Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2008-02

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 February 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


The Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

Indian author, w:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888 – 1975); published overseas so it is probably covered by copyright in India until 2035 (60 pma). John Vandenberg 07:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Author:Charles Donnelly[edit]

This Irish poet and activist had a collection of works published in 1987 containing works written after 1923. He had works published in two presumably Irish magazines. He died in 1937. What U. S. license template should I apply here? His work was probably never published in the United States, so that rules out PD-No-notice and PD-No-renewal, as well as PD-URAA-same-year. 07:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The magazine (it was three speeches not two magazines) was a Marxist publication (w:Inprecor) and the Wikipedia article doesn't tell what country it was published in. PD-US-unpublished doesn't apply either, since it's not a US work. Should one of these US license templates be broadened? 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(For those who wish to see these templates, visit Category:license templates) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have a license tag for this, but if I understand "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978" correctly, it is in the public domain in the United States. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the helpful guide you provided says something different:
Works Published Abroad Before 1978
. . .
[Published] 1923 through 1977[;] Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996[:] 95 years after publication date.

A quick Google search shows International Press Correspondence was a London publication, and with no evidence of republication in the U.S. and the fact that the works not entering the public domain in the U.K. until 2007, leads me to believe that Donnelly's essays

De Valera and Britain's War Plans, June 8, 1935
Irish Free State Capitalism Enters Fourth Year of Economic Year, January 11, 1936
Eleventh Hour for the Irish Republican Army, July 4, 1936

don't have their copyrights expire in the U.S. until 2031, 2031 and 2031 respectively. 05:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I provided everyone with incomplete information: The 1987 collection had republished essays from the 1930s, so the information in User:Remember the dot's guide wasn't so different from User:Remember the dot's understanding as I said it was! 05:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...well, if the copyright expired in Ireland before 1996, then {{PD-1996}} would appear to apply, even though the papers were republished in 1987, because the later republishing would have fallen under the 70-years-after-death rule. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow. Ireland is a PD-70 country according to Help:public domain as is the U.K., so wouldn't the PD-70 rule take effect after 1996 (namely 2007) regardless of whether you use the country of publication or the author's home country? 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That depends on when Ireland went to +70. Does anyone know who was claiming the copyright on the 1987 publication? I'm also assuming intestacy, given his age and the circumstances of his death. Some countries limit the extent to which copyrights can pass on intestacy. In any event I have no problem including it under the principle of the shorter term. Eclecticology 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean Donnelly had no heirs so a copyright may not have been passed on. I think I'll ask the resident expert here, Lupo, if he happens to know the history of British/Irish copyright since he also pointed to a comment on Anthere's user page by what I assume is a counsel for Wikimedia, Mike Godwin, concluding that U.S. law rejects the rule of the shorter term (I saw the citation here on Birgitte the admin's user page). P.S. I think Worldcat says that the publisher, Dedalus, of Dublin, holds the 1987 copyright. (!) But it might be the author of the compilation Charlie Donnelly: the life and poems, Joseph Donnelly, which suggests Donnelly might have had an heir after all. 05:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That the publisher would appear as the copyright holder rather than the author strongly suggests that it indeed applies to the compilation and biography. The year 1987 is significant in that this was the 50th anniversary of Donnelly's death, and Ireland had not yet extended copyrights. Seems like the publisher is taking advantage of that.
In my mind the theory that the U.S. rejects the rule of the shorter term is a highly debatable one. The relevant section is certainly put into question in the ITAR-Tass case. The other bizarre effect is that following such a rule would have the effect of providing better protection to those who ignored the law of the time than to those who followed it. Remember too that (ignoring the very short term countries, most of which are not foci of the publishing industry anyway) we are talking about people who have been dead for at least 50 years, 70 years in most key countries. We often have no way of knowing who the current copyright owners are or where they are in order to contact them, if they exist at all. These authors were not concerned with U.S. law. The great irony of the present situation is that rights have been supposedly accorded some 60 years after his death to a person closely associated with the w:Abraham Lincoln Brigade, whose members were viewed by much of the establishment at the time as Communists and violators of U.S. neutrality. I have no problem including authors when the only apparent restriction is the purported U.S. non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. If subsequently, some long-lost heir crawls out of the woodwork with a legitimate claim we must accept that, and remove the material. The risk of that is minuscule. Eclecticology 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, I'm not the "resident expert". I'm not a lawyer. Just another editor who has read up quite a bit about copyright.
  • First, it doesn't matter when Ireland went to life+70 (life+50). EU directive 93/98/EEC restored copyright on all works to life+70 in 1995 throughout the EU, if the work was copyrighted in at least one EU country. Spain (and Germany) had copyright terms of 70 years, and these Irish works would have been copyrighted there. All three countries are members of the Berne Convention (Ireland since 1927, Spain and Germany since 1887, and Spain did not have a rule of the shorter term), and under the Berne Convention these Irish works would've been copyrighted in Spain under Spanish law. Hence their copyright was restored even in Ireland, where they may have been already PD under a life+50 regime. As of July 1, 1995, these works were copyrighted in Ireland, and indeed in all EU countries.
    That said, the 1963 Copyright Act of Ireland had a life+50 copyright term until July 1, 1995, when directive 93/98/EEC was implemented in S.I. No. 158 of 1995.
  • Second, it doesn't matter whether Donnelly had any heirs. Irish copyright law (neither the 1963 law nor the current law of 2000) does not restrict the copyright term if no heirs exist. If he had no heirs, the copyright runs to 70 years after his death all the same. The copyright holder may be the publisher of the 1930s edition, or the publisher of the 1987 edition. (Please note that in 1987, Donnelly's works were still copyrighted under the then valid life+50 regime! Expiry would have been on January 1, 1988. And then restored by 93/98/EEC to life+70.)
  • Third, since the copyright on Donnelly's work was restored in Ireland in 1995 to life+70 (i.e., until the end of 2007), these works were copyrighted in Ireland on January 1, 1996, which is the relevant date for copyright restoration in the U.S. under the URAA. Therefore, and assuming the work was not simultaneously published in the 1930s also in the U.S. (which seems unlikely), Donnelly's works were indeed subject to the URAA restorations. Their U.S. copyright was restored on January 1, 1996 to the full U.S. term for works first published in the 1930s, i.e. to 95 years since their original publication.
  • Fourth, I don't understand Eclecticology's remark "In any event I have no problem including it under the principle of the shorter term." The U.S. does not implement that "rule of the shorter term"! On that point, see also Mike Godwin's comment. Furthermore, the U.S. has had copyright relations with Ireland since the presidential proclamation on September 28, 1929. I haven't found the text of that proclamation yet and cannot right now access (gives me timeouts), where it might maybe found in the yearly reports.
I would say these works were copyrighted in Ireland until the end of 1987, and then again from July 1, 1995 to the end of 2007, and in the U.S., they may or may not have been PD prior to 1996, but since then, they're copyrighted until 95 years after their original publication. Hence delete. Lupo 08:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If they were indeed first published in the U.S. (or within 30 days from an original publication in Ireland), then they would not have been subject to the URAA in the U.S. They'd still be copyrighted in Ireland, as far as I can see. (The Irish copyright law protects the works of Irish citizens regardless of the place of first publication. See s.7(5) and s.8 of the 1963 Copyright Act and s.183 of the current law of 2000.) Lupo 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, responding to Lupo) If accurate, this is a rather bizarre result. Consider: works first published in the United States in 1936 would only still be under copyright if (1) they were published with an explicit copyright notice, (2) copyright was applied for with the U.S. Copyright Office, and (3) that copyright was renewed in 1963 (27 years after first publication). These criteria were almost never met for speeches and essays in magazines, so had these speeches been first published in the U.S. (if you'll indulge me in a thought experiment for a moment), then those speeches would probably be in the public domain in the U.S. today. Further consider: since the author died more than 70 years ago, these speeches are considered to be in the public domain in Ireland, the country of their first publication. And further consider: if a work is published in the United States within 30 days of its first publication anywhere in the world, the U.S. considers the publications to be "simultaneous", and the work is treated under the copyright laws of the United States, meaning that the URAA restorations would not apply, and copyright registration and renewal would have been required for copyright to have been maintained in the U.S.
So if Lupo's analysis of the way the URAA works is correct, that leads to a very strange result: a work never published in the United States, and not under copyright in the country where it was published, is nonetheless considered copyrighted in the United States — despite the fact that this same work would not still be under copyright had it been published in the United States at the same time. Ireland considers the work in the public domain, and so does every EU country, and every other country I know of, except the United States, a country where the work was never published. This can't be right, can it? Quadell 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Are Donnelly's three works speeches? He certainly quotes other speeches, but is his own text actually a speech? And do you have a source for your claim that these three works by Donnelly were PD in Ireland and the EU? I've argued above that they are copyrighted in the EU. (But without considering the speech angle.) Lupo 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Donnelly died in 1937. 1937 + end-of-year 70 years later = December 31, 2007. According to w:List_of_countries'_copyright_length and w:Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country, Ireland only respects copyright for 70 years p.m.a. What am I missing? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the URAA, it only restores copyright for works that had slipped into the public domain due to US specific clauses, i.e. {{PD-US-no-renewal}} and {{PD-US-no-notice}}. As a result, these works are unaffected unless they were published in the US separately and slipped into the PD. John Vandenberg 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The URAA also affects works that were never published in the U.S. Lupo 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This case is worrying. We keep works of Irish authors if they are PD in USA even if there are not in Ireland, but we could not keep them when they are PD in Ireland? And according to [2], Lupo is wrong:

Unpublished works -> Life of the author + 70 years -> Works from authors who died before 1938 -> public domain

Yann 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This happens with lots of authors. Kipling is PD in Britain, but one poem I uploaded was deleted because it is not PD in the USA.--Poetlister 11:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it might be PD now. I am wondering if we did apply the law for US authors to non US authors. Yann 11:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's complicated. If a work was published before 1923 anywhere in the world, then the U.S. (and Wikisource) considers it PD, even if the originating country does not. But if a work was first published outside the U.S., between 1923 and 1977, then the U.S. considers it copyrighted if it was copyrighted in its home country as of January 1, 1996. This means that a work could be PD in its home country, but copyrighted in the U.S., if its copyright expired between 1996 and today. Like I said, it's complicated. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

nomination withdrawn by nominator without prejudice to the value of the discussion it precipitated. Following on Sherurcij's evidence, I will use {{PD-US-no-renewal}} which fits the situation the best, even though it may not even have been copyrighted at the time of its U.S. publication. ResidentScholar 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's like the feeling you get, saving a life! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Commandments of Christ, Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, Doctrines to be Rejected[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
kept. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I mistakenly added this article (and the two below) some time ago: they are still in copyright (I just bought a copy of the Bible Companion that contains the Commands of Christ, for example, which is copyrighted 2004. Sorry about that; could you delete this (and the two below - Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith and Doctrines to be Rejected), please. Thank you.

You're in luck, the Bible Companion is using the Commandments of Christ because it is Public Domain - and has been for quite a while. The author, Robert Roberts, died in 1898, so the text is Public Domain across the world :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to survive[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
moved to WS:DEL

Essay by an American author who, according to this page, is still alive. Nothing to indicate that the original author has released the text into the public domain. Tarmstro99 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on User talk: in the hope that they are able to help. John Vandenberg 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have emailed, and received an automated reply "Thank you for emailing the official William Parker website at, someone will get back to you shortly." John Vandenberg 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been emailed a copyright release for this, authorising it to be in the public domain. We also need to consider if it is suitable within our inclusion policy. Here is some context:
This essay was first presented as a speech in August 1984, later it was entered into Sandro Dernini's Plexus project.

the event in '84 was also organized by Sandro.

Someone working with Sandro is the person who put this on your site.

I am not sure if part or all of this is included in other of William's writing or not.

Do we need more info? John Vandenberg 10:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Has the copyright release you received been recorded via OTRS? Assuming the text is considered to be within the scope of WS:WWI, we just need to make sure we have a clear release on file to host it here (and the appropriate license template should be added to the page). Tarmstro99 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am waiting for confirmation by other project members that is acceptable under WS:WWI before filing it into OTRS. John Vandenberg 09:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Should we move this discussion over to WS:DEL, then? The original copyright issue would appear to have been resolved. I guess I am indifferent on the issue whether this is within WS:WWI or not; speeches in general seem to require a fairly relaxed interpretation of the “publication” requirement for hosting here. Tarmstro99 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please move to WS:DEL. Copyright concerns have been resolved. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Palin Report[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
The consensus was Keep

The UK Colonial Office (?) commissioned a report known as the "Palin Commission of Inquiry" in 1920 but never published it. I've come across a portion (the conclusions only) and wish to keep them on WikiSource[3].

I've rung the TSO help-desk (0870 600 5522) and the young assistant there told me that no copyright exists in material that's not been published. If I want to check it, I should go to OPSI gov uk - this links to Copyright in Public Records which tells me "Unpublished public records and those open for public inspection are reproducible freely under waiver of copyright. This guidance explains how this works in practice."

The only remaining concerns in my mind are 1) I'm not sure if this Report is available for public inspection, and if so, where it is held and 2) whether a new copyright has been created by putting the conclusions (unchanged) into a book and thereby publishing them for the first(?) time.

Can anyone confirm it's OK to publish? (I have blanked the work with {{copyvio}}) as required). PRtalk 09:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the basis for saying that it's a copyvio? You seem to have answered your own question in speaking of unpublished public records. Was there a problem with the chain of provenance to suggest that there was an illegal act somewhere in that chain? There's no reason to believe that you would be creating a new copyright. Eclecticology 10:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right - I misread what I picked up - the fact that the material is unpublished renders it OK to publish (PD?) automatically, it doesn't need to be available for public inspection as well. PRtalk 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Crown copyright lasts only 50 years in duration, even if published (which it wasn't). ResScholar 07:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


The Devil and Daniel Webster[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

First published 1937, according to w:The Devil and Daniel Webster (short story). Stanford’s database shows a copyright renewal in 1965 (#R353835). Tarmstro99 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unless someone can establish that the story was first published earlier earlier than the renewal would indicate, the case seems straightforward. Eclecticology 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted after reviewing discussion and confirming relevant information. FloNight 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To My Father at 76[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

A contemporary work published in the 1970s by a still-living American author (whose web site is available here). The text of the poem on the author’s own site includes an express copyright notice. Either this poem was created in 1978 or later, in which case it is subject to life-plus-70, or it was created between 1970 and 1977, in which case it is subject to the automatic renewal provisions added in 1992 for works that were still in copyright as of that date. In either case, it’s still under copyright in the United States and cannot be hosted here. Tarmstro99 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like a prima facie copyvio. That said, it's up to the contributor to provide contrary evidence. Eclecticology 19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Deleted FloNight 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In praise of limestone[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. John Vandenberg 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

According to [4],

'In Praise of Limestone' was first published in Horizon in July 1948 and then appeared in Nones (1951). Auden revised the poem for W. H. Auden: A selection by the Author (1958) and printed the revised version in Collected Shorter Poems, 1927-1959 (1966) and Selected Poems (1968).

It was first published in Horizon Vol. 18, no. 103; see OCLC:30843081all editions and OCLC:1752266all editions. Provided we have the original poem as published in Horizon, we should be fine. John Vandenberg 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious copyright violation. The work is the same as the text in Auden's published book, Nones, 1951, was copyrighted and renewed, and which therefore remains in copyright. Macspaunday 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But it appears the copyright on Nones only applies to (1) the ordering of the selections of previous works along with (2) any 1951 works included in the collection. The other selections are copyrighted or noncopyrighted seperately at earlier times.
If you think I'm wrong you should cut this whole discussion and paste it at the end of the possible copyright violation page, then add the template ((copyvio)) to the page (which will hide the text). Maybe someone else will have a more definitive answer. 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You're looking at the wrong Horizon. Try OCLC:6263623all editions. This means that the first publication was in England not in the US. Because of the 30-day rule the 1951 copyright would be invalid for this poem. It seems then that this poem is protected under the life + 70 rule, but it's not as obvious as Macspaunday would have us believe. Eclecticology 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't notice that the original poster had the wrong Horizon; excellent catch. For what it's worth, the publication in Nones (UK edition, 1952) is still in copyright in the UK under the life-plus rule, and the exact same 1948 text published in the UK Horizon is copyrighted in the US in Auden's Selected Poems: New Edition (1979). Macspaunday 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Furthermore, it turns out that the text on Wikisource isn't even the 1948 version from Horizon but the revised version published (and copyrighted) in the UK the 1958 and the US in 1959 (and later renewed). So the text is a violation for three or four different reasons. Case closed, I think.Macspaunday 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it should be deleted, but let's not make the reasoning any more complicated than it needs to be. It's the 1948 publication that counts; the later ones do not reset the copyright clock, which will unwind at the end of 2043. On a life-plus system we don't need to be concerned about the differences between the 1948 and 1958 versions because the copyrights expire at the same time anyway. Eclecticology 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Index:Pride and Prejudice and subpages[edit]

the djvu is a recent edition (2002) ThomasV 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these are all related: User talk:Yann#DjVu editions. If they are DJVU editions of gutenberg texts, then I worry about using them as the images do not constitute an infallible printed edition. John Vandenberg 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

indeed, they cannot be accepted as a reference edition (no paper). in addition, it makes little sense to convert e-text to djvu and then back to text. ThomasV 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To Poesy : A Rhapsody[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. John Vandenberg 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The poet died in 1983, so it can't be PD unless he released it as such. The person who added it to Wikisource removed {{no license}} and replaced it with {{PD-release}}. See diff. I think we need verification. I left a note for that person, but he doesn't seem to have been here since. Cowardly Lion 03:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed the issue with fellow wikipedians in this linguistic region, and have found that there is no conclusive evidence that the copyright is in public domain. Hence the page may be deleted . Thanks Rakeshvar 13:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting in the quick removal of this work. Feel free to continue to expand Author:Srirangam Srinivasarao to list the works by and about the author, even if they are covered by copyright. John Vandenberg 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Perfect Matrimony.pdf[edit]

Samael Aun Weor, a Columbian, died in 1977. The translator is unknown.--Jusjih 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a definite copyvio. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Yann 11:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katanga cover.jpg[edit]

It looks like a copyrighted cover.--Jusjih 02:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's a 2006 reprint. [5]Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Yann 11:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Song XXV[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
No update in over 3 months. Deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No source, no author. Yann 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: the IP user attributed it to Jan Kochanowski.--Jusjih 03:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sadly, it seems to be from here, where its translator seems to be current-day. A nice eMail might get him to release the translation though, who's feeling diplomatic? :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 03:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the translator is w:Michael J. Mikos; a selection of other translations appears here. This information page states "OLD POLISH LITERATURE was created in 2000 as a private project designed by Roman Mazurkiewicz and Mariusz Górniak (Cracow). It is a non-profit enterprise: the authors have never profited from any sponsorship, endowments or subsidies; no commercial advertisements or banners are placed on the site. All materials included in the project are available to the users.", so there is a chance they will pick a PD or GDFL license for these translations. John Vandenberg 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User (talkcontribs) flagged this page as a possible copyvio with the following note: blatant copyvio, not a "manifest". I add it for discussion here without expressing any current view on the merits of the nomination. Tarmstro99 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO Mythopoeia is definitely not covered by {{PD-manifesto}}.
The earliest publication that I can pinpoint is the 1988 edition of Tree and Leaf (ISBN 0395502322), however there are earlier commentaries, so it is likely that it was published earlier than this.
This is kind enough to cover all manner of copyright, but then says "Special rules for unpublished works." From Copyright law of the United Kingdom:
If an unpublished work was published prior to the 1988 Act coming into force and the author had been dead for more than 50 years, then that work remained in copyright for a period of 50 years dating from its publication, plus a period to the end of the year in question. If an unpublished work was published after the 1988 Act coming into force the author had been dead for more than 50 years then its copyright expires at the end of 2039. Later amendments changed this term to the author dying more than 70 years before. So an unpublished work by an author who died before 1969 published after commencement of the 1988 Act expires at the end of 2039. However if a work by an author who died say in 1870 was published in 1960, its copyright would expire 50 years after 1960, or in 2010.
The Wikipedia page appears to omit this case of Tolkien, because he did not die 50 years prior the 1988 Act. The 1988 Act is not retrospective; it only covers works that have been created since 1 August 1989, however it does include transitional provisions which appear to make some distinction between published posthumously, and "unpublished in the sense of the proviso to s. 2(3) of the 1956 Act" (which have a fixed expiration of 2039. So, ....
if it was published while he was alive, i.e. before 1973, then it is copyright until 2044 (70pma)
if it was published 1974-1989, it would expire in 2034 or after (50pd), or in 2039.
As a result, I think it should be deleted. John Vandenberg 01:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What has been posted at this page is the text of a poem entitled “August 22, 1939” by poet Kenneth Rexroth. The text of “August 22, 1939” is also online here. According to Google’s scan of Kenneth Rexroth: Selected Poems, “August 22, 1939” was first published in 1940 as part of Rexroth’s collection entitled In What Hour (OCLC 2064893). The record for In What Hour in Stanford’s Copyright Renewal Database indicates that the book was copyrighted in 1940 and renewed in 1968 (#R432759). Thus, “August 22, 1939” is still under copyright in the United States. Tarmstro99 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete probably. unless someone can establish that it was published prior to being put in a collection. Eclecticology 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Presumably it wasn't written before August 22, 1939 so can't have been published much before 1940! It is also still copyright in the UK as PD-old-70 won't apply.--Poetlister 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Deleted, evidence that it's copyrighted, no evidence that it's PD —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been published in "Color", which was renewed. see Author:Countee Cullen. John Vandenberg 07:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This gives an original publication date of 1924, a year before the "Color" compilation was printed. It's possible we can hunt down the original publication, rather than the publication - and it wasn't renewed. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī 06:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Calculation of the Qibla[edit]

Calculation of the Qibla has "Copyright: 1994" all over it - and I'm not sure it meets the criteria for inclusion anyways. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī 15:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as copyvio. Poetlister 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have left a note at w:user talk:Modemac. If it has been published traditionally, it should be easy to acquire a GDFL/CC release from the author. John Vandenberg 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A House Possessed[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

w:Sax Rohmer suggests that he, an English author, died in 1959 and The Secret of Holm Peel and other Strange Stories 1970 would remain copyrighted in the UK and USA for some time.--Jusjih 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rohmer wrote some works before 1923. Those would be PD in the U.S. (though still copyrighted in the UK). This, however, seems to have been first published in 1970,[6] so it needs to be deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Prophet (Gibran)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This 1923 work by Lebanese poet Author:Khalil Gibran was copyrighted in the U.S. and had the work's copyright renewed (Renewal ID R82094) making its expiration date 2018. It is, however, in the public domain in Lebanon (a 50 year p.m.a. country) and the U.K. (he died in 1931). To all appearances this looks like an integrated work and not made up of poems copyrighted in prior years. The work has 26 chapters, not originated on Wikisource as subpages, so if this work is moved or deleted, each chapter will need to be removed as well. ResidentScholar 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, UPenn agrees that it's not PD in the United States yet, despite being PD elsewhere. Suggest we copy it to WikiLivres for now (and listen to the Inclusionist ideas about allowing texts PD in their home country in the future!). Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite your mysterious access to many resources, Sherurcij, I doubt even you could pull something out of a hat that would convince Mike Godwin to reverse himself. I have already notified the contributor, User:Phaedriel about the probable migration on her Wikipedia user page. ResidentScholar 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied to Wikilivres: Can be deleted. Yann 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have expanded that "entry" on the Author:Khalil Gibran, including a link to Wikilivres. I think we should take a leaf out of the upenn book and clearly state "NO US ACCESS" beside the Wikilivres link. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I, unsurprisingly, disagree. We have no obligation to say such a thing, therefore I'm against the idea of fostering copyright paranoia. Users can see that it is copyrighted in the United States from the renewal notice beside its title - and can notice that it's hosted off-site. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Portal:Branch Davidians 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

This work by Indian scholar Muhammad Iqbal was published in 1930. He died in 1938, so his works passed into the public domain in India in 1998. This is of course after January 1, 1996, so its copyright status should be reckoned according to U.S. Law. Other works by this author were published before 1923, the magic date under U.S. law, and those would be acceptable for Wikisource, but not this one. ResScholar 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see a chapter was added and it was published by Oxford Press in 1934, so let's assume we're dealing with the earlier work. Was it ever published in the United States? Assuming it wasn't, we're basically working off the PMA date - which is either already expired, or expires at the end of this year. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Worldcat, it was published by Oxford University Press in 1934, but there's no record of publication in the United States. According to the Library of Congress, it was published by a Pakastani publisher up to the 1960s.
According to Bookfinder, there is a 1960 reprint by a Pakastani publisher, Javid Iqbal,; a 1990 4th edition with a foreign ISBN, a 1965 edition with a foreign ISBN.
For versions published after 1998 it was available in the U.S. only from foreign ISBN numbers or publishers Kitab Bhavan from India or Kazi publications from Pakistan. Although Kazi has a U.S. Bookshop, I doubt the shop does any publishing per se. The only Bookfinder record for getting it new in the United States is from Kazi (a 1995 edition) and it's also available on the Kazi U.S. website (since 2003). That's evidence that even at this late date, there were no U.S. publication by these publishers; they're all imports.
Remember, Muhammad Iqbal was an Indian author (60 pma), so the work is already in the public domain in India. But it didn't happen until 1998, so presumably the work is still protected since it was never published in the U.S. ResScholar 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the nominator couldn't close the discussion. So I'm sure Sherurcij was right to re-open it, especially if he has more to say. But it's been four weeks, so please speak up and have your say. ResScholar 08:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied to Wikilivres. Yann 12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it never appears to have been published in the United States and the author was not a US national, I think US law makes no judgment and defers to foreign law (though the statement "(Includes works published both in the U.S. and abroad by foreign authors)" is of course thrown in to be confusing and completely contradict the title of the section), in this case Pakistani law, where it is indeed public domain. So I'm still seeing no reason it can't remain here as well. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Aeschylus 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking the reasonsing is this: it was copyrighted in India (where it was first published) in 1996 when URAA restored it for the full term of copyright in the US. So it should be copyright in US until at least 1930 + 97 = 2027.--BirgitteSB 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The link that Sherurcij used does give assistance in this situation. ‘Works Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals… [published] 1923 through 1977… solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 [will be in the public domain] 95 years after publication date’. --Benn Newman 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Benn Newman. According to the copyright statements posted here it won't be out of copyright until after 95 years from the original publications soley published outside of the US. --Mattwj2002 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Deleted Yann 12:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
From the talk page:

What is the copyright status of this work? As it was published in 1930, it may or may not be in the public domain. Could the contributor(s) please verify? Zhaladshar June 28, 2005 18:24 (UTC)

definitely out of copyright...copyright law in india only protects books for 60 years from day of publication or day of death of creator (not sure which)... either way everything by Iqbal is out of copyright since he died in 1939

Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam," - a collection of six lectures, translated by Prof Arberry, Oxford University.[7]
Iqbal, Muhammad. The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1932.[8]
So it looks like the English translation would be under UK rules, this might be a copyvio.--BirgitteSB 04:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The Reconstruction Lectures were originally in English, so there is no translation. I have no idea why that first link says that it was translated by Arberry, but that is wrong. The link also says that it is a collection of six lectures, whereas in reality it is seven lectures, so someone is confused. I'm removing the copyvio. --Backsplash 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
see March 2008 discussion archive at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives. ResScholar 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Táin Bó Cúailnge[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Discussion moved to

This isn't actually in the English Wikisource, or in any language's Wikisource, but just under I don't know the proper way to get it deleted, but it's definitely a copyvio. It's lifted from CELT with the copyright information removed, but the page at CELT clearly says it's taken from a book published in 1976 which remains "copyright to the Royal Irish Academy and the School of Celtic Studies (Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies)". It also says the CELT text is "Available with prior consent of the CELT programme for purposes of academic research and teaching only". --Nicknack009 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of people / organisations who claim non sense copyrights, so we need more information than a mention on a web site. CELT seems to be a respectable institution, but I have seen even more respectable institutions saying a lot of non sense about copyright. To make a definitive answer, we need the author of this text, when and where it was first published. Yann 00:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's by Cecile O'Rahilly, first published in 1976 by the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, as you could tell if you perused the detailed copyright information on the CELT website. It's clearly within copyright. CELT is a respectable academic project owned by University College Cork, and presumably has permission to use the text. Wikisource does not. Oh, and it's not a "mention on a website" - it's the website the entire text was copied and pasted from. --Nicknack009 00:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here is closed; please continue the discussion at oldwikisource:WS:COPYVIO#Táin Bó Cúailnge. John Vandenberg 03:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Pan and Wendy[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
temporarily hidden until Jan 1, 2008

This was already deleted once, but apparently not salted as someone else has recently put it back up. This work is not public domain, or if you want to claim it is you will probably have to go through a lengthy legal process. It is certainly not the clear-cut case that Wikisource likes to use and, to make it worse, the copyright holders that are being deprived of income are Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. On top of that, the explanations of old-fashioned/obscure terms that were in square brackets suggest it may even have been a copyvio of a more recent edition. 01:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[9] Same text, different version of name. Hence probably why it's still there. 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It was previously marked as copyright on the Author page. [10] Project Gutenberg has an unusually detailed statement about the copyright.
w:Peter and Wendy#Copyright status describes the complicated status of this work. "GOSH claims full copyright in the European Union until the end of 2007," which is 70pma. In the US, "The Library of Congress catalog states that the original edition of Peter and Wendy was published in 1911, and Disney asserts that that material, like any other work published before 1923, was already in the public domain at the time of these extensions, and was therefore ineligible to be extended." The 1911 edition is OCLC:4616397all editions My understanding is that the URAA cant affect works in the P.D. due to {{PD-1923}} - it only affects {{PD-US-no-renewal}} and similar. However, this gives more details
In 1929, JM Barrie assigned the copyright in the cycle of Peter Pan works to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children - a children's hospital and medical charity. He confirmed the Hospital's ownership of this copyright in his last will and testament in 1937. In 1939, the Hospital licensed the animated film rights to Disney.
Fortunately for Spencer, the work of Peter Pan had fallen into the public domain in Australia. The Federal Government has since extended the term of copyright protection in 2004 to life of the author plus 70 years. However, the Australian Parliament decided that such an extension would not have a retrospective effect.
According to it is also PD in Canada.
So it appears to be PD in at least AU, CA, US, but has a perpetual copyright in the UK and is copyright in the EU until the end of 2007. John Vandenberg 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This work is actually not the same as the play Peter Pan, which was deleted earlier. This is the book adaptation of the work.
In any case, it is not a copyright violation for Wikisource to host the play or the book, as both are essentially non-commercial use only in the EU, and public domain everywhere else. If I had been aware of the disputed copyright at the time I added the text to Wikisource, I would have waited until the end of December to add it. But it would be rather pointless to delete the text now, only to undelete it a month from now, especially since its inclusion breaks no law. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've checked the deleted page Peter Pan/Chapter 1, and it was the novel not the play. John Vandenberg 05:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"If I had been aware of the disputed copyright at the time I added the text to Wikisource, I would have waited until the end of December to add it." But you removed the explanatory note about it not being out of copyright on the author's page. It is definitely worth removing the text and readding it next year, if readding it is considered okay next year, because otherwise we're acting as if copyright doesn't really matter. Can't you at least give the children's hospital one more Christmas of book sales before you publish their property for free? 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would just blank it until the end of this year. And I think that publishing it on WS would not deprive the hospital of anything. This is just another trick of copyright holders. Yann 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Wikisource is non-commercial, so we are not depriving the hospital of any royalties. Whether or not Peter Pan is in the public domain in the United States is contested, so it may or may not be free enough for Wikisource.
Blanking the pages until the end of the year seems like a good solution. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
While it may be "non-commercial" or "copyrighted for this final year" in the EU, is that relevant to our inclusion guidelines? I'm not certain I've understood the hypocrisy subtlety of our inclusions, but since it is PD in the United States, then I thought that was enough to merit inclusion? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Pulitzer-winning writings 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol Sherurcij, did all those suicide notes provide income to help sick kids too? 04:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the distinction between the book and the play means much. The book quotes so much of the play that if one is copyright, surely the other is too.--Poetlister 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

British North America Act, 1964 [REQUEST WITHDRAWN][edit]

Crown Copyright lasts for fifty years. see {{PD-UKGov}})

John Cross 17:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clear copyvio per John Cross.--Poetlister 18:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is now tagged with {{UK-Crown-waiver}}.

REQUEST WITHDRAWN John Cross 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada Act 1982[REQUEST WITHDRAWN][edit]

Crown Copyright lasts for fifty years. (see {{PD-UKGov}})

John Cross 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is now tagged with {{UK-Crown-waiver}}.

REQUEST WITHDRAWN John Cross 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

British North America Act, 1960 [REQUEST WITHDRAWN][edit]

Crown Copyright lasts for fifty years. (see {{PD-UKGov}})

John Cross 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Most (all?) of these acts were added by me on the assumption that the british waiver of copyright for legislation was an acceptable license, since the template {{Legislation-UKgov}} still existed. In later discussions, consensus has declared that it is not a valid license. Feel free to delete. You might also want to look at deleting all texts with {{Legislation-CAGov}}, which are covered by a Canadian version of the British waiver of copyright, and so should be unacceptable for the same reasons.--T. Mazzei 20:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the UK have a ROFLO-type deal? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The UK has a Crown Copyright Waiver but it is not as good as the Canadian one.

Guidance - Reproduction of United Kingdom, England, Wales and Northern Ireland Primary and Secondary Legislation

"10. Provided that the obligations set out at paragraph 12 are complied with, there are no restrictions on how the Material may be reproduced. By way of illustration, users may undertake any of the following activities in relation to the Material:

a) reproducing and publishing the Material in any medium;

b) making multiple copies of the Material for distribution and sale;

c) reproducing the Material in any medium for the purposes of news reporting;

d) reproducing the Material on free and subscription web sites which are accessible via the Internet;

... g) reproducing the Material on Intranet sites;


j) copying by libraries for the purposes of supplementing or replenishing their stocks;

k) making copies for circulation throughout an organisation whether in the public or private sector;


n) translation into other languages;


The above list is by no means exhaustive, but it seeks to illustrate the majority of potential uses of this Material."


12. The waiver of Crown copyright in relation to the Material as described in paragraphs 9 and 10 is conditional on the following terms being complied with:

a) all reproduction of the Material should be made from an Official version. This means either the authorised Queen’s Printer or Government Printer for Northern Ireland published versions of the Material, or alternatively the text featured on the Official legislation web sites, see paragraph 10 (e);

b) the Material must be reproduced accurately. In the case of translations into other languages, a competent translator must be used where the translation is to be issued to the public;

c) care should be taken that the Material reproduced is from the current or up to date version, and that out of date Material is not presented as though it was current. Where out of date Material is being reproduced for the purposes of drawing comparisons with current Material or similar analysis, it should be made clear that the Material in question has been superseded, with appropriate cross references to the current Material;

d) the Material should not be used in a derogatory or misleading manner, nor should it be used for the purposes of advertising or promoting a particular product or service or for promoting particular personal interests or views;

e) the reproduced versions of Material should not be presented in a way which could imply it has Official status or that they are endorsed by any part of government;

f) all publisher imprints which are featured on the Official versions of the Material should be removed from any copies of the Material which are issued or made available to the public. This includes use of the Material on the Internet and on Intranet sites;

g) Royal Arms may only be reproduced when they form an integral part of the Material being reproduced and are used in that context. For example, you may reproduce the cover of an Act of Parliament featuring the Royal Arms in a compendium or database product if the rest of the Act is being reproduced. The Royal Arms should not otherwise be used without permission.

h) the Material is acknowledged appropriately as indicated in paragraph 13 below. For translations into other languages, the copyright acknowledgment should be given in both English and in the language in which the Material is being translated.

13. Where the reproduced versions of the Material is being published, circulated or issued to others - including Internet and Intranet use - one of the following Crown copyright acknowledgments should be featured in a prominent position:

a) Where one specific item is being reproduced:

    • [Title of Publication] is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO

b) Where a range of Material is being reproduced:


14. You may find the summary of permitted uses and the corresponding obligations set out in the annex to this Guidance Note helpful."

John Cross 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

More Canadian Legislation [Proposal Withdrawn][edit]

I am no expert in Canadian law but I think we need to consider whether to delete or to keep the following texts.

The reproduction of federal law order appears to allow copying in certain circumstances, but I assume this does not apply to Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament affecting Canada.

Should there be another template for Canadian legislation more than 50 years old?

This legislation is reproduced under the terms of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order for enactments of the Government of Canada and for the decisions of federal courts and tribunals. This document is not an official version and is not endorsed by the Government of Canada in any way, shape or form.

Nuvola apps important.svg
Canadian legislation is under Crown Copyright pursuant to Section 12 of the Copyright Act for 50 years after the first publication. Even after the copyright expires, the Reproduction of Federal Law Order still applies.

John Cross 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a template for Canadian legislation more than 50 years old, {{PD-CAGov}}. I am uncertain of whether the "Constitution Acts", being patriated (as of 1982) forms of the "BNA Acts" fall under Canadian or UK copyright law, though it matters little as both expire after 50 years. As I said above, I added these all when I thought the ROFLO, (and the British equivalent) were valid licenses.--T. Mazzei 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain I do not question the ROFLO-compatability of these texts, but is this sufficient?

By putting these works on Wikisource we are saying they are available under GNU Free Documentation License, does that not mean people can make altered copies of these texts.

John Cross 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No we're not. Very little of what we put on Wikisource is GFDL. By putting these works on Wikisource we are noting that "it is of fundamental importance to a democratic society that its law be widely known and that its citizens have unimpeded access to that law;", that "the Government of Canada wishes to facilitate access to its law by licensing the reproduction of federal law without charge or permission;" and that we are abiding by the notice that "Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce enactments and consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada, and decisions and reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals, provided due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced and the reproduction is not represented as an official version." Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain The last discussion on ROFLO as an acceptable license (that I was involved in) can be found here.--T. Mazzei 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


John Cross 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether such works fall within the scope of Wikisource but I think they ought to. Thanks to Sherurcij for reminding me why I got involved with Wikisource ("it is of fundamental importance to a democratic society that its law be widely known and that its citizens have unimpeded access to that law").

This request is withdrawn.

John Cross 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)