Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2014-05

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 on 01 May 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Index:Heralds of God.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Querying why this is on Wikisource given the author was not dead until 1990.

According to Wikipedia , the work itself was published originally in 1946 by a British publisher (Hodder and Stoughton), So by 70 pma rules ( Scottish author) , this is still in copyright and should be removed, notwithstanding that it's a US edition that wasn't seemingly renewed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional.- The author was still alive in 1990, This means that the work may have been subject to a URAA restoration as it was still in copyright on the 1996 date, despite the dates in the US edition presented here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good catch. It would have been pretty frustrating if it had slipped through and we let User:SandTransformed put more time into it. Assuming we can't prove it was published within 30 days of the British version (which seems a high bar), delete. Prosody (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
URAA has got nothing to do with it, and should not be brought into the argument. I have moved the file to enWS, and deleted it at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Published UK ... October 1946 (The Times); published US November (NY Times). Due to the nature of the work, I am comfortable calling it a month, and will comply with any takedown notice, especially with how the copyright notice has been written on the work. keepbillinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this - I got the [

Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep and license {{PD-KRGov}} {{PD-JapanGov}} & {{PD-USGov}} Jeepday (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So the original is totally {{PD-KRGov}} and {{PD-JapanGov}}. The translation, though, appears to be the work of a law specialist with the Library of Congress, presumably acting in a private capacity?, commissioned by the private journal International Legal Materials. Prosody (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In retrospect I'm not sure why I assumed that the translation would have been done in the translator's private capacity. I guess that's the sort of thing Library of Congress researchers do. So do we assume that's the case? And can someone who's more knowledgeable about US copyright stuff confirm that this kind of work on request would fall under {{PD-USGov}}? Still kind of a bummer that we couldn't use the ILM scans either way. Prosody (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • comment: with all due respect, there's no way this translation was comissioned by "ILM" as a "private work". a) that would cost money, which such thin-profit-margin journals are DEEPLY loathe to spend. & b) the us gov would have needed an engish translation of the text, for their own purposes (for the state dep't, etc.). since it was done by a l.o.c. translator, the overwhelming likelihood is that this was THE translation prepared for us gov't use. Lx 121 (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It does say on the page
[Translated for International Legal Materials
If it were done for government purposes and the translation simply supplied to ILM I would expect a different wording. Still leaning keep and tag {{PD-USGov}} without more information. Prosody (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • comment:
  1. The Copyright Law of Japan[1] doesn't protect any copyright of the government. So anybody can translate the documents published by Japanese government into any other languages for fair use or something like that, e.g. quotations in a report. If an idiot translates a text of Japanese government and insist his(her) copyright, all we have to do is to request him(her) to show us the official permission of Japanese government that admits him(her) to pay acceptable use fee to Japanese government. I have never seen such a greedy and irrational government's permission. First of all, it is impossible for Japanese government to do such an illegal permission.
  2. Both governments of North and South Korea, however, seem to have concealed the existence of "Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation" from Koreans for a long time on purpose. It seems to be the heart of the matter. I mean that THIS IS NOT OUR LEGAL MATTER and that THIS IS ONLY KOREANS' POLITICAL PROBLEM that only Koreans can resolve.
  3. No matter what Korean governments' real purpose is, I think, even Koreans need not respect the intention of Korean governments, because any copyright law doesn't exist to make people ignorant slaves. Therefore, what WE can(should) do for poor Koreans at first is to let them know the truth of their governments, even if some of them managed to conceal it from the world. -- Beaver Mochimochi (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 03:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I do not understand what the comments on Korea are supposed to mean; I suspect they're irrelevant to our goals as a neutral source of documents. If the law of Japan puts the document in Japanese into the public domain, then like any other public domain work, a translator is free to pick it up and translate it, at which point they or their employer will get a copyright on their translation. I doubt Japanese law says otherwise, but in any case as done by an American translator, American law says that the translator gets a copyright on the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


DeGaulle's Veto on British membership of the EEC[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted for no clear license.--Jusjih (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Original might be {{PD-ineligible}}, but the translation is copyright-encumbered by the Western European Union Secretariat General (presumably now transferred to some body of the EU?). Prosody (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct. The WEU is today part of the EU, and so is its Secretariat General. Having dealt with copyrights and EU institutions in the past, it is in practice unthinkable that they would ever enforce their copyright. Can you think of the headline? EU goes after Wikipedia. No way! To be more, copyright in my case was a tricky issue. The EU claimed not to have it because it was the work of an external consultant. Contacting the consultant, he claimed not to have the copyright because he was paid to do it by the EU. The upshot was that nobody wanted to have the copyright! I used the material for free. If you want to be super-secure, simply write a message and ask if it is ok for them to use it on Wikipedia: unsigned comment by 2A02:8109:8680:21C:4122:EA7D:A35A:A0AB (talk) .
Hello A0AB welcome to Wikisource. We can only host it if the work is public domain in the US or if there is a creative commons release. If you want to learn more Wikisource:Copyright policy is a good place to start. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Transitioning the Respiratory Therapy Workforce for 2015 and Beyond[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted for no source or license.--Jusjih (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a refereed paper, though no evidence that it has been released to the public domain. The contributor has not replied to a ping, and I will be trying again with information about OTRS. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Civil marriage act[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a speech as part of a debate in the Canadian House of Commons. I am unaware of any law that puts Canadian legislative debate into the public domain. Being a debate, it certainly couldn't considered by considered a government edict, and I believe that it should be deleted as copyvio. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Some Common Weaknesses Illustrated[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a modern work by a modern author, and there doesn't seem to be any release of his work copyright-wise. Also, the contents of this page seem more to be the ToC of his work than any of the actual poems.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there are few works posted at Author:Carson Cistulli all are potentially CV. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
A claim has been made at Author talk:Carson Cistulli that anything published in The New Enthusiast has been released into the public domain. I have made no attempt to verify that claim. Angr 15:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I read the statement differently. To me it says that there has been use of Creative Commons licensing for some/all of these works. So for me, that changes nothing in our evidence-based approach in that we still need for people to demonstrate that a work has been released under a licence that allows republishing. Point to the release, otherwise no demonstration, no copy. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • looks like a delete — no source, no evidence of licence, or exemptions — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Transcripts of "The Basement Tapes" of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted for questionable licenses.--Jusjih (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of any reason why this would be {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-release}} as asserted by the contributor. Contemporary authors, shouldn't enter public domain for a good long while. Prosody (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Should leave copyright in 2070.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tears (Tyutchev/Ashton Smith)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, copyright renewed 1972. Jeepday (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Translation is incorrectly attributed to Author:Clark Ashton Smith. According to (blog by Michael Juliar, the author of the standard bibliography on Vladimir Nabokov: "Vladimir Nabokov: A Descriptive Bibliography", New York: Garland, 1986) this is translation by Vladimir Nabokov, first published in 1945. Still in copyright. Captain Nemo (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC).
Nabokov's book was indeed renewed in 1972 (see here) -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Tale of Genji[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, no indication it is PD. Jeepday (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It's asserted that this translation is {{CC-by-3.0-au}} on the basis of a claim on the web page it was copied from. This claim appears to be a boilerplate covering all the digital editions of eBooks@Adelaide. For this text, it goes on to say "To the best of our knowledge, the text of this work is in the “Public Domain” in Australia." which is probably the more applicable. But it gives no explanation as to why this would be the case. The translation is by an American author who died in 2007, it was published in the United States (probably first so far as I can tell) in 1976. Can't find partial scans to see if there's a notice, but as it was published by Knopf I can't imagine that was neglected. Prosody (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Many of those works at that site are replicated from elsewhere, so it may be worth spreading tentacles to Gutenberg, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not in the public domain in Australia as the translator didn't die before 1955. Moreover, the website says that the licence is CC-BY-NC-SA, not CC-BY. I think that it is very unlikely that this would be in the public domain or freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah I can't see how this is PD. I did find something on Google Books where Seidensticker said he got more money (in royalties) from this translation as all his others combined. I can't imagine that Knopf would have forgotten a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nile Kinnick's Commencement Speech and Nile Kinnick's Heisman Speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Unclear copyright status. Delete pending verification as PD. Jeepday (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Two post 1923 speeches by a private US American in the US which were not spontaneous and therefore probably shouldn't be assumed not to have had some fixed form before delivery. Prosody (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I suspect the Heisman speech at least was published at the time (found an excerpt here; they must have had access to the full text somewhere) and thus would need a renewal. Good odds on the other one as well. Although, the earliest I see the full text on Google Books is a 1991 volume. (If they remained unpublished into 2003, they'd also be PD now as 70pma has passed, but... that's not the case.) Neither was likely spontaneous though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing with Clindberg that unless there papers are in an archive, or with family, that it is most likely that they were published at or about that time, though presumably as news pieces. Unless evidence to the contrary, they would seem to indicate that they are not in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Except if they were published at the time, they would have needed a U.S. copyright renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Judgment[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, seems to be a copyrighted work. Jeepday (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Original published in 1913, translation by Willa and Edwin Muir and Clement Greenberg published in 1948 seems to have been registered and reregistered (A29410, R622896) in compliance with US formalities. Prosody (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Can you please tell me where you're getting this information from? I have tried numerous searches but none of them spit out any useful results. S33L (S33L) 15:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't sweat it, it happens to all of us.
So, first I wanted to figure out who the translator was and where and when and in what text it was first published. I take a few lines and search for them in Google Books. There were a lot of results that didn't provide the translator, so I went to search tools and I changed it from search by relevance to search by date. It's ordered newest to oldest so I went to the last result. After a few different lines the oldest one I found was an anthology of translations by Willa and Edwin Muir titled The Penal Colony: Stories and other Pieces, published in 1948 in New York. I look up the translators and find out they're British and died in 1970 and 1959 respectively.
Now I go to Help:Public domain. It was published in the US between 1923 and 1963/77. I'm going to assume that it has a copyright notice because I think Schocken Books is a big enough publisher to do that kind of thing by default (they might not, in which case the text might be public domain, this might be an avenue worth looking into if you really want to make sure).
So now it would only be public domain if the copyright wasn't renewed. At the top of this page there are links to copyright renewal search databases. I fire up a few of them and start searching for 'Muir Penal Colony' and 'Muir Kafka.' I find searching for Muir Kafka on Stanford's search the record 'R622896 The Penal colony NM: translation Franz Kafka, edited by Max Brod, translated by Willa & Edwin Muir & Clement Greenberg A29410 Long record.' When I click the Long record link it has the information that corresponds to the book and it confirms that there is a renewal on record.
So now I know that whatever newly translated material was in that book has its copyright renewed. This translation of The Judgment might have been published before, this might be another avenue worth looking into.
But I've got to the point now where I have serious doubts about the copyright status of the work, so I tag it and post my findings here. If someone else does some research and finds something out that would make it likely public domain, they'll share it here and we'll close the discussion and restore the text. If after a few weeks no one comes up with anything we'll conclude it's probably copyright and delete it. Prosody (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I see, well I thank you very much. This info will most definately help me in the future when researching copyright status. I'll keep digging around because I am sure this work is in the Public Domain but if not then I am glad that someone did point out my errors. After all, I want to make sure that the content I contribute is A-okay. S33L (S33L) 23:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The old man at the bridge[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, no indication of PD. Jeepday (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
A Hemingway work published in 1938 in the periodical Ken. Original registration B377646 with Hemingway as claimant, rereged by his widow 1965 R361175. Prosody (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ceaușescu's final speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, no indication of PD. Jeepday (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems like the original would still be in copyright in its home country, speeches are covered and only official texts are excluded. Prosody (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Testament (Shevchenko)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, no indication of PD. Jeepday (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The translation of the work is listed as being undertaken in 1961, with the translator seemingly dying in 1967. From a look at the source cited, there is no evidence of whether the translation was published, or not. So to be able to keep these, we need to know whether published or not, and if published the copyright status of the work. Author won't have released translations under a CC licence, and likelihood of a copyright free status is also slim. I have notified the contributor, and pointed them here for the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Himne del Barça[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Original should still be in copyright, at least one author still living. Prosody (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Apocalypse of Adam and Prayer of the Apostle Paul[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete no indication of PD. Jeepday (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Translated by George W. MacRae and Dieter Mueller respectively in the The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 1988. Can't think of any reason for them to be copyright unencumbered. Prosody (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, all three works still seem to be under copyright. Jeepday (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
While cleaning up Author:Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, after having my attention drawn to it by a message on Scriptorium, I noticed a few works I think are copyright violations:
  1. There Is Only the Fight (1969)
  2. Address to the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women (1995)
  3. Hillary Clinton's Decision to Form a Presidential Exploratory Committee (2007)

Number 1 is her senior thesis and I see no reason why this would be anything other than under copyright (definitely by Clinton, possibly by the college as well). It is also incomplete. Number 2 is a speech while First Lady, which is not an official position as far as I am aware and wouldn't be covered by PD-USGov. Number 3 was published while she was a Senator but to produced during the course of her official duties, so it also shouldn't be supported by PD-USGov. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I was about to haver about publication, but the first one has a copyright notice on it, which makes it almost certainly copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)