Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2010-07

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 July 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Vietnamese Declaration of Independence[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept, PD-EDictGov — billinghurst sDrewth 03:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This speech is issued by Ho Chi Minh, who died in 1969. Thus, it is still protected by Vietnamese IP law and US Copyright law. Vinhtantran (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Questions: Would this be considered a Vietnamese official work? Even if yes, how is a Vietnamese official work copyrighted? Even if not copyrighted, was the original in English? If not, who translated it? Delete if no good answers to these questions to satisfy the copyright policy here.--Jusjih (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is an accepted declaration of independence, I would have thought that it would therefore fall under {{PD-GovEdict}}. If not accepted, an it is seen as a literary work, then probably is copyright. I would favour that it is an edict of government. billinghurst (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be treated like an Edict...Formosa (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hyderabad CM Burgula Views about merger & File:Burgula to Dhar merger views1.jpg +++[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
The work Hyderabad CM Burgula Views about merger is stated as having been written in 1956, and while it is the letter of the head of government of an Indian state, it wouldn't seem to fit under government edict. Not sure whether it is has been published however that would still not allow us to reproduce the work. Time period alone, without considering subsequent date of death would seem to exclude the work from being hosted here. Also note that the subsequent images are also loaded at enWS … File:Burgula to Dhar merger views1.jpg +++ billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
According to section 24 of Indian copyright act ...
Term of copyright in posthumous work:- (1) In the case of literary, dramatic or musical work or an engraving, in which copyright subsists at the date of the death of the author or, in the case of any such work of joint authorship, at or immediately before the date of the death of the author who dies last, but which, or any adaptation of which, has not been published before that date, copyright shall subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published or, where an adaptation of the work is published in any earlier year, from the beginning of the calendar year next following that year.
Author of this document died in 1967(per w:Burgula_Ramakrishna_Rao page or [1] ). I got this "scanned document" thru email from family member of Mr Burguala. Please let me know what kind of authorization you need from him. Here is the email I got.(see below). Here is the press conference email below talking about. Ramcrk (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From: Vijay burgula
Subject: Re: Telangana: Hyderabad CM views
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 4:19 AM
Dear Ram,

Apologies for the delay in responding as my Wi-Fi modem has
burnt out and BSNL takes its own time in replacing it.
Please find some letters of BRK attached to this email.
They are scanned documents that were publicized today
morning in a press conference to counter the Lagadapati
propaganda in the Samaikyandhra agitation. My father, B.
Narsing Rao spoke while Jeevan Kumar of HRF made the
introductions and veteran journalist D. Sitaram spoke about
the context in which those letters were written.
It was a tragi-comic press conference as many in the media
did not even know that a separate state of Andhra was in
existence from 1953 till 1956!!! They were even more
confused as to why BRK wrote such a letter to the Congress
President in 1955 especially
when he signed the Gentlemen's Agreement. It was
therefore a one hour class in Telangana history for the
media. Doesn't the media have induction training for
their reporters, and especially their political
Anyway the plan now is to collect all documents for the
lost years of Telangana history, namely from 1948 to 1956
and publish them as and when they are collected. This will
be a collective effort and will be published under the name
of the Telangana Collective. Whoever contributes in whatever
manner is a part of the Collective. The work will be done
from the State Advisors' (Supreme Court Commissioner of
Right to Food) Office in Barkatpura. So please feel free to
join in the effort in whatever way possible. The more the
merrier and more creative and stronger.
If you are in Hyderabad, please call me at

Jai Telangana

We need to get some advice on whether there is sufficient permission to allow us to reproduce the work, and then how we need to receive and store that permission within the OTRS system. Not my area of expertise. billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to contain any permission for re-use, so it's definitely not sufficient (unless I'm missing something other than the copied letter above). It would need to be something similar to the boilerplates found on and linked to by the page w:Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. Jude (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
According to section 24 of Indian copyright act ...
Term of copyright in posthumous work:- (1) In the case of literary, dramatic or musical work or an engraving, in which copyright subsists at the date of the death of the author or, in the case of any such work of joint authorship, at or immediately before the date of the death of the author who dies last, but which, or any adaptation of which, has not been published before that date, copyright shall subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published or, where an adaptation of the work is published in any earlier year, from the beginning of the calendar year next following that year.
Author of this document died in 1967(per w:Burgula_Ramakrishna_Rao page or [2] ). So, copyright on this document expired in 1967. Per above email from family member of Burgula, this document is not published before 1967. Hope this helps in avoiding furthur research on this topic. - Ramcrk (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The text says that it shall subsist at least fifty years from the day he died.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, copyright expires right after author dies. If the document is published before author dies, copyright expires 50years after it is first published. Please advice. Thanks. - Ramcrk (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You're misreading the structure of the sentence; it's "in the case of blah blah blah blah blah', copyright shall subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published", etc. etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I am no lawyer but it says "copyright subsists at the date of the death of the author". It seems copyright expires at the death of author(please note that this document is never published in a book, implied in the email from family). Anyways I am trying to get permission from author's family and looking for appropriate form to get it signed by author's family. I looked at w:Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials but its kind of confusing. I don't want to get wrong form or wrong procedure and bother author's family unnecessarily. Can you point to specific form and let me know how and where to sent the form. Thanks. - Ramcrk (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyderabad CM Burgula Views about merger

Added copyright holders permission to the at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Hyderabad_CM_Burgula_Views_about_merger_.26_File:Burgula_to_Dhar_merger_views1.jpg_.2B.2B.2B Please review and advice. Meanwhile I put the correct tag to Hyderabad_CM_Burgula_Views_about_merger page. Author of this document died in 1967(per w:Burgula_Ramakrishna_Rao or [3] ) Ramcrk (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Added Indian copyright act info at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Hyderabad_CM_Burgula_Views_about_merger_.26_File:Burgula_to_Dhar_merger_views1.jpg_.2B.2B.2B. This info should resolve this issue without any furthur research or documentation. Thanks. - Ramcrk (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You were given advice at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations and for the work to be retained at Wikisource you will need to follow that advice. As the servers are based in the US, it is US copyright law that reigns, not Indian copyright law. An Indian notice acts as advice to Indians on the status of the work locally to them. While there is no compliance the case remains open, and at some point an administrator will close the case and presumably feel required to delete the work. billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I will get the authorization from family members of the author(son or grandson). Please advice what kind of documentation you need. Please note that I am not sure whether Author's son can use email or not. I have email communication with grandson of the author(see above). If you need email in certain format or you need scanned document of authoriation letter(from son) in certain format please let me know. I am confused about the kind of documentaion wiki needs. Thanks for your help. - Ramcrk (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright owner sent the WP:CONSENT form to Ramcrk (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
OTRS received and added. — billinghurst sDrewth 14
37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Files tagged with OTRS and moved to Commons with PD-heirs — billinghurst sDrewth 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

St Patrick's Day broadcast to Britain by William T. Cosgrave[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Copyright in Government publications. (PD-IrishGov) as per link — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This has been deleted too - This speech is from over 75 years ago. I believe it is not copyright protected. Billinghurst has removed it from view and it is noted as under discussion. Lets discuss. Can it go up or must it stay removed? Formosa (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
William T. Cosgrave died in 1965, so the speech will be PD in the UK and Ireland in 2035. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually because he was a government employee of Ireland, he gets 50 years after the speech was made, so it entered the public domain when Ireland passed the 2000 Copyright and Related Rights Act. But back in 1993, the speech was not in the public domain, it being scheduled to enter it in 2015. From 1993 to 2000, the entry date was moved up to 2035 through the E.U. 93/98/EEC directive.
Because in 1996, it was not in the public domain, and it was presumably not published simultaneously in the U.S. back in 1931, it is eligible for URAA copyright restoration, so if URAA is sustained in U.S. court, the work will be out of U.S. copyright in 2026, 95 years after publication date. ResScholar (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The 1963 Copyright Act was passed in July 1964, and it also declares a 50-year term for literary works by employees of the government. Stated here: [4]. It presumably entered the public domain in Ireland in 1981.
Because in 1996, it was in the public domain, and it was presumably not published simultaneously in the U.S. back in 1931, it is not eligible for URAA copyright restoration. ResScholar (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
First question, does the 1966 Act or indeed the 2002 Act have any relevance (the speech was made in the early 1930s - i.e. long before those Acts had any effect)?
Second question (a more preipheral question maybe), the Department of Foreign Affairs has published President Cosgrave's speech in a series of documents (also available on their website over recent years - Were they required to obtain the consent of the Cosgrave Estate to such publication?
Formosa (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
If he was speaking in his governmental capacity -- and it sounds like he was -- the copyright was owned by the government and lasted for 50 years. If so, this would be fine. Copyright terms were mostly retroactively restored to 70 years pma, but the term for government works is still 50 years from publication, in general. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Press Release concerning Great Seal of the Irish Free State[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept Template:PD-IrishGovbillinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Billinghurst has removed this on copyright grounds. It is a Government of Ireland (then Irish Free State) press release from the early 1930s. Lets discuss. Formosa (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view this is now copyright free. In this regard, the individual author of this press release is unknown (it having been an anyonymous press release issued on behalf of a Government Department). Section 2 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 of Ireland provides that "“anonymous work” means a work where the identity of the author is unknown or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, where the identity of the authors is unknown"". This is so in respect of this work. Section 24(2) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 of Ireland provides that "The copyright in a work specified in subsection (1) [one whose copyright lasts for 70 years of the death of the author] which is anonymous or pseudonymous shall expire 70 years after the date on which the work is first lawfully made available to the public.". This applies here and so, in my view, this is a copyright free work and can be hosted safely on this website. Billinghurst, please could you restore this work? Formosa (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ResScholar....Is this one safe to go back up? Formosa (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This should be fine; see Commons:Template:PD-IrishGov. Copyright would have lasted for 50 years, so no longer PD in Ireland, and not restored in the U.S (not that I think that part should matter for government works; it is a special case of PD-author anyways). Judgements of "anonymous" shouldn't enter into it at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Magic Pudding[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Since Australian copyright on works by authors who died since 1955 lasts for 70 years after the death of the author, the only question is whether this was first published in Australia, or the United States, as with a few of this author's works (according to his page here). I can not establish this for certain, but w:The Magic Pudding states this. —innotata 18:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It was published before 1923, so it is public domain in the United States no matter where it was first published. I think en-wikisource goes only by U.S. law (i.e. foreign copyright law would only matter as a part of URAA restorations of U.S. copyright), but that is moot in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
En.WS only worries about US law, which has this in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any policy pages discussing this. We don't have any license templates or anything for texts PD in the in the US only. If this is to be kept, all images need to be moved here from Commons. —innotata 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Our tags are generally only concerned with U.S. law I think, so {{PD-1923}} is the one which applies. As for the image on Commons, I agree with you. It can't stay there. It is marked as don't-move-to-Commons on en-wiki (which also follows U.S. law only). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep . Clear of copyright in US, copyright in Australia. I would think that {{pd/1923|1969}} is the form that we should use. Yes any images at Commons should be moved here. We can import the wrappers using Special:Import and then upload the files appropriately. Once that is done, if someone buzzes, and I can clean up at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the {{copyvio}} tag, uploaded the file here, and tagged the file for speedy deletion in Commons. —innotata 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawal of nom inferred. Speedy keep.

Glad to see this blew up and was resolved while I slept. I am confused re the image though. It's PD in US (pre-1923) and PD in Australia (pre-1955). Why can't it be at Commons? Moondyne (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If the author died in 1969, the work would come out of copyright in Australia in 2040 (70 year rule). Do you see the facts differently? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The Australian pre-1955 rule is strictly for photographs I believe (and maybe films) -- this was artwork though, which I think got their full term. So, still under copyright there I believe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[2 x e/c] The pre-1995 public domain guarantee only applies to photographs, which were an exception to the general life+50 rule. This is an artwork, not a photograph. So life+50, so still under copyright when the AUSFTA came in, so life+70, so 2040. :-( Hesperian 01:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right. Reviewed [5]. Moondyne (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reclosed — billinghurst sDrewth 10
14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Your Mother[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hitler's poem Your Mother has recently been added to the site, and from the information gleaned, it would seem that the poem is still covered by copyright. This translation would also seem to be a copyright issue. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The original German is in the public domain because the US did not extend the copyright term for enemy works from 50 to 70 years. We cannot decide that the translation is PD unless we know where it came from. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I don't understand what you're talking about in the first sentence; the only time non-US copyright terms have mattered for copyright law is what they were when the URAA took effect on January 1st, 1996. As for enemy works, the law says "Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work." If Hitler's copyright is owned by a government--which is possible, but debated--it still wouldn't apply unless it was owned by the Alien Property Custodian, which I find unlikely, but I guess is possible, and I wouldn't know how to check that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we find the original German? Shouldn't be hard to do our own translation then. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason that the original German isn't still in copyright, as a 1923 work still in copyright in Austria on the URAA date.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
close discussion and move to delete. No clear evidence presented that this is a public domain work. Leaving deletion for couple of days in case there is violent disagreement — billinghurst sDrewth 03
34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The House of Cæsar[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I've looked on Google Books and done a general web-search, and the earliest publishing that comes up is Songs of Adventure, 1926. w:Viola Garvin says "Robert E Howard paraphrased a part from Viola Garvin's The House of Cæsar for his suicide note.[6]", which is problematic because the linked page says that there are two possible Viola Garvins, and that the British one is merely the more likely. The article has an unsourced claim that The House of Cæsar is the work of this Viola Garvin, but I don't know if I should put any weight on that. In any case, we have a poem, likely by a British poet (1898-1969), where the earliest publishing I can find is 1926. If it is first published in Songs of Adventure, then it's PD, as that's an unrenewed American work, but I rather suspect that book is a collection of previously published work, as Songs of challenge, an earlier compilation by Robert Frothingham is such a collection. Without more information, I find it not improbable this poem is still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Just read through (British) Garvin's obituary (The Times, Tuesday, Jan 28, 1969; Issue 57470; pg. 10; col E )and it says that she only published one collection of poems in book Dedication in 1928. She was literary editor of The Observer from 1926-1942, with the time prior being spent as a school teacher. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up, definitely different, as the Viola mentioned in previous para died single. Whereas quotes Garvin, Viola (Taylor), Mrs as author of As You See It published 1922. For that I can find the twice recorded marriage (1921)
  • Garvin James L Taylor Violet A L A Hampstead 1a 1793
  • Garvin James L Woods Violet A L A Hampstead 1a 1793
Found marriage notice and it says Viola daughter of Capt. Harry Taylor (decd), King's Messenger. Found her obit in 1959, and says aged 76, and that she wrote quite a bit of poetry. So while different, I don't think that it actually makes any difference to the outcome. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
One problem, however; the poetry of the Garvin from As You See It is stylistically nothing like the poetry of the Garvin who wrote The House of Caesar; I therefore conclude that the Garvin of Dedication wrote this poem, and, seeing that it cam from an uncopyrighted book, I'm going to restore the text to the page. Stolengood (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't work that way that you can implement your own decision. We have a community-based approach and decision-making process. I have reinserted the {{copyvio}} on the work -- billinghurst (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I see two outstanding questions
  1. Whether the copyright of an author (the poet) is extinguished by a second party having published the poem when the background of the relationship, etc. is not proven or commented
  2. What is the first publication date of the poem, and would a second publishing of a work, in a book without copyright notice, extinguish the copyright of a work where the element of the contribution is not known.
My gut feel is that for a British author published after 1922, where the author died less than 70 years ago, that the work is still going to be copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The copyright of the author can and often was extinguished by the publisher mishandling the work. If the American publication was the first publication, I think we can assume it was with permission of the author. If it was the second, and the first was in the UK, then URAA would have restored copyright.
My gut feeling is that it was first published in the UK somewhere, which means that unless it was first published prior to 1923, it's still in copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Secret Speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
A couple of issues with this work billinghurst (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. it isn't in Russian, which seems odd for a secret speech by Nikky.
  2. published? by who?
    • Several 'sources' but typically UK's Observer or Guardian is cited. Always reprinted with the permission of the family of Nikita Khrushchev it seems. George Orwell III (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. 1956 wouldn't it be copyright
no evidence presented that the work is Public Domain
billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Popol Vuh[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted with no posting at Canadian Wikilivres through 2012. Wait for 2013 to post there but not here.--Jusjih (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked in Google Books, which has a limited view copy under the name "Popol vuh: the sacred book of the ancient Quiché Maya", which the University of Oklahoma claims a 1950 copyright on. (ISBN 0-8061-0205-5, 0-8061-2266-8) Since it, and only it, came up when I searched on a sample sentence, I think this is the right translation. There's no renewal I could find, but it's based on the Spanish translation of w:Adrián Recinos (1886 – 1962), which Wikipedia lists as being published in 1947 in Mexico and hence is under copyright in the US, a copyright that would cover any translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, w:Popul Vuh says the only extant manuscript is a Quiche/Spanish bilingual, and says Recinos made an edition of the Spanish text. w:Adrián Recinos claims that it was his translation ("It was he who made the first edition in Spanish of the Popol Vuh, based on his translation of the manuscript found in the Newberry Library, Chicago, the United States."), but I'm inclined to go with the first. Other opinions? If it is clear, we should find a copy of the 1950 edition and make a complete copy of it, introduction and all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The version hosted by has publication as early as 1908 if it matters any Nevermind- not the same work George Orwell III (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as I cannot determine whether China would consider this work eligible for {{PD-CN}} when reading the Chinese version.--Jusjih (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Work by Mao Zedung, published in 1938, and unknown whether it complied with US copyright law at that time, eg. whether it has copyright tag, and after that it gets murky especially without the date of US publication known. billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Grasshopper (Chekhov)[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Cloudmountain (talkcontribs) added questions on Talk:The Grasshopper (Chekhov) that raise concerns on the probability that this translation is in the public domain. With the translator being born in 1903, one would consider it unlikely that they are pre1923 works, hence referred here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete; looking at WorldCat, she worked at or with Oxford since the 1930s and the earliest work this could be from is the 1953 Russian short stories XIXth century. With reprinting and new editions and bad cataloging, it's hard to tell when her last publication was, but I'm thinking the mid-1970s, unless there were a lot of magazine/manuscript translations laying around when she died. It did fail to be renewed, and it's not inconcievable that it was published at the same time in the US, but I see no evidence encouraging that; it actually seems that the Oxford Press just ignored US copyright quite frequently, and are thus protected by their failure to follow the manufacturing clause.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Alive in 1963 (Letter to the Editor, The Times) and was working on Shorter OED at that time. No death notice readily found, and death registrations are a slow trawl for little benefit on this occasion. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, primary evidence is copyright violation, no disputing information to allow to keep — billinghurst sDrewth 06
03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hit Where It Hurts[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy delete of resubmission of copyrighted work ResScholar (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement in article: (Theodore Kaczynski retains copyright to this article.). I'm not very familiar with the rules here, but it looks like a violation me. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This article was nominated by me as a copyright violation for the same reason Jan1naD gave and deleted by another user on August 26, 2009 based on consensus. The copyright concern was never addressed. I think there is a speedy deletion category for this, "recreation of deleted page". I will delete it if that's the case or there is another good category. ResScholar (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For the Goddess Too Well Known[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted ResScholar (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a poem by Elsa Gidlow, published in "Eighteen to Eighty" in 1982 in the US. she died in 1986. Thus this poem is well outside the public domain. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted. Good evidence suggests this translation was written after 1922, and thus potentially under U.S. copyright; reasonable doubt exists that it is not copyrighted. ResScholar (talk) [May 15, 2010]

This English translation of a work by St. Leonard of Port Maurice is almost certainly a post-1922 translation. A 1920 biography from a British publisher of material known to be written by learned Catholics states about his writings, that outside of two devotional works, already translated, "it is to be hoped that someone may one day be found willing and capable to render them into English."

The first evidence I could find of this work appearing on the Internet is at the Internet Archive at Our Lady of the Rosary Library. There is a link to the work at on a web archive captured September 2, 1999, though an archive of the work itself is not available through the link. There is an introduction and an addendum to the work, written after 1948--possibly by OLRL writers. The translation could have been composed by them too.

At any rate, I don't expect this web site to be forthcoming with licensing information, as they have published the work themselves from probably close to their inception without any translation attribution.

Let's suppose it was carelessly appropriated copyright-wise. They publish it at 8¢ a copy, so this non-profit web-site is losing money on it, but they would be liable for damages from an implied claim of ownership. They wouldn't want to respond.

Now let's suppose the opposite: it was entirely their original production, and they have even released it to the public domain. Then they would say: "You're asking the license status for the translation because you want to produce a competing formatted product from our charitable work so the public can be free to chisel us out of 8¢?"

So an adminstrator asking this website for license info is a lose-lose proposition from Wikisource's standpoint. A non-administrator asking would be different because it would be out of an interest in promulgating the work, not out of a bureaucratic policy of arrogation of any usable property that falls into our possession.

So I think unless a real devotee steps up, this work ought to be relegated to the "limbo" of deletion. ResScholar (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, pending further info, I strongly believe that since one can rarely prove a negative, it is typically the onus of the accuser to prove that a work is a violation, not vice versa. I know others hold contrary positions, but I feel that good faith (and a penchant for abandoned works) has a place in our project and unless it is shown otherwise, I would believe that a translation of a PD work is also PD. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That's like assuming that movies are PD; it's possible, but not even probable in many cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Translations are unambiguously derivative works and have their own copyright. No chance whatsoever it is PD because the original is PD; that would only mean that the author of the original can no longer control distribution of the derivative. But the translation is its own work, and copyrightable on its own, without question. If this is a post-1989 translation, it is definitely copyrighted. For inclusion on a "free" website, it is the onus of the contributor to provide at least a rationale of why the work is PD -- we would need information on the translation, or at least some indication that it was published before 1989 without a copyright notice, or published before 1923. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Author: Prem Rawat[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted ResScholar (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This individual's activities have been heavily documented on Wikipedia, and a Wikipedia article on one of his events became a "Today's Featured Article," a few years back, a type of article, which, of course, is subject to heightened peer review. Some of the documentation activities of his supporters and detractors spilled over onto Wikisource about two years ago, and we still have texts by this individual where there is no indication of their having been licensed by the author.

As I suggested, I think they may have been added (and provisionally received) to allow the characterization of the individual through examples, but that is a mistaken assumption as to the scope of what Wikisource includes as far as unlicensed work is concerned, for any individual.

On the Author page and the Arti page, interested parties have been warned for much longer than required of the lack of licensing on these texts, and the absence of a translator license brought it to my attention. So I would like to remove these texts soon, if there are no objections. ResScholar (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First that I have paid attention to the issue, there is some discussion here about having received something, and at one of the other accounts there is an email address. Have we written and asked for an OTRS with evidence that they have been granted copyright? That aside, if others are confident that we have sufficiently hassled over this matter, that is enough to get my support. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I was at first more willing to accept these contributions because of the apparent good faith effort of User:Jossi as uncovered by your detective work, but this forbearance soon turned to alarm when it began to appear to me that these informal exchanges of permissions were probably forgeries with the design of spiting and galling his opponents in documenting opposing characteristics of Prem Rawat.
In order to avoid disclosure of a lack of neutrality in the discussion of this subject at Wikipedia, he seems to have created an account in order to pretend that Rawat's foundation had joined Wikisource in order ask him to release some of their documents into the public domain. After John Vandenberg happened to see the exchanges and followed up to ask him for an e-mail copy for OTRS, Jossi replied one would be forthcoming and from that day forward never returned to Wikisource. About a half a year later, Jossi resigned from his adminstratorship and the Wikipedia project altogether, and in the Summer of 2009, he was banned indefinitely from that Wiki for sockpuppetting as a result of an investigation that apparently caused Jossi to resign in January 2009 in order to avoid its inquiries.
My advice is to let the matter drop as far as following up with this foundation, as it is within administrative discretion to do so, rather than to reward the delinquent behavior of the contributor. ResScholar (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
To avoid charges of favoritism, I'm forced to add that I just now discovered that one of Jossi's principal opponents was a Wikisource administrator, User:Cirt, prior to his adminstratorship editing under a different name User:Smee. There is no overlap in the dates when Cirt edited on the two different accounts. And this is not a secret, though apparently it used to be. User:Smee has redirected to User:Cirt on Wikipedia since September 2009.
Cirt's user page also states that he is a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team, and has been since November 2008. I think because of disputes with Jossi, it would be a good idea if Cirt were to state here that he would recuse himself from any involvement in OTRS-permissions archiving relevant to Prem Rawat should User:Jossi ever return and invite the Prem Rawat Foundation to contribute texts to Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Added {{copyvio}} to pages

^  the pages for Giving from the Heart, and Prem Rawat at the Queensland Parliament House both seem to also have other pages that are copyright violations, especially the works of Quentin Bryce, currently Governor-General of Australia. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: In response to this comment by User:ResidentScholar to my user talk page [7], I do indeed so agree to recuse. -- Cirt (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bolivianos, El Hado Propicio[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted work, probably copyrighted by Cassell and Company; kept commentary. [June 6, 2010]

This work was apparently translated by T. M. Cartledge in the work National Anthems of the World, probably later than 1960. The first few words of the first verse and chorus were found in a the Santa Cruz Public Libraries Sheet Music Catalog, credited to T. M. Cartledge ("Bolivians, a favourable destiny has crowned our vows and longings;" "We have kept the lofty name of our country...") This work is all over the internet (uncredited), but it's probably still copyrighted if written after 1964 or earlier if it was renewed (probably a non-book renewal). ResScholar (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I went to the 2002 10th edition of National Anthems of the World. It's in there word for word credited to T. M. Cartledge. The entire book was copyrighted more than ten times by Cassell and Company, and I believe I saw Cartledge promoted to an editor of the book on WorldCat, so I think a proponderence of evidence supports these lyrics as being copyrighted. Also the 1960 edition was a U.K. work and would not need renewal. On the other hand, if they first appeared in the 1963 2nd edition and were not renewed in 1991, they would be in the public domain. ResScholar (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Method of exhaustion. I looked up the 1963 edition on WorldCat. There were 11 copies, all published in London. BookFinder revealed two publishers Pitman Publishing and Blandford Press. Blandford is London only, but Pitman publishes in New York and Toronto. But as per In the Wilds There is a Dead Doe, it's nigh impossible to prove there was a shorter than one month gap between publication in the U.K. and in the U.S.--making any new works candidates to be unrenewed domestic works. So the renewal question is moot. I will be deleting in one week, barring further evidence. ResScholar (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carter Caritatis[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted [May 31, 2010 ResScholar (talk)]

This probably merits a speedy deletion, but it slipped by and has been here for a while, so I thought I'd bring it here. A copy of this appears at this website which says the translation is Copyright 1996-2009 by Curia OCist. ResScholar (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete I would agree that unless there is clear presentation of an alternate source, that the source of translation looks suspicious, hence it should go. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Poverty of Philosophy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted probably copyrighted material (left main page with table of contents) ResScholar (talk) May 31, 2010

In September 2008, A busy anonymous editor spent 3 hours cutting and pasting portions of this work by Karl Marx onto different pages of Wikisource. Unfortunately it's a questionable edition. It was translated into English by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in 1955 and published the same year by a Moscow publisher called Progress Publishers, which is known to copyright their works. What I'm trying to say is that there are translations of this work available known to be in the public domain, but assuring this one has the same status is more work than I'm personally willing to budget for it. ResScholar (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • delete unless a PD source and attribution can be determined. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Code Noir[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted text, left header and notice June 2, 2010 ResScholar (talk)

A young man entered this text a few years back, and it's definitely the type of source document that Wikisource includes. But the translation, and even the formatting, is nearly identical to the text from a webpage in a copyrighted website, called Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution hosted by the George Mason University website. The credit page is here, saying the site is copyright 2001 American Social History Productions, Jack R. Censer and Lynn Hunt, editors and principal authors, and giving Thomas Morgan, Lee Ann Ghajar and Emanuelle M. Mosinski as the translators. There were only two non-commercial academic sites hosting this work, this one and the Louverture Project, but it didn't appear at this second site until 2005. Again, this document has been here a while so I thought I'd bring it here. ResScholar (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  • delete unless a PD source and attribution can be determined. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Letter from Niccolò Machiavelli to Francesco Vettori[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted; June 2, 2010 ResScholar (talk)

We haven't had a work with copyright renewal identification number for a long time, so here's to old times. According to the the Wordsworth edition of the Prince this letter came verbatim from The Letters of Machiavelli by Allen H. Gilbert, 1961. The renewal record is RE429963 from 1989. ResScholar (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • delete as under copyright. Good catch ResScholar. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Twilight of the Idols[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted [June 15, 2010; ResScholar (talk)]

As the discussion page of this work suggests, I found this translation in Penguin's Portable Nietschze, copyright 1954, renewed 1982, edited by Walter Kauffmann. There was no explicit statement of translatorship in the Google preview, but there is a page where Kauffmann speaks of the book as containing "new translations". The discussion page also contains a list of other translations; we don't have to delete that, but as for the work itself, I think deletion is in order. ResScholar (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Renewal record RE123885 lists "translations" by Walter Kaufmann as new material. Based on this evidence, barring objections, I will be deleting in a week. ResScholar (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I traced this translation to a PBS special website called "Secret Files of the Inquistion" which gave a copyright date of 2007. In my search, I found public domain replacements available elsewhere on the internet, if it matters to anyone. ResScholar (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • delete replace with a sourced and public domain copy, if considered worthwhile. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
closed, delete

Classic of Changes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted [June 20, 2010 ResScholar (talk)]

An ambitious anonymous user started entering the Chinese Classic of Changes (I Ching) as translated by Richard Wilhelm into German and subsequently by Cary F. Baynes into English. Unfortunately it's a copyrighted translation (RE673507). One can find all the phrases the user added to Wikisource in the Google Books snippet view of the 1950 edition (which was renewed in 1977) here. ResScholar (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Wilds There is a Dead Doe[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted: Presumed U.K. work, not in public domain in 1996, protected by URAA ResScholar (talk) [May 15, 2010]

This is what I discovered to be a 1937 translation from the Shih Ching (Chinese Classic Book of Songs) by Author:Arthur Waley (possibly Jimbo's uncle). It was first published on the other side of the Atlantic in Book of Songs by Allen & Unwin in 1937. This looks like a job for {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} which means deletion. Maybe we should start a list somewhere of these URAA items so we can undelete them all at once if the court overturns U.S. URAA law. ResScholar (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Houghton-Mifflin published this work in the U.S. in 1937 also. But I couldn't find a copyright registration record, which is odd. This will take more looking into. And it gets roped into Sherurcij's new translator copyright theory list too I guess. ResScholar (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment if we need a list, wouldn't the best place be on the talk page of the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the URAA will be ruled unconstitutional -- most of it is required by the Berne Convention. The challenge is to a portion relating to "reliance parties" (those who were using restored works before 1996, which isn't Wikimedia), where the claim is that the URAA law went beyond the Berne requirements, so that part may eventually be relaxed. In theory, I suppose it is possible that the rule of the shorter term could be applied to the restored works (which is also allowed by Berne), but I don't think that is a topic in the lawsuit. But, if this work was simultaneously published in the U.S., then the URAA is irrelevant. We do have a start on an 1876 translation at Shih King, the Book of Odes; this page would seem to be the source for that version for this particular ode (but translated quite differently). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Waley died in 1966 and was a citizen from the UK; we're a long way from rule of the shorter term, though he'll be good for Canada in a few years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was more a general comment on the URAA. There is no chance for PD in this particular work, unless it was simultaneously published in the U.S. and the copyright was not renewed (or there was no notice in the first place). Unlikely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: the URAA being ruled unconstitutional, there was a discussion here about that challenge to URAA (dominated by Prosfilaes) where I learned one legal principle of the challenge was that "works released into the public domain always stay in the public domain under the constitution." You kindly explained in a different heading above about the foreign policy history context of these laws, so we have a better understanding now of how at the least the making of such a ruling would have to bear pressures from those contexts. ResScholar (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The ruling was relatively narrow; it was only about the rights of "reliance parties" (those parties making use of a work from when it was in the public domain). Yes, the above was the principle argued, but the judge recognized the need to comply with the Berne Convention. He ruled however that the portion of the law relating to reliance parties went further than the Berne Convention requires, and was thus unconstitutional. The original press release is here; despite the headline it notes the ruling was just insofar as it suppresses parties' rights to keep using works they exploited when those works were in the public domain. Wikimedia is not such a party. The URAA section of the law is here; look for all the stuff related to "reliance". The Wikipedia article on the case is w:Golan v. Gonzales, a more in-depth blog posting on it is here, and the judge's actual ruling is here. You can't always predict what will happen under appeal -- that judge's ruling may be overturned, or it could be just upheld, or the ruling could be made even broader. But, I'm pretty sure that is the current status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I went through all the copyright registration records for 1937 for this work and didn't find an Arthur Waley. There is a delay of the "record of registrations" date after the registration, and there is an index for 1938 "records of registrations (which includes 1937 registrations), but it still took me an hour. The question occurs to me now, is copyright registration the required notice we're talking about? ResScholar (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Registration was not mandatory -- only a copyright notice printed on the title page of the book was -- but a later renewal was required. For a 1937 book, the renewal would have had to be in either 1964 or 1965 (i.e. between 27 and 28 years after publication). I think the U.S. law implementing the URAA has a definition of "simultaneously published" as within a month or so; if not, then all of the above does not apply, as the URAA would have restored the copyright without questions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a new Google search for renewals, it says there was no renewal. With a big publishing company, I think it's safe to presume they complied with the month requirement as standard practice and that it can be placed under {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. ResScholar (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a requirement, just a choice of the publisher -- if they waited, say, four months to have the U.S. version published, then it would be considered a UK work for URAA purposes. Not sure if common practice was to wait or not. It would be good to know the months the UK and US versions were published, but it does sound at least possible that the U.S. copyright lapsed due to no renewal, and was not restored by the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I was given to understand that notice and republication with 30 days in the U.S. was the U.S. law for a U.S. copyright to take effect back in those days. That is what Prosfilaes argued here for some of Ernest Hemingway's works. But Waley was not a novice author like Hemingway and probably had a literary agent to tell him about these laws. ResScholar (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to put words in Prosfilaes mouth, so let me correct that by saying that's what I gathered from the discussions here. ResScholar (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite what he meant. In those days, all you needed was a (valid) copyright notice on all copies, and registration/renewal within 28 years if you wanted copyright to extend beyond that. However, when the U.S. restored the copyright for foreign works via the URAA, it had to come up with a definition of what a "foreign work" was. One of the requirements to be eligible for restoration in 1996, was that a work could not have been published in the U.S. within 30 days of its original publication (17 USC 104(a), (h)(6)(D)). If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days of its first publication, then it is considered a United States work, and old U.S. copyright law continues to apply to it. If it was not published within 30 days, and the work satisfies the other four conditions of paragraph (h)(6) in that link, then its U.S. copyright was restored. That is the issue with this poem -- if the U.S. publication occurred within 30 days of the UK publication, then old U.S. copyright law still applies to it (renewal required etc.), and it would appear to be PD from your research. If U.S. publication occurred more than 30 days later, it is a foreign work, its copyright was restored, the renewal requirements no longer apply, and it has a U.S. term of 95 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There was also the Manufacturing Clause:
"The International Copyright Act also added the so-called "manufacturing clause" to the Copyright Act. This clause required that any printed book or periodical in the English language had to be printed from type set within the limits of the United States, or from plates made within the limits of the United States, from type set therein, or by a lithographic or photoengraving process wholly performed within the limits of the United States, in order for the work to receive copyright protection at all. Furthermore, the printing of the text and the binding of such books had to be performed within the United States. The manufacturing clause was not repealed until the revision of the Copyright Act in 1976."[8]
In practice it's slightly more hairy; a comment here speaks apparently authoritatively about the Lord of the Rings, which got themselves in a mess around this rule, and was legally saved (IMO) by the fact that modern judges are reluctant to enforce the old copyright regulations to their full extent. (I've read the outline of the story from other places, so I find that accurate, even if you choose to be about sceptical about the source.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys for your explanations regardless ResScholar (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

For many years within 1923-1964, looking up the registration takes an hour or more on this computer. Now we (or at least I) discover that we would also need to estimate from book reviews in the New York Times and other publications whether the U.S./non-U.S. gap is less or more than a month. The only positive proof of a greater than one month gap is if the years are different, but that still leaves the possibility of a Dec - Jan gap of less than 30 days. In the usual case we have to assume it's a foreign work, unless there is a two-year or greater gap in the years. Of course a Publishers' Weekly blurb saying "arrives in bookstores (month other than Jan. or Dec.)" would reduce that to one year.

And I think to be on the safe side we should not use {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} anymore. I think there are only two or three of these all added by me. I will add {{copyvio}} to these to blank the page for now, and remove them in two weeks unless someone objects to this proposal by then. ResScholar (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


The Statute Law of The Irish Free State[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:The Statute Law of The Irish Free State, deleted the text here, and replaced by {{Bibliowiki page}} to explain why no text here.--Jusjih (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This April Billinghurst also removed the above for discussion. This is an extract from a book published in 1929 in Ireland (then the Irish Free State). I thought the time limits for copyright here had expired? What is the position? Thanks. Formosa (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that WikiSource (or this page any way) does not seem to have too many participants, I have started working through the issues re some of the copyright issues. Whether this work is copyright free or not depends on whether the author is dead for 70 years or not...I have not been able to confirm the position so for the time being it should stay down as it is now. SOURCE: 24(1) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 of Ireland. Formosa (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Billinghursrt, in the meantime, it would be safer for you to remove the piece entirely. Its a pity. I typed it out myself and it does not exist elsewhere on the web...I have the book....Thanks. Formosa (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Billinghurst, could I suggest you take a sneaky read of it before deleting it permanently...I am sure you would find it a charming foreword. Note to others....Hurry up of you won't be able to get a sneaky look at it! Formosa (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, now, here is a turn of events....I decided to take my own advice and have a read of it before it is deleted and then I noticed, Mr Justice Hanna (whose date of death I could not find) is not the author of the foreword. The late Mr Justice Hugh Kennedy, the first Chief Justice (and very nearly the last Chief Justice) of the Irish Free State. Indeed, that learned Judge departed this life over seventy years ago (in 1937, in fact) and so his copyright has expired and this is now copyright free! Billinghurst, please could you restore it fully to the WikiSource website. By way of source, for the late Chief Justice's death, see: [9]. Formosa (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There was an act passed by the U. S. Congress called the URAA that denies United States citizens and corporations (like Wikisource) the ability to publish works from countries foreign to the U.S. that were still copyright in their home country as of 1996 (or the year they accepted the Berne convention). From 1993 to present Ireland's term of copyright was life plus 70 years, meaning it was scheduled to reach the public domain in Ireland in 2007. So in 1996, it was still in copyright, and the copyright was restored in the United States when the U.S. Government passed the URAA. If the court upholds this act, it will remain in copyright in the U.S. until 2024, or 95 years after the first publication date of 1929. ResScholar (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, my fear that WikiSource would be an All-American website were even better founded than I thought! The Americans are ingenious...through copyright, they are keeping out non-copyright publications of other jurisdictions....its no wonder they are stiill the no. 1 superpower...This one about this US Act is so extreme, I am likely to look at it again another day. Formosa (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Also ResScholar, you refer to "1993" and Irish copyright law. What is the significance of that was not until 2002 that Ireland enacted the current Act (Copyright and Related Rights Act 2002)? Formosa (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In 1993 there was some kind of directive from the European Union that asked member nations to provide a consistent copyright term of life + 70 years. I wrote down the number in one of the above sections. ResScholar (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
That did not happen immediately -- countries had to enact specific legislation to do so, and some of them (France and Portugal come to mind) did not do that until after the January 1, 1996 URAA date. Ireland passed their 70 pma law in 1995 though (see here), so this work was previously public domain in Ireland but its copyright did get restored if it was a private work. If you want more in-depth information, you can see w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. That page doesn't always have the correct URAA date copyright terms listed, but it has a lot of stuff documented. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You get harassed for not respecting other country's copyrights, and then you pass laws that give them the same treatment as your own, and you harassed for that. You can't win for losing, I guess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
To expand on Prosfilaes: The U.S. had nothing to do with producing this Irish work, and thousands of Irish works like it. Should the U.S., because of its technological advancement be able to republish this work (using the internet so even republish it worldwide) while the home countries are struggling to catch up? No. What we need is people from their home countries to publish their cultural riches from their own publishers or from their own wikiservers (which are practically free) if they choose to, or choose not to and thereby encourage people to come and do business in their country if foreign peoples want to learn more. ResScholar (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Your commentary is right and wrong Formosa. Firstly some of us are not Americans, so it is not our copyright law, secondly, the 1923 cutoff dates sometimes works in our favour, and sometimes works against us. If a non-American author died after 1940, yet published before 1923, this is a case where we are able to reproduce, and against what would be possible in a home country. So can we get away from the argument about fairness and/or righteousness, it is solely a legal matter, and if we don't like that restriction, then we can look to have it hosted elsewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Not copyrighted, I don't think First, the U.S. does not allow copyright in government edicts, laws, judicial decisions, etc., no matter what country (or state or local government) they come from. See {{PD-EdictGov}}. That probably does not apply to this intro, but it might. Secondly, Ireland has a government copyright much like Crown Copyright (but they obviously changed the name). See Commons:Template:PD-IrishGov; it generally lasts for 50 years from publication. If that applies here, it was PD in Ireland long before the URAA could restore it, even if it was not considered a government edict. But, I do see that this was published outside of government -- if the judge was writing in his capacity as a government official, it may be fine. If it is considered a private work, then yes the URAA would have restored its U.S. copyright. (The URAA stuff was mandated by joining the Berne Convention, pretty much.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Watch out Prosfilaes, I think a new expert's come to town! Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Carl. And just to warn you, we may have to swipe that juicy PD-IrishGov template of Commons soon too (talk about a double score!) With our backlog, we're never short of room for experts. ResScholar (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We have cleared up the dates surrounding the author, now we need to confirm that the book was not published in the US and that there is no existing copyright issues. With regard to a position within officialdom, I don't believe that we have to apply a positive test rather than a negative test. We would need a demonstration that this is a government edict, and I do not believe that we have yet demonstrated such from the information provided. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Wondering whether anyone can see a full view copy via from my country, it is no go.
    • No, but that is not too surprising -- they hide a lot of their books, particularly almost everything 1923 and later (even U.S. Government books), and hide a lot of pre-1923 as well. The setting of to hide or show full view is made by the entity doing the scanning (Google is often just a sponsor and provides the equipment; they don't do the actual work nor do they make copyright judgements usually). But it would be good if we could see the nature of the book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Looking around, it appears that the book is the actual text of the law, with annotations by Hanna. That might be enough to assume that it was a government-sponsored publication, considering that the main text was presumably still copyrighted by the Oireachtas and theoretically would have at least had the Government's approval. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it is a government edict -- the title threw me off. If the text of the book is repeating the actual text of the law, then the bulk of that text is OK, but it would not apply to the introduction. But it would seem to hedge on if the intro was written by Hugh Kennedy (who died on December 1, 1936 from what I could find) in his official capacity, or as a private citizen -- not sure unfortunately. I think I was thrown off by the title originally; now I'm not as sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For Billinghurst –(1) Non Question/Clarification point: For clarity, in a response to me above I think you suggested that I had suggested the editors around here are American – I didn’t do that. My references to the Americans were in the third person....(2) Question: you referred to a 1923 cut-off date – I do not know what the significance of 1923 is? Was a US copyright law passed in that year? It would be kind of you to point out (even just be referring me to the name of the Act) what you mean by the reference to 1923 (3) Question: similar to pt. (2), what is the significance (if any) of 1940?; and (4) Non Question/Clarification point: re copyright being “solely a legal matter, and if we don't like that restriction, then we can look to have it hosted elsewhere.” – You and I certainly do not disagree one bit on that and for clarity, I never suggested otherwise....I said it was, inter alia, “[t]he Americans are ingenious...through copyright, they are keeping out non-copyright publications of other jurisdictions....” That statement is 100% about the law and how ingenious the American law is. I don’t see anything about fairness or argument or righteousness in that. The US law is the one we are most concerned with on this website so I am keen to learn about it so I can use this site. Thanks Formosa (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In the current system of US law, all works published before 1923 are out of copyright, and many works published in 1923 will be under copyright until 2019.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - but perhaps you could point me to the law where 1923 gets its significance so I can read up and make a better contribution here. Formosa (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Carol Lindberg - Thanks for your contribution above. I own a copy of the book. I can confirm that it was published in Ireland only. However, the piece I have published on WikiSource was the foreword. It was not a Government edict. It was an introduction (which you can read). I suppose if the copyright position hinges on wheter the author was acting in his personal or governmental capacity....well I do not know exactly how one determines that....I suppose it was more of a personal capacity matter - it was the foreword to a book. Pity. If you have any questions on whats in the book, I can answer them. But as I say, we are not concerned here with anything other than the foreword. Formosa (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As for 1923, the U.S. used to have a limit of 75 years from publication for their copyright terms. In 1998, that was increased to 95 years, but not retroactively (i.e. all works published in 1922 or before were public domain in Jan 1, 1998, and they stayed that way) so the current line is "frozen" at 1923. In 2019, works will start expiring again. U.S. copyright law has gone through a bunch of revisions in the last 40 years or so, and the details get pretty complicated -- see the Hirtle chart if you want more of the details. As for this, yes, the question hinges on whether it is a personal work vs. a government work. If the former, then normal copyright rules apply, and even though it is now PD in Ireland, it is not in the U.S. If it is an Irish government work, then copyright has expired. If you have the book... dunno, are there any notes like "sponsored by the government", or anything along those lines? Basically trying to determine if it was a personal project of Hanna (for which he got permission to publish the text of the law), or something the government wanted done and sponsored. Not necessarily an easy thing to decide, but maybe there are some notes in the opening pages as to its nature. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As for the other comments... there is nothing devious or underhanded about the URAA stuff. The U.S. has always operated on a "national treatment" theory of copyright -- the U.S. will apply its own copyright rules to works from foreign countries, provided that foreign countries apply their own treatment to U.S. works. For many decades, part of the U.S. law was a requirement of an explicit copyright notice being present on all copies, and also a registration with the U.S. Copyright Office if an author wanted the copyright to last beyond 28 years. This generally meant that only works which authors really cared about remained copyrighted, and that fact was obvious to a potential re-user (there was a notice on the work). However, the U.S. also applied this to foreign works -- notice required and had to register -- which meant that the vast majority of foreign works fell into the public domain in the U.S. during those years, as many countries had no copyright notice tradition so it wasn't something those authors would think about before publishing. This lead to two major copyright conventions -- the Berne Convention, based around everything-is-copyrighted and absolutely no "formalities" as U.S. copyright law required, and the Universal Copyright Convention, which allowed countries to impose such formalities. Needless to say, this was a major sticking point for a long long time. The U.S. eventually (in 1989) decided to join the Berne Convention, having previously changed their copyright terms (only for works published after 1978) to be similar to Berne terms. They tried to do this without restoring copyright to foreign works as the Berne Convention requires, as Berne considers any loss of copyright due to failure to conform with formalities as invalid. Thus, the U.S. was eventually forced to restore such works, and the URAA is the result. Since the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter nor the longer term, but only their term, foreign works (under some restrictions) had their copyright restored, as if it had been published in the United States with proper notice, proper renewal, and all other formalities had been followed. Works published 1922 or earlier are still public domain, since that is beyond the outer limit of the U.S. terms for works published in that era, but works published in 1923 or later now get a 95-year-from-publication term, so that is what restored foreign works get. Nothing ulterior about it. Some works will be PD in their own country but not the U.S. (published after 1923, and the author died shortly thereafter, 1939 or before, for a 70 pma country), whereas other works will be PD in the U.S. but not other countries (for example, a work published in 1920 at age 25, the author lives to 90 years old and dies in 1985, and is copyrighted in their country until 2055). It's just the rules, for better or worse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
On the first point, I think its time to close this discussion and remove the foreword from WikiSource. It was the author's personal project and so is copyright protected in the US (even if it is not copyright protected in Ireland....)
We'll give it a bit more time in case someone else wants to object, but otherwise, since you have withdrawn your objections, you can expect to see it gone rather quickly.
You mention "As for the other comments... there is nothing devious or underhanded about the URAA stuff."...I do not know if you intended that to suggest that I had suggested there was something "devious or underhanded about the URAA etc"....but as you will see from the above, I certainly never made any such suggestion. I did say that Americans are ingenious as is their copyright law. Thanks very much though for you concise potted history of copyright law. I am learning on this site and I am enjoying that. I will study your potted history in more detail another day and hope to do more reading up. Thank you again. Formosa (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
One more question, as the work in question concerning Irish Free State law is copyright protected in the US, is there another Wiki type website you might suggest that I could bring it to. I presume there is no Irish version. Is there a UK version? Formosa (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
If your death date is correct, Wikilivres in Canada can host it, though the site is not run by the Wikimedia foundation. Canada has a copyright term of 50 years after the author's death. ResScholar (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Finally, my suggestion on a broader point is that this website be renamed "WikiSource-USA"...and other sister websites could be named along the same lines.....It would reflect the reality of this website better. Formosa (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Snake.--Jusjih (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This poem by D.H. Lawrence was published in Bird, Beasts and Flowers in 1923. Lawrence died in 1930 (80 years ago) so the work is PD in the UK, the country of origin. However, it is not PD in the US because the copyright was renewed Renewal R69075. It will be PD in 2018, 95 years after publication. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Catullus translations[edit]

The following discussion is closed: removed or replaced with original uncopyrighted work. ResScholar (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

These two works were translated by Francis Cornish in a 1904 first edition, and later updated by either him or a Professor H. J. Walker. We either need permission from this professor here or to replace it with the 1904 edition (I can do this) or replace it with a pre-1940s Loeb Classical Library edition.

  • Comment from the information you have provided here, I am not sure what is the issue. Stated that it was from the 1904 edition. If the basis of this is the 1904 edition and there are a few alterations for words, then I wouldn't have thought that it would have sufficient difference to qualify for artistic merit in its own right. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I thought the artistic input in these two works made a significant contribution and am guessing the third does as well, otherwise what is the point of bringing out new editions. Make up your own mind by looking at the 1904 edition if you wish. At the very least attribution is appropriate here, and neither the user nor the professor attributed Cornish, the professor instead vaguely crediting a translation out of copyright. ResScholar (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Catullus 15

I traced this to a later Loeb Classical Library edition, presumably updated by the professor. We need permission from the professor or for someone to look it up in full from a pre-1940s Loeb edition. It's available in snippet view on Google Books, but it won't be disruptive if we have to delete it as there isn't a complete set of Catullus translations at Wikisource anyway.

ResScholar (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Catullus: Tibullus and Pervigilium Veneris (Volume 6 in the Loeb Classical Library), is one of the volumes of the LCL I cannot find anywhere. There are several entries for the 1912/1913 version (sources vary) in Google books, but none with an electronic version to download. There are, however, very many other versions of Catullus floating around. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary[edit]

The following discussion is closed: reverted to 1888 edition and added to Baltimore Book of Prayers ResScholar (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This litany, probably transcribed by a faithful Catholic with more piety than copyright discretion from a worship book, contains additions not known before 2000, and authoritative variant texts not seen in any other form on the internet. In other words these sorts of additions to prayers are generally copyrighted by the church whose prayers they are.

(The "variant texts" turn out to be undeleted wikilinks). ResScholar (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I would propose to revert this prayer to the 1880s translation found in the 19th century Baltimore Book of Prayers prior edition, and move and redirect the work to this hosted book, it being a work in progress at Wikisource which contains this litany in its now red-linked "Morning Prayers" chapter; that is unless someone has additional information that might give evidence that this is not a copyrighted work. ResScholar (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Victimized by the elegance of my solution, I neglected to realize the fine commentary on the original page can probably not be moved. So for the record, "doubling up" with the litany in both places is fine by me. ResScholar (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I am confused (default setting these days) and not sure where and what you are now proposing. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That an 1880s translation be substituted at Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary in order to preserve the commentary as well as being added to the "Morning Prayers" chapter of the Baltimore Book of Prayers. The source text for the book is here and the litany can be found in the "Morning Prayers" chapter. ResScholar (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Not the correct forum of discussion for this.
The above needs to be revised. This policy statement contains advice that is not current WikiSource policy. In particular, it says the following:

[For copyright purposes etc.] “[i]t is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license.”

Although I think the above should be the WikiSource policy in all cases – I am in a minority of one and it has emerged from the discussion above #On who is the onus to establish the copyright position? that this is not the case. Two standards apply: One standard for new works (where this principle is applied) and another standard for works that have been hosted here for some time (how long etc is unclear). Please could I ask the Administrators especially to take the lead in updating WS:COPY so the position is 100% clear. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree that there is the need for that change, as we have not changed our perspective in that regard. You seem to be confusing what we expect when someone is challenging the existing status of an earlier added work. When someone is challenging the licence on a work they need to clearly express why the are challenging the work. Courtesy would seem to dictate this approach. Existing works where the licence is challenged are brought here where the responsibility is enforced. So the standard/policy is unchanged; yes, a different process, though same standard. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Moved to Wikilivres (here) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

During a period of gnome, I found that this work had been labelled {{copyvio}}though not added here.
Work of George Orwell, published in 1941. I am unaware of any exemption that would put it into the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - pretty straightforward... not old enough/dead long enough. George Orwell III (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
PD in Canada... move to wikilivres I guess? Several other Orwell works there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)