the image is not on the front page and Google search doesn't find it inside the site. FreplySpang 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hymn of Valledupar

Written in 1984--BirgitteSB 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


From Webserv.c: "(c) Copyright Paul Griffiths 1999". No license seems to have been granted. It was already marked for eventual deletion. --Benn Newman 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The last of the reference data has been deleted. --Benn Newman 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Compendium Maleficarum

This translation was origially published in 1928 and the translator w:Montague Summers died in 1948. This is copyrighted until 2018.--BirgitteSB 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Benn Newman 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Knowledge Translation - Basic Theories, Approaches and Applications.pdf

I can see reason why this would not be copyrighted.--BirgitteSB 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no release. --Benn Newman 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

SADC: Fresh developments and achievements

Not sure what this is, but it was created either in 2005/2006.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

An essay, source is here. Physchim62 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"All images, coding, essays, and pages cannot be used without the prior written consent of this web site." Delete. --Benn Newman 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --BirgitteSB 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan Rather Interview Saddam Hussein right before the invasion of Iraq

Certainly copyright of CBS--BirgitteSB 04:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, among other copyrights. DELETE. Physchim62 16:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman 01:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Blood of the Hungarians

The Blood of the Hungarians is an open letter by Albert Camus, copyrighted. It is also missing translator information (unless it was originally written in English). --Benn Newman 18:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sacred writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian The Promised Messiah & Mehdi

This is a translated work but no information regarding edition or translator are given. Also, it appears that this is an incomplete text as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wikisource has a lot of works like this (id est, works with no translator). --Benn Newman 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --BirgitteSB 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Sword of Islam

The Sword of Islam was published in 1939. --Benn Newman 19:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, He's Italian/British, both of which are life+70, which isn't for more than a decade still unfortunately. In unrelated news, we need to set up a server in Australia where this is public domain >.> λεμα σαβαχθανει (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman 02:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My Life's Adventure

My Life's Adventure was published in England in 1938. The author died in 1949. --Benn Newman 00:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The works were not published in Australia though. Was it in the public domain in 1996? Then we can use {{PD-1996}}. --Benn Newman 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that is was not published in Australia?--BirgitteSB 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The text is kind enough to tell me so:
Eyre & Spottiswoode
--Benn Newman 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That does not mean it is not published in Austraila many things are published in multiple places. Considering the author is austrailian it would be strange if it were not. --BirgitteSB 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I posted this material. Australia had a "life + 50 years" copyright duration until 2004, which means that this material fell into the public domain there in 1999. In 2004, Australia moved to a "life + 70 years" copyright duration, but this was not applied retrospectively: material in the public domain remained in the public domain. Therefore this material is in the public domain in Australia.
Since this book was written in Australia, by an Australian and about Australia, I thought of it as an Australian book. I overlooked the fact that it was published only in England, and therefore England would be considered its country of origin under U.S. copyright law.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, this was the only edition published; i.e. it was not previously published by an Australian publishing house. It appears that I have erred in posting this material, and it should be deleted. My apologies.
Hesperian 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's my anaylsis too. Physchim62 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For Freedom and Truth

For Freedom and Truth was transwikied from Wikipedia. The translation is from a (1991) non-public domain book. See also w:Talk:For Freedom and Truth. --Benn Newman 02:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as copyvio, certainly in the translation and possibly in the original (still researching Hungarian copyright law for the original: for information, the original was a proclamation issued as a written work in 1956). Physchim62 14:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The original was written as an open letter to the world, was an official Government document, and was published shortly after the event in 1956 is several different Western publications. The original is certainly public domain. The translation is the only issue. Either the translation is also public domain (as the original) or a GNU-released translation is most appropriate. Istvan 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
and the event in question? Nov 4, 1956 as the Soviet army invaded Budapest and occupied the Parliament building, the Author, Mr. Bibó was the last Government minister to remain at post. As he waited in his office for the soviet soldiers to come around and arrest him, he wrote this proclamation to the world to defend the actions of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. You can read about this on the wikipedia (FA article) which linked to this text, sadly now deleted. Istvan 13:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE I am seriously angry that this was put here after I explained what was necessary for us to accept it. It is supposedly from Bibo, Istvan (1991). Democracy, Revolution, Self-Determination. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 325-327. ISBN 0-88033-214-X. The contrtibuters on that page were told that translation generates a new copyright for the translator. I explained how to send a permissions email and suggested a GFDL translation from scratch might be easier. If anyone does try and do a new translation under GFDL I suggest that someone serouisly examines it. I am too angry to be neutral with this group of editors and I cannot help suspecting bad faith after this. In the future whenever I answer one of these questions at WP I will watchlist the redlink here, and suggest everyone else do likewise. I would probably not have noticed the addition of this known copyright violation if newmanbe had not tagged it.--BirgitteSB 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    I did not look at the dates on this contribution. It was moved here over a month ago but was never deleted from WP. Then the copyright discussion ensued. I am sorry for not being more careful before leaving angry remarks. Probably a good reason to never leave angry remarks since anger tensd to make people careless.--BirgitteSB 20:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyvio.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman 01:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Stanley P. Gold resignation letter and Author:Stanley P. Gold

Letter from 2003. No reason given for being free.--BirgitteSB 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence looks like a release:
In accordance with Item 6 of Form 8-K and Item 7 of Schedule 14A, I request that you disclose this letter and that you file a copy of this letter as an exhibit to a Company Form 8-K.
I don't know enough about California company law to be sure... Physchim62 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
A license to to disclose the letter does not permit derivatives. Unless "Item 6 of Form 8-K and Item 7 of Schedule 14A" makes it compatible with the GFDL, Delete. --Benn Newman 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am assuming that "Item 6 of Form 8-K and Item 7 of Schedule 14A" are regulatory filings, which would be open for public access and reproduction. I am wary of being too paranoid about modifiability: much of what we host cannot be infinitely modified, but I see no reason why some modification would not be permitted by this release (a strict "no-mod" release would be meaningless in the context, IMHO). Physchim62 10:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good reason for this to be kept? --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Image:Zodiac-SFC-Map.jpg ← Where is that map from? --Benn Newman 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea, but since the map is simply the background for a message from the Zodiac Killer - it's like claiming that we can't host Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, because it was written on the back of a cocktail napkin, with a copyrighted logo on the napkin. The photograph is illustrating a message mailed by the w:Zodiac Killer, not illustrating the San Fransicso Bay area. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
More like having a public domain logo (orphaned, rather) on a non-free work. --Benn Newman 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because the Zodiac Killer made an unauthorized derivative; it does not invalidate the copyright of the component map. This needs to be deleted.--BirgitteSB 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a category of "Unenforceable copyright" (if only to convince Sherurcij that I am not completely against him/her!). These are, of course, copyrighted, and so should only be used under fair use, but I cannot really see anyone coming to sue us about it (note that I feel that the question of suicide notes is different...). I'm the newbie here: if Wikisource is going to be 100% public domain then these should be deleted along with much else which is here; if on the other hand wikisource is going to permit hosting of 'low-risk copyvio' then it should at least say so. I note that U.N. resolutions were deleted because no-one could prove they were PD, yet many other pages are kept here dispite prima facie evidence that they are under copyright. Physchim62 16:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do not find a reason for a text to be in the public domain or having a license compatible with the GNU FDL, it should be reported. Even works with unenforceable copyright still are not allowed under our copyright policy and I do not think we should make it less strict. --Benn Newman 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is explicitly prohibited, and we should not host works simply because we're not likely to be sued over it. See the relevant discussion at Wikisource talk:Copyright policy. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In which case, see the suicide notes question above! These are far more likely to actually get us sued that then rantings of terrorists or psychopaths: imagine if you found that someone tells you that your Dad's suicide note is "public domain"... Physchim62 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't include those either. See the discussion I linked to above. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101, says: "A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. And since the map is showing the location of a 1970 bomb, and not serving to tell irate drivers how to see major tourist sites, it is not "substantially similar to the original work", in that it cannot be claimed to conflict with the unknown mapmaker's original intentions of the creation. Whoever the Zodiac Killer was, he breached Section 106, by preparing a derivative work based on the mapmaker's original work. However, WS is hosting the derivative, which is "an original work of authorship" by the Zodiac Killer himself. Thus this falls under what we've tenatively dubbed "Orphan Works", and can be challenged on that basis, but not here. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Then we are hosting an unauthorised derivative, so what? --Benn Newman 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The derivative has its own copyright status, separate from the original map. It's still an "Orphan work" infringing on the Zodiac Killer's copyrights, but it's not infringing the California State Department or whoever published the original map. At least, that's where my "equally armchair interpretation" is leading me. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The original map is under copyright by 17 U.S.C. 304: copyright protection did not end for earlier works simply by the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976. A work can be covered by more than one copyright, especially (but not only) a "derivative work" in the sense of 17 U.S.C. 101. Physchim62 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Summers World Bank Pollution Memo

Lawrence Summers World Bank Pollution Memo has had the {{copyvio}} template on it since 11 April 2005! It is a memorandum written in 1991. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim is that this is an internal World Bank memo. If so, it is presumably copyrighted by the World Bank.

Apart from that, since it is an excerpt, to present it as a full memo with headers is fraudulent and libelous.

MOE37x3 18:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete on two count copyright violation and we not except excerpts. --BirgitteSB 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
We should nix Author:Lawrence Summers as well since there are no other works. --BirgitteSB 19:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And probably Image:180px-Larry Summers.jpg too. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Humanist Manifesto I

Humanist Manifesto I has been marked with {{copyvio}} since 02 August 2005! Permission to distribute, but not modify, is given in the work. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree this is incomaptible as it prohibits commercial reproduction. --BirgitteSB 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson suicide note

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, some were deleted as proposed deletions

Blatant copyvio. Physchim62 09:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Suicide notes

(User included Kurt Cobain, OJ Simpson, Virginia Woolf, Sara Teasdale, Paul Bern, Fanny Godwin, Yutaka, Wendy Williams, Marc Lepine, Kyle Huff, Kevin Carter, Garry Little, Charles Bishop)

Dear diary,
Woke up today, Physchim62 had listed 9 more of my texts for deletion - all suicide notes. Haven't we had this argument before...a dozen times? Am considering making a template called "This page has been nominated for deletion eight times and failed the nomination eight times. Stop nominating it for deletion". Please see Wikisource:Suicide notes, all have been nominated for deletion multiple times in the past, the battle has been fought, stop re-fighting it. Might I suggest looking at the new template we stuck on all Suicide Notes, including the 9 you listed for deletion - before just saying they're copyvios. You have been fighting to have all suicide notes deleted since your second day editing WikiSource, and more than half your edits on the project have calling for the deletion of suicide notes. Interestingly, among the 9 you listed for deletion, which seem to be a random collection, are Sara Teasdale, who died 73 years ago...Paul Bern who died 74 years ago...Fanny Godwin who died 190 years's like you're not even trying to make decent arguments anymore and are just blindly yelling for blood. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (*sigh* I don't mean to be snarky or combative, but I'm sure you can understand ,my frustration that as soon as a battle is won on a Tuesday, by the following Friday somebody goes "I know, let's re-list them again and try to get them deleted again!". Wikisource deletion is not a matter of "If at once you don't succeed, try, try again". Anyways, sorry if anything I said sounds needlessly curt)
I see no good reasons to host suiside notes while there are no good reasons to believe that we have proper copyright permission.--Jusjih 14:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Because copyright paranoia is harmful to the project - the "easiest" way to prove that they are considered PD in common law, is pointing to the fact they have never had a claim of copyright in litigation matters. Don't you think w:Courtney Love would be scrambling to own the copyright to Cobain's suicide note otherwise? As Birgitte has said multiple times, it's an issue that's never been raised before courts, we are holding to the belief that they are PD given the lack of evidence of a suicide note ever having been upheld as copyrighted. On the one in a million chance that Courtney Love decides to send WS a cease and desist letter, we'd of course comply - but pending that, it's ridiculous to remove a useful, highly-read and valuable resource from WS just because we're given to armchair conjectures. Also, I'll point out that both the mass media and book publishers have consistently agreed that suicide notes are public domain...and nobody has ever challenged them. That's a very strong indication that they are indeed PD. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson is not dead, delete his note. --Benn Newman 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether he's alive or dead doesn't really affect the copyright status of a work - I mean you could argue that he wrote it for different reasons than anybody else, although he's certainly never said that himself, and would quite likely deny it...but alive/dead is an irrelevant factor. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 02:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyright irresponsability is also harmful to the project: if you wish to publish whatever you think you can get away with publishing then there are many free webhosts out there. Wikisource copyright policy states that this project is for public domain works, which this are blatantly not. Physchim62 10:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am with Sherurci on this one. We have already been through this, [personal attack removed] and realize that the outcome of this one is going to be the same as the others. -Maiios 16:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)unsigned comment by Maiios (talk) .

Physchim62, please try listening & responding to the arguments made by other people instead of merely stating that you are right and they are wrong; otherwise, this entire discussion is moot imho. Case in point: you state they are "blatant copyvio", Sherucij meticulously points out that these works have been historically treated as PD by both the Wiki community and the international publishing community, AND that everyone who comes close to being copyright owner on these works has also acted accordingly, which are three very good arguments for considering it PD. Your response: "this are blatantly not (PD)". Come on man, are you just fighting to have a fight or do you really want to have a discussion about this? ~~ unsigned comment by 2006-11-17T02:49:22 (talk)

Everyone needs to stop with personal attacks and accusations. Nothing is clear about these works so it understandable there will be a variety of opinions. Physchim62 is here to improve the project and work out difficult issues. The opinions of users that are not established don't really matter here anyways. If anyone is not established has new information or a new angle on the issue it will be given full consideration. But the pure opinions of such users really are not going to make any difference here.--BirgitteSB 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Works in Category :Orphan works

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

I think it is doubtful that works in Category:Orphan works are in the public domain. Bills aren't laws (last I checked). Even if it did, it does not make it public domain, just reduce the liability if one could prove that they "performed and documented a reasonably diligent search." --Benn Newman 12:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are just too cute Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 13:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We should be very careful with presumed copyright status. I'd much prefer we host clear public domain or GFDL-compatible works and exclude ambiguity. These works are already in the gray areas of the copyright policy, which states that "Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain" and "It is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license".
That said, we should not host orphaned works. These works are not in the public domain, and orphaned works are as yet not recognized in the United States. Many of them are indeed fascinating and historically relevant, but I would support their deletion unless a clear rationale is given for their copyright status. —[admin] Pathoschild 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We should not host orphaned works as of now. Orphan works are not automatically in the public domain, so the US Copyright Office is studying the problems from them and the Public Domain Enhancement Act is meant to reclaim the public domain of orphan works if no one registers their copyright renewals, though it is not a law yet. The (US)$1 fee would harm copyright owners? I instead think if such a fee will cover the administrative costs born by the Copyright Office. There are always groups seeking more copyright extensions without regard to problems caused by orphan works.--Jusjih 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can any one summarize the argument for keeping pre-1976 items in this category? I lost what page that was on.--BirgitteSB 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is because there was no discussion; Sherurcij just announced that he changed the tags — or if there was, I do not think I saw it. My main concern is with whether they were published legally. While unpublished works were not protected by the Copyright Act of 1906, they were protected by the copyright laws of the United States' member states. It could turn out that they are public domain, but I am sceptical right now. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I know states handled the copyright of audio recordings (which had no federal copyright) in this time period. However I have never heard of them having stricter copyright than federal laws where federal laws covered the subject at all. I agree that it is possible there is state copyright. However this is true of every single work tagged with any PD-US template. Do you have any information of any sort of these state laws being more strict than federal for any work outside of audio recordings? --BirgitteSB 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem: since January 1, 1978, federal law preempts State law in matters of copyright 17 U.S.C. 301. The special status of audio recordings is hardly the most important for Wikisource (although it has certain implications for political speeches etc.). The general rule rests the same, for pre-1978 U.S. works we need to know if they were under copyright on January 1, 1978, for other works the general rules of the current 17 U.S.C. apply. Physchim62 13:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The general rule rests the same, for pre-1978 U.S. works we need to know if they were under copyright on January 1, 1978. I take it you mean: The general rule rests the same, for pre-1978 U.S. works we need to know if they were under federal copyeight on January 1, 1978. Correct?--BirgitteSB 13:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
State copyrights on "sound recordings" fixed before February 15, 1972 are still in force (this is the reason for the proviso in my previous post). As far as I am aware, for other U.S. works, we only need to consider federal copyright, except in the case where State law prevents a State government from securing copyright on its works (California). As far as I am aware, publication of a sound recording before January 1, 1978 does not imply publication of the literary work which was 'performed', but there I am really at the limit of what I can advise! Hope this helps! Physchim62 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! This makes sense to me, but I understand that new information could change everything. It wouldn't be the first time.--BirgitteSB 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the state copyright is determining whether the works were legally published to begin with. If they were published illegally, they would probably be un-published, and probably copyrighted still. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that established publishers such as newspapers are publishing things legally unitil we find a law that says otherwise. Showing that there is not a state law making some known publication illegal before accepting a work is beyond the ability of the people here. It would be great if we did not have to make assumtions in determining copyright, but until there is an authoratative database of works with known copyright status most of what we do here will be based in some part on assumptions. Including the assumption that we can understand the laws regarding copyright.--BirgitteSB 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
See User:Pathoschild/Copyright discussion#Presumed public domain for some arguments about works being published by the mass media. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I don't follow you; that is about post 1978 works and the where there is automatic copyright. My comments are solely about pre-1978 works.--BirgitteSB 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Pre-1978 works are covered by the 1976 Act, as section 301(a) makes clear. Title 17 contains many provisions (notably Chapter 4) which have no effect on new works but only on works which were under copyright under the ancien regime. The big BUT is for sound recordings, which may still be covered by State copyright if they were fixed before February 15, 1971. The questions are:
Was the work in the public domain on December 30, 1977? (NB: not December 31, 1977, for which special rules apply)
Is it eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976? (although that act is supposed to continue the old eligibility criteria)
Physchim62 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I am honestly getting lost in this disscussion. I understand we are trying to determine if a work is in the public domain on Dec 30 1978. I am going to evaluate this based on federal rules until someone finds the text of a state law that would indicate a different conclusion. Is this a problem for anyone?--BirgitteSB 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, they were published illegally with out the copyright holders permission. As unpublished works, they are copyrighted for one hundred twenty years. Delete ;) --Benn Newman (AMDG) 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
(What I was going to say, but was interrupted by BirgitteSB's edit!) I get that it covers them now. What I am not sure of is whether they were legally published (which would make them {{PD-US-no-notice}}) because — for some of these works anyway, we don't have sources for all of them — the publisher had no permission to do so (which could have been violation of the state laws then, impacting their status now). This also might have some bearing on suicide notes too. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
{{PD-US-no-notice}} is virtually impossible to verify in any case. Physchim62 17:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't always possible to verify but it can be known in some cases.--BirgitteSB 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think this category contains a mixed bag in regard to being "published illegally with out the copyright holders permission". I do believe we have to evaluate them individually. We can hardly assume established publishers are publishing things illegaly. It is easy to say something "could have been violation of the state laws", but we cannot base a descision on this until you show which state law is being violated. Still I do not want an across the board decision here and think this particular heading should be closed as no consensus (not as an orphan question but because we are in disagreement as to whether all the items in the category are orphan works). I do think these each have to be looked at in context. We still need more details including sources about many of these items. It is hard to say what the end conclusion will be, but certainly some cases are stronger than others.--BirgitteSB 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's my understanding we work off US Federal Copyright law, since when do individual state copyright acts impact WS more than US Fed'l? Regardless, you'll notice that the definition of legal publication does not require the author's permission - so it's from the time it went public, with or without permission. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That last bit ("with or without permission") is utter nonsense. Per 17 USC 106, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to publish a work. (Note that the wording of point 3 is exactly the same as in the definition of "publication" in 17 USC 101.) And per 17 USC 501(a), a violation of an exclusive right is a copyright infringement. "Legally published" implies the consent of the copyright owner. Lupo 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Notice the difference between having the right to publish something, and the ability' to publish it. Legally speaking, they were published pre-1978, and without copyright notice. That is what matters, read the rules. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Orphan Works and therefore Copyright Violations

Aaron Weisburd death threat =

Written in 2004. Author unknown. --BirgitteSB 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Leahy anthrax letter

Written in 2001. Author unknown. --BirgitteSB 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

JonBenét Ramsey ransom note

Written in 1996. Author unknown. --BirgitteSB 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Brokaw anthrax letter

Written in 2001. Author unknown. --BirgitteSB 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Daschle anthrax letter

Written in 2001. Author unknown. --BirgitteSB 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images are already at Wikipedia. Some are even on Commons because they are a "work of the United States government." --Benn Newman (AMDG) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a problem for Commons admins—I can't be everywhere! Physchim62 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations of A. S. Kline

The following discussion is closed: Moved and deleted

"This work MAY be FREELY reproduced, stored and transmitted, electronically or otherwise, for any NON-COMMERCIAL purpose." [8]. Violates our copyright policy as well as Wikimedia Foundation policy. --Benn Newman 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Look, it is not me, who put these translations there. I only created his page. Probably, before deleting them, it would be right to contact the translator himself and ask for the permission to place these texts in Wikisource. What do you think? His e-mail: <> (Dmitrismirnov 08:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
Delete. There is no indication that these translations are even licensed. Sure, the translator's given permission to redistribute under certain conditions (which, too, are incompatible with WS), but since there is no indication of a license, that permission could be revoked at any time for any purpose. Without a license, I don't see how they can stay.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Could be copied to Yann 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Wikilivres and deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tales of Italy

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Commons recently deleted all the images in Tales of Italy as copyright violations (see all the gory details at commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet. The work seems to have been written before 1923, but may not have been published until after that. It's also possible that Commons got it wrong in this case—what would the copyright status of this be? Then of course there's the issue of the unknown translator. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gorky (interestingly, the name of the British High Commissioner to Canada's dog) died June 18, 1936. - 70 years, five months ago. λεμα σαβαχθανει (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 17:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Could be copied to if WS doesn't accept it. Yann 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That accounts for the russian text. Now what of the translator's copyright? Knowing that we are post-1923 already, we have slim chances here.--BirgitteSB 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The Wikisource page says that the translation was published in 1953, so it (the translation)is definitely under copyright. The Russian originals are PD in Russia. However, I have not been able to find any other trace of this work: it is just possible that Italian copyright might apply as well (until the end of 2006, conveniently close!) Physchim62 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd that Commons would've deleted the images, however, since they were from the original publication - not the translation, no? λεμα σαβαχθανει (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who was the illustrator? When did they die? --BirgitteSB 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
T. V. Shishmareva, the name suffix indicates a female I believe, but beyond that I'm having trouble finding any information about her. Found a reference to the book being published by Moscow Foreign Languages Publishing however, which may indicate that the Soviet state actually published it in English...not sure though. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well the translation we're hosting is definitely a copyvio and needs to go, I think now we're just idly chatting about whether or not the original untranslated work, and the illustrations, are copyrighted. But I think it's safe to go ahead and delete. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like this has stalled now. I think the reason we originally added it was by PD-Soviet, but I don't know what's going on with that debate (haven't had time to keep up with it). I know Danny was going to get some law interns to look at it, but I don't know if he's had a chance to get around to this or not.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jews in Rhode Island

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

According to the talk page, this work was released under the GNU Free Documentation License by the author. However, the relevant ticket (OTRS#2006080610006771) shows that the release notice was sent from a free Yahoo email address. An agent asked them to confirm by sending from an address associated with the organization, and received no further response. The work is thus not released from copyright. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Poems by Mao Zedong

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

According to our pages China is Life + 50 and the author died in 1976.--BirgitteSB 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The obvious question I see is whether China has/had a policy similar to the United States, Poland and other countries where government works are not copyrighted. It could be argued that this represents Mao's personal portfolio, not done in commission of his status in the Chinese version of the politburo (no idea what it was called), but I imagine the Little Red Book is evidence that the two lines are/were blurred. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I would have to see some seriously strong evidence (i.e. court cases) to be convinced that these poems constitute a "goverment work". Just because someone is a gov't leader it does not strip them of all copyright relating to their intellectual works. --BirgitteSB 19:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG)

Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy was originally published by The Chamber of Deputies of Chile in 1973 and was translated by José Piñera. The full text is available from the translator's website at website. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Works of Author:Brennan Chadwick Emerson

The following discussion is closed: Moved and deleted

These are released under a non-comercial license according to the author page which is imcompatiable with WS requirements. . --BirgitteSB 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can be moved to Yann 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Principles of the Interstellar Alliance

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Declaration of Principles of the Interstellar Alliance was transwikied from q:Declaration of Principles of the Interstellar Alliance. It is apparently from Babylon 5. I don't know why it wouldn't be copyrighted. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 23:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien was written in 1974 for a magazine. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete User:AllanHainey
Delete Yann 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment There is a user on the talk page claiming, I think, non-renewal. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright holder, La Vivandiere, has ZERO active copyrights in the LOCIS database. This article is public domain and should stay. Generalklagg 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article United States copyright law says:

For works that received their copyright prior to 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. No additional material is currently set to enter the public domain until at least 2019 due to changes in the applicable laws.

This seems to mean that an article published in 1974 isn't in public domain, even if its copyright hasn't been renewed. - Mike Rosoft 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Per an anon: The more serious problem here is the gross violation of the copyright law. The text is, as given, the prof. Jenkins' text re-typed here and altered without the publisher or the author's permission.

From:w:De Administrando Imperio:The latest critical edition was first proposed by J.B. Bury, but was completed by Gyula Moravcsik and translated into English by Romily J.H. Jenkins in 1967.

Copyright violation on the translation.--BirgitteSB 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to support removing this text from the Wikisource due to the fact that the chapters 9, 30, 31, and 32 are re-typed from the Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio by Gy. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins (ed 1993). In the title of the chapter 9 the original word 'Russians' is replaced by 'Rus'. Also, there is a number of small paragraphs (coming outside of the chapters re-typed) which were just somebody's attempt to paraphrase the original translation filled by today's toponyms and the Greek lettered names of the same toponyms.--BarryMar 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a speedy delete. Physchim62 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I added the italicized text above in order to clarify the nature of small paragraphs. Hope no one would mind this intrusion in the original text above.

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hacker Crackdown

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted

Only non-commercial use of The Hacker Crackdown is allowed. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 499

Even though Article 9 of the Copyright Act (Republic of China) releases governmental translations of public documents into the public domain, my recent inquiry with the Judicial Yuan has revealed that English translations of the Judicial Yuan Interpretations hosted at and are indeed translated by non-governmental contractors with translators' name noted. Therefore, these translations DO NOT qualify for Template:PD-TW. The following is a reply from Judicial Yuan to my inquiry in Chinese with my English translation:

Chinese: "本院邀請相關法律學者、教授及法律事務所共四十餘人參與大法官解釋英譯之工作,截至目前,已完成翻譯司法院釋字第1號-第617號,全部註明譯者,並付梓成書取得版權(其中少數幾則未及列入), 貴網路圖書館如需要引用刊載時,應事前獲取本院及譯者同意。"

My English translation (in case of any discrepancy, Chinese text shall prevail): "This Yuan has invited relevant legal scholars, professors, and legal offices with more than 40 persons to participate in the work of English translations of Grand Justice Interpretations. As of now, translations of Judicial Yuan Interpretations 1 to 617 have been completed with all translators noted and published as a book to get copyright (with a few not included). If your Internet library would like to quote and publish, permission should be obtained from this Yuan and translators."

This is to say that we CANNOT copy English translations from the Judicial Yuan website into Wikisource. Therefore, I am speedily deleting the governmentally contracted private translation now while I see no hope to get GFDL permission, though any users may still make their own translations and release them with GFDL when they say so.--Jusjih 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, bad precedent/policy to speedy delete it, *then* bring it to public attention. On the whole, I agree with you that they seem to not be public domain - though the "published as a book to get copyright" sounds to me more likey they were copyrighting the layout/presentation, not the actual texts, no? Could just be a translation thing though. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 09:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree your bad-precedent/policy claim while we do allow speedy deletion of clear copyvios and deleted things can be undeleted with good reasons. The public attention is to specify that posting these interpretations itself is no problem, but copying the underlying texts is turning out to be a problem as they are translated by governmentally contracted private translators with their names noted. Any English translations should be based on free ones, not these contracting works. If you want to blsme me this time, you have to blame Pathoschild for speedily deleting Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (2000)" (Redundant with Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China) on 12 April 2006 without checking first or subsequent notice. If I did not notice that action, the article would have been lost. Improper speedy deletion is much worse without getting public attention. Please note that even if these contracted translators are willing to assign the copyright to Judicial Yuan, Judicial Yuan is giving copyright permission for personal noncommercial use only. (In Chinese as I cannot find an English version)--Jusjih 10:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm not disputing the copyright status, I'm just heavily supporting the use of {{copyvio}} as opposed to speedy deleting. If I want to offer an opinion on the work, or maybe spend five minutes googling a phrase from it to see if it's PD, or what its source was, or where the anonymous editor found it, or whatever...I/we can't do that if it's deleted...we can if it's just copyvio-ed and still exists in the history. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 10:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work. I don't see any problem with an admin speedily deleting a copyright violation after recieving a reply from the source identifing the copyright holders. It is hard to be more certain than that about a work being a copyvio. When relying on your own analysis it is best to {{copyvio}}. When you have confirmation of copyright holders speedy delete. IMHO--BirgitteSB 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Our own deletion policy does not even require admins speedily deleting clear copyvios to notify other users. I do report my action here because we can still make our private translation to be released under GFDL. The English translations from Judicial Yuan may look governmentally translated, but as there are translators' names noted, we have to be aware of who copyrights them. This is why I have asked Judicial Yuan in Chinese for faster response. (As Taiwan does not officially speak English, asking in English may be very slow.) Likewise, even if something is hosted at a US Governmental Website, we have to be aware of materials copyrighted by someone specifically.--Jusjih 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, by speedy deleting you are no longer suggesting that it is a possible copyright violation, but (in the deleting admin's opinion) a "clear" violation. The discussion no longer belongs on this page. Thanks for the information, all the same! :) Physchim62 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted

Image:Albert-einstein.jpg was taken by Philippe Halsman, who died in 1979. [9] --Benn Newman (AMDG) 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy it. Versions of Halsman's (or also Karsh's) image of Einstein have been deleted as copyvios at en and at commons already (and repeatedly). Lupo 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Carl Roberts suicide note

The following discussion is closed: Proposed deletion

Copyright in the U.S. is seventy years post mortem auctoris. {{PD-suicide}} is quite simply incorrect: find me a section of 17 U.S.C. which gives special treatment to suicide notes. Fair use maybe, but not within the Wikisource guidelines. Physchim62 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't deal with manifestos either, and as likely as not, that's what a suicide note is. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Documents by Osama bin Laden

These documents have been both published and translated (presumably translated by a different person than wrote them). While I don't know which country bin Laden was in when he created these documents (and hence, whether they are copyrighted), the translations were most likely done in a country with which we have a copyright treaty. (e.g. Saudi Arabia, where Al-Jazeera TV, the source of several of these documents, is based has an effective copyright of life + 50 years).
I'm tagging the documents that appear at {{UBL}}.--Tim4christ17 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that several documents were apparently translated by the U.S. Federal Government. I don't think that would (necessarily) put the translation in Public Domain, however, as the original may not have been in the public domain. --Tim4christ17 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe if the US Federal gov't is not violating copyright by distributing these translations then we should not worry about it. The texts with unknown translators are a problem.--BirgitteSB 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As the creator of around half of those texts, I am absolutely positive that most of them are public domain translations. Osama's writings mostly fall under PD-Manifesto, and those that don', well as I said, if the US Gov't can distribute them freely as their own, we can certainly publish the US Gov translations. There are one or two that don't have free translations though I think, but I'd suggest we make it a goal to find the original Arabic versions and I can get a friend to translate them or something - rather than simply deleting them. They've been around for years,., a couple of weeks while we watch for free alternatives is worth the extra wait. Meanwhile I've gone and reverted all the blankings, since as I said, I know for a fact that most of them are public domain as per being made in the process of duties of a US Federal official. If you happen to know that any of the earlier WS texts are copyVios, by all means add a tag, but don't just presume, cheers. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The originals are under copyright, although the copyright is currently unenforceable in the U.S. (because of sanctions at 31CFR594, as well as more obvious practical difficulties). They're not freely reusable, and are not public domain. The translations are not PD either, although there is no new copyright created if the translations come from the U.S. federal government. I guess it's pretty harmless keeping them here, although I would prefer they weren't described as public domain (which is untrue). I have proposed w:Template:IEEPA sanctions on Wikipedia to deal with this sort of question. Physchim62 12:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That (from the template anyway) sounds like it can only be fair dealings, not public domain, which is fine for Wikipedia but not for Wikisource. --Benn Newman 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the 31CFR594 reference, that's certainly helpful knowledge to have, and the template looks great as well. I still believe from my understanding that the copyright of the translation 'belongs' to the US governent, and thus is PD, but I admit I am a flawed human being who has been known to make mistakes...from time to time. *shield doors shut* Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My wording was a bit flawed there (I am also human, and make many mistakes, quite frequently :) There is no new copyright in the translation, as it is a U.S. government work, but the translation is a "derivative work", still covered by the original copyright and so not freely reusable. I'm glad you like the template by the way, I hope it prevents a few arguments on WP. Physchim62 10:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The documents by this author are a mixed bag of open letters and seized documents. I think we should keep the manifestos and open letters and be rid of the rest. --BirgitteSB 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Original copyrights cannot be seized in the U.S. except in case of bankruptcy; manifestos are not necessarily (indeed rarely) public domain. The whole lot should go unless any individual documents have obvious releases. Physchim62 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. No user has provided sufficient argument placing these works into the public domain. While the work may be meant to be read by anyone is not necessarily in the public domain, which can be used for any purpose without any limitation whatsoever and without proprietary rights held by the copyright owner. There being no legal precedent, and the Wikisource community not having the legal right to set new precedents in the name of the Wikimedia Foundation, and fair use being prohibited, these works must be assumed to be copyrighted unless proven otherwise in conformance with the Copyright policy. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Author:Chris Mar

These works are published within the decade, and may be copyrighted. The contributing user claims to be the author, and releases the works under the GFDL; however, there is no evidence proving his identity, and our compliance with copyright law should not depend on unverified statements. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

re Author:Chris Mar
Please excuse my repeating my response as I am unsure where exactly to reply is best. This is in no way intended to be redundant nor to exemplify my response for your consideration. Please note the following as respectfully submitted in response:
I am the sole contributor to this page and do hereby swear that all its contents are my contributions. My credentials and experiences as well as materials provided are verifiable through certification and authorized materials from all related agencies, including the Library of Congress Copyright Offices, The National Police Administration, Taiwan, The ROC Ministry of the Interior and The HQ of the SPC, PLA Armed Tactical Military Counterterrorist Group, Beijing China. APA, Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression, APA Systems and APA Tactical Combat are copyright under my name in the USA and Taiwan and I do offer the works as posted to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License.
I would like to accommodate your requirements or acknowledgement of this fact and in good faith for the release of this information on the page titled Author:Chris_Mar and apologize for any and all areas of lapse in wiki protocol. I also would like you to know that all submissions including those relating and/or titled Tactical Combat as referred to on abovementioned page are my own work and are current materials being referenced for the purposes as stated.
It is important for me personally to ask for your assistance and understanding as this page is viewed as a reference by members of the international tactical community in that my work continues in terror interdiction and tactical integration protocols.
I am an American Citizen now in the Asia/PAC and have served as a Chief Tactical Instructor since prior to 1983 which is when I was commissioned as a founding chief instructor of the ROC Tactical Police Network, SWAT and Rapid Reaction Deployment. I continue to work out of Taiwan, DFW, Shanghai, and Beijing among other areas and according to specific mission objectives. I do not wish for any public information which relates to me or my service to leave question as to its validity which will directly affect my work.
Thank you for your contacting me at if at all possible and otherwise I will check back as time allows.
Hoping to hear or know of your positive return.
Chris Mar Chief Tactical Instructor
Hello Chris Mar. I apologize for any inconvenience this causes. My concerns with the text are twofold: copyright status and publication. Wikisource's Inclusion policy requires that most works be published in a verifiable, peer-reviewed medium— books, newspapers, et cetera. If the texts you've contributed are not published, a sister project called Wikibooks (which writes textbooks) may be interested in them. It may be particularly interested for its Wikiprofessional project, which writes books related to professions. However, placing your works on Wikibooks would make them freely editable; some authors cannot accept that freedom to edit. Are these works published in a verifiable, peer-reviewed form? // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pathoschild. Thank you for taking the time to provide a return in detail. You are very gracious to give the courtesy for inconveniences and please know that I fully respect the importance and magnitude of your efforts and energies. Please allow me to respond to your inquiry. The contents which were on the Author:Chris_Mar page comprise verifiable background, experience and records relating to Tactical Training (as well as mention of multiple professional work unrelated to Law Enforcement or Special Deployment) and past actions which were notable in order to give some understanding of the reasons to write Tactical Combat and Counterterror Joint Command Infrastructure. Tactical Combat is contained in part of various field guides, manuscripts, multi-media training aids, documentation and books which I wrote for tactical teams and was published by multi-national Combined Operations agencies, National Police Administration, County-wide Rapid Deployment, Tactical Support and various Official Combat Training Departments. I was commissioned by the Secretary General of the National Security Bureau to develop an advanced exclusive, for tactical usage system and protocol which besides being suitable for high speed training and ballistic conditions would also integrate the three advanced combat sciences fundamental to elite teams specifically involved in antiterrorism and literally capable for any Emergency Force Protection. The system I created is APA, Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression. Its methodology is based on complete simultaneous counterattack. It is in use exclusively by Special Force Response Teams whose mission is the interdiction of terror, and violent life threatening circumstances, spontaneous or premeditated. The three combat sciences as mentioned above are: Combat Marksmanship, Close Quarters Combat and Team Assault. A supplemental mission for APA was to enable the administration and training expertise to provide advanced training to all members of the Police and other internal security through top-down training where the SWAT Teams became instructors for station level tactical support and my core of assistants became the instuctors for the Chief Instructors Long Term Training, who train active officers at the precinct level as well as 40,000 Provincial Security and Riot Control Forces and after 25 years, this is in actuality, what has occurred. The point is, different levels of the materials were in one form or another issued to officers undergoing officially sanctioned training in several different countries impacting over 80,000 officers of various divisions. Tactical Combat is a Summary of the environment and mind set of APA System and has been published as a part of the Mission Statement and Pretext of Training Manuals to many officers. APA System is copyright by me at the US Copyright Offices, Library of Congress and the Copyright Division of the Ministry of the interior, Taiwan. Tactical Combat as a manuscript was first release at Wikipedia but was moved over to Wikisource. It is still used as the reference to define Tactical Combat by and Guru Net among other on-line knowledge resources.
Counterterror Joint Command infrastructure is a technical document I created for the National Taiwan Police Commissioner and as a reference document for the Deputy Commissioner, Shanghai Metro. It is a proprietary work which I wrote this year and I offer it for reference as a technical field summary in accommodation of Multinational State Agency Level Counterterrorist initiatives. I have contributed a huge portion of my time and energy in the development of Tactical Combat without compensation. I license the use of APA to state-level forces, free of charge and without restriction and have done so for 25 years. I believe this is the same spirit that the Wiki Projects were created with and I urgently request that you unblock the pages associated with Author:Chris_Mar so that they can continue to benefit those seeking this information . Thank you and take care; Chris unsigned comment by Chrismar (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2006.
The texts do appear to be useful, but they don't seem to be verifiably published. You note that "Tactical Combat as a manuscript was first release at Wikipedia but was moved over to Wikisource", which violates the Inclusion policy as an unpublished work. If you don't mind the texts being edited and expanded, you can move them (one last time) to Wikibooks. If you're interested, I'll contact the Wikibooks community to see if the work is acceptable there. Unfortunately, they are not acceptable here unless they've been published in a public, verifiable medium (books, magazines, pamphlets, et cetera) by a peer-reviewed organisation (most publishers). // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it very much if you would assist in establishing a suitable place at WikiBooks if everyone feels the content is appropriate. I was under the impression that professional manuscripts and articles as well as a reference of the contributing author were appropriate at wikisource, however I understand now that these works must be published works and want to thank you for taking the time to educate me to this fact. I would be happy to be accepted by Wikibooks as I do have a wealth of materials which might benefit the community better once it has a proper wiki place. Sorry for the inconvenience. I look very much forward to hearing from you and wish you safe passage always. Chris
Hi; Would you let me know if you have contacted Wikibooks regarding the pages on TacticalCombat and counterterrorist nfrastructure, so I may submit my original content and thereby be able to point my coworkers to the appropriate URL. Thanks in advance for your earliest response. Chris
I apologize for the delay; I've posted the question to the Wikibooks community at "Transwiki from Wikisource" (Wikibooks:Staff lounge). —[admin] Pathoschild 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

reset tabs

Is this just those 2 pages? (I'm here from wikibooks, BTW) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. If you would like to retrieve the content to move it elsewhere, please email me or post a public request. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One Common Trench or Two Opposite Sides?

This is lifted from [10] including the editors note--BirgitteSB 04:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - stop the deletion! :P Seriously though, I eMailed the site author to ask about the copyright status of the works, and got this response...
No Sir, the translation is not ours, It was done by the government of Iraq before the occupation. We just published them
Ergo, since pre-2003 Iraq had no copyright relations with the United States whatsoever according to Circular 38 of the US Copyright Office, they are public domain in the United States. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 23:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would the editor's note be public domain? --Benn Newman 00:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
While techinically we could say that al-moharer clearly released their rights to the note, I see no reason to bother keeping it. It provides no information that wikilinks within the body of the speech couldn't otherwise provide. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment See also: A message from Jimbo and Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Iraq. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Neg, Wikisource's only definitive reference point is US Fed'l copyright law, where our servers are based. (One might be able to argue Florida state law as well, since iirc, we are in Florida) - but that does not include Saddam's Iraq. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per the relevant mailing list discussion, Commons discussion, Commons deletion debate, and note in Wikipedia's page about Public domain. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Transcripts from Template:911

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

9/11 Dispatcher transcript, Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript, Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC all claim to be works of the United States government. I have no clue why they would be (unless the pilots, the hijackers, the 911 operators, the people who called 911 et cetera, were all employees of the U.S. gov.). If they are in public domain, I would guess it would be for another reason.

September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts makes no license claim and I am inclined to believe that it is not public domain.

--Benn Newman 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Released as evidence in the ZM trial, released as evidence in the ZM trial, released as evidence in the ZM trial. All works have been released by the US Federal Government, after repeated FOIA requests. They are solely transcriptive works and do not have any copyright to violate. Restored texts, as well as other 9/11 text you blanked as copyvio. A friendly suggestion that talk pages are useful, rather than blanking texts. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Being released by the U.S. gov. does not mean it is a work of the United States Government. I could for example, assign copyright of a picture I take to the U.S. gov. They could publish it, but it would not be in the public domain. --Benn Newman 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to rewrite, create or exchange templates - they are not something I spend a lot of time fretting over personally. These texts are public domain, there is no doubt about that. What template you want to use on them is up to you. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
From WS:COPY: "It is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license." We all have the responsibility to make sure that are contributions are GFDL compatible. If they are in the public domain (which I do not believe that they are), I doubt they are outside of the United States. WS:COPY continues: "A template should be used on the source material page to indicate the licence that the source material is posted under." --Benn Newman 03:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
a) Don't give a shit if they're PD outside the United States or not, that's not how we operate.
Actually, that is how we operate. Physchim62 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Might want to double-check your facts, no, we don't. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo has spoken; that is how we operate — or should be, anyway. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
b) The contributor (me) did assert their compatibility. However it is not listed as the responsibility of the contributor to spend hours explaining why the mass media listing a document as public domain, or the fact that a transcription of an audio-recording of non-scripted conversation can't be copyrighted, outranks their armchair theories.
Love always, Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is. The "mass media" have one function, and a particular status in international copyright law; Wikisource has another, and our status in copyright law is that of mere mortals who do not run all of our content before lawyers to see if we can—just—get away with it. Our content is not meant to be "news of the day" (an exception in international copyright law, in case you didn't recognise it) but rather a reference source. Neither is any of the Wikimedia projects a government organisation having immunity for the purposes of public administration. You refuse to give any reasons (apart from your assertion) as to why these documents are public domain: I believe this is because you don't have any. Delete. Physchim62 15:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. No user has provided sufficient argument placing these works into the public domain. These works must be assumed to be copyrighted unless proven otherwise in conformance with the Copyright policy. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aysel Sengun e-Mail

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Aysel Sengun e-Mail is a translation of an e-mail from German with an unknown translator. Sherurcij (talkcontribs) said it was an original translation on Talk:Aysel Sengun e-Mail; does that mean that Sherurcij translated it? The last edit sumary was "(cobbling in another free translation)" so I think not. Regardless, no claim about why the original is in the public domain has been made. --Benn Newman 19:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It means I call do a lot of translations for friends, and they do a lot for me - it's a PD translation, since it's Sherurcij's german friends doing the translation for him, in exchange for him doing their daughter's English homework, etc. I often get 2-3 people to translate a document for me at the same time, so I can "cobble together", as you mention, a single cohesive translation that isn't reliant on a single translator's nuances. The original is in the public domain as it was released by the FBI. Restored text. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so who are the translators? (you already know about template:translator?; I could be wrong, but just saying your friends does not cut it). Being released by the FBI (or other part of the U.S. general government) does not make it automagically in the public domain. The U.S. is not the creator of the original work, Aysel Sengun is. --Benn Newman 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The original translators are people who have no wish for their names to published online, as I mentioned they are personal friends of mine. Since the translation is undoubtedly public domain, there is no need for the author to be credited. As per the original, it was released by the FBI to the public under circumstances not even closely related to your "for example, what if..." scenario...that makes it public. Also note that Ziad Jarrah's property (and intellectual property) is under IEEPA sanctions, and Sengun's alleged claim to copyright would be reliant on her first successfully arguing that the FBI had no basis to release it. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The translators need to email their translation with the explicit release of copyrights to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org". I do not see any need to publish their names on Wikisource, but without this information on file we cannot host the translation. --BirgitteSB 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Will see what I can do there. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
This does not address whether the original works are in the public domain. --Benn Newman 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to. The email was written in 2001 by a German resident without the slightest trace of of a copyright release; indeed, it was written to the author's lover! Of course it's [expletive deleted] under copyright! Physchim62 10:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So out of interest, why is Hitler's Will and Testament not a copyvio? Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The German original is PD by UrhG § 5 and (in the U.S.) by 17 U.S.C. 104A(a)(2), since you ask. However the translation which appears here may well be copyrighted. If you supply me with a copy of the German original, I will do you a GFDL translation. Physchim62 14:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If we have no new info about the source and copyright info on this we need to delete it.--BirgitteSB 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to understand how the fact that Hitler's Will is PD in Germany affects the fact it doesn't meet US Copyright PD criteria, yet is somehow different from this...what is WS's policy, does being PD in its home country automatically make it acceptable on WS, even if it is not PD in the US? The policy seems to be freely misconstrued to suit each editor's personal choices of the day. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
{{PD-1996}} is based, in part, on the the status of a work in its home country. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that Hitler's will is fully PD in Germany, although it might well fall under the exemption for "official documents" one way or the other (interested parties can apply for the publication of wills in Germany). It is certainly PD in the US, because of the "Hitler exemption" on restored copyrights (copyrights which would be held by governments which were one enemies cannot be restored; Hitler's works are some of the rare examples of works to which this exception applies). Physchim62 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Other German works published in 1945 had their U.S. copyright restored on January 1, 1996: U.S.  copyright will run until December 31, 2040 regardless of the duration of German copyright. Physchim62 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


By the way I found a possible problem (violation of copyright) with Ovid's Metamorphoses. It looks like very recent translation, however, there is available another quite reasonable translation of XVII century (Dryden & co). (Dmitrismirnov 08:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Then we should definitely change to the public domain version.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Feel free to recreate it with the public domain translation. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cooperative Production of Knowledge on the Internet - the Case of Wikipedia

The Cooperative Production of Knowledge on the Internet - the Case of Wikipedia is a paper about Wikipedia written between 2003-2004. It was written by Valentina Paruzzi, who is apparently no longer active. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

She is however, still active on the German WP, so should be easy to contact. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedily deleted under Criterion for speedy deletion G5 ("...clearly lies outside the scope of Wikisource...") since it is an unpublished thesis. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

December 2001 Osama bin Laden videotape

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

According to the notes: Transcript and annotations were independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. Sounds like a copyrighted translation to me.--BirgitteSB 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, delete and/or find a free translation. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)