Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2014-11
|
Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Kept
The following discussion is closed:
Moved to Canadian Wikilivres:Idgah.--Jusjih (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Undeleted with better evidence of expired Indian copyright not restored by URAA in the USA.--Jusjih (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This work was published (in Hindi) in 1933, and presumably was not published in the US after that date; making it eligible for {{PD-1996}} status; however, the author, Premchand, died only in 1936, which would mean that, under Indian copyright law, his works would be PD only in 1997. (For a work to be PD-1996, the work should be published between 1923 and 1996 only outside the US and should be public domain within its country of origin by 1 January 1996.) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 17:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Clockery:, as per current Indian copyright law, its 60 years after death of author - 8 October 1936, so its out of copyright in India wef 1 January 1997. If this okay, you may like to remove the copyvio tag. If this is not okay, when does it become eligible for Wikisource? BTW, this is a free-licensed translation (derivative) of the original text (which is in Hindi), so should the original article's copyright status matter, especially as this is NOT Hindi wiki-source? Secondly, what is the statute of limitation for works unpublished in US between 1923 & 1977 but not public domain by 1 January 1996?
AshLin (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- As per US copyright law, all Premchand's works in Hindi will remain indefinitely copyrighted. Is that correct? Does it apply to derivatives or only on the originals? AshLin (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see where you're getting that. Works published in Hindi outside the US in 1923-1977, with rare and possibly nonexistent exceptions, get 95 years of copyright from publication. A work published in 1933 will be out of copyright in 2028. As far as I can tell, India went from 50 years to 60 years before 1996, so the URAA would apply.
- Copyright on the original always covers translations. If the original is not PD, I don't think it's legal to even create a translation without permission of the owners of the copyright in the original. A rule rightfully, IMO, ignored in practice, but you certainly can't distribute a translation without permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes:, thanks for the info. In India, Premchand's works are in public domain since 1997, hence the translator, who is in India and an Indian, did not need to take any permission. Obviously, these cant be placed on Wiki-Source though due to US copyright law! Thanks for the clarification, AshLin (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a note on the URAA -- India extended from 50 to 60 years non-retroactively effective in 1991; for a work where the author died in 1936 then it became PD in India in 1987, and was not restored in 1991, meaning it was not subject to the URAA. The only way it is not public domain is if it was considered unpublished (in the U.S.), or it complied with U.S. copyright formalities. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll wait to see if Jusjih or anyone else has a response, but I'll undelete it if nobody objects. Thanks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- May I request a reference to the Indian non-retroactive copyright extension, please? It will be useful to add to w:List of countries' copyright lengths, then I will undelete the revisions by myself.--Jusjih (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not really live law in India; any works that were out of copyright due to life+50 in 1991 were out of copyright due to life+60 in 2001, whether or not the extension was retroactive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's noted at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, in the India section and footnote. The actual text is in this large PDF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unsure where it was from, does it judicially qualify as {{PD-EdictGov}}?--Jusjih (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a document produced by the court, but a document produced by private parties petitioning the court for some relief. That said, it follows a format mandated by the court and contains information mandated by the court, so there really isn't anything copyright-eligible in the presentation. BD2412 T 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
NYSE Listed Company Manual
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted ResScholar (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
In the year of 2010 when I made this article, I didn't consider the copyright of this NYSE Listed Company Manual. Please delete this article. I am sorry. HappyMidnight (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Same deal as his final speech above. Prosody (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolution of an unrecognized state organ with no sovereign territory, it probably wouldn't qualify for PD-GovEdict if it were recognized and with but as it is that's a moot point. Prosody (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This translation of Euler's paper is an extract from The World of Mathematics Volume 1. In that book there is a copyright notice for 1956. On checking the US Copyright Office website, there was a renewal in 1984. As a result, I don't think that we can host this particular version of this important paper—even though it is available on the Internet Archive. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Internet Archive is not a particularly trustworthy source, unfortunately, and this collection seems pretty bad, copyright-wise. I'm assuming that Newman did his own translation, since there's no credit given on the paper or at the start of that book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see. That kinda stinks. It seems silly to claim a copyright over something that pretty much just contains work done by other people. I guess I’ll have to make my own English translation and release it out onto the web that way. I’ve generally been pretty decent at creating fluent translations in foreign language classes. I’ll admit, though, that the sentence structure of this Latin is rather cumbersome.Ushakaron (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted
Call me paranoid, but this looks like a recent work from a non-government publisher, and such are almost always under some sort of copyright restriction. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is as much Commons' problem as ours. It was uploaded from https://archive.org/details/DictionaryOfSouthernAfricanPlaceNames , which doesn't make me believe the license on it one bit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and delete this, since c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dictionary of Southern African Place Names by Peter E. Raper (1987).djvu says the publishers deny releasing it under a free license, and the copy on Commons has been deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Contemporary work, no reason to believe it's licensed under a compatible license for Wikisource. Prosody (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The bottom of the sources website says "Copyright © 2014 Hong Kong Federation of Students All rights reserved." --Rochefoucauld (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Other
The following discussion is closed:
Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Studies in Classic American Literature along with all subpages.--Jusjih (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
A copyright registration for work by Author:D. H. Lawrence was found at the Stanford renewal database. Renewal #R69074
The following discussion is closed:
Sent to Canadian Wikilivres:Al-Fatihah.--Jusjih (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
First sura of Yusuf Ali's (d. 1953) translation of the Qur'an, published in 1938, not public domain in the US. Prosody (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
US Senator reposts his own article from Wired Magazine
The following discussion is closed:
not PD
- Wired Magazine, op-ed article by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden and U.S. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren = http://www.wired.com/2013/06/aarons-law-is-finally-here/
- Reposted by Senator Wyden at wyden.senate.gov = http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-logren-introduce-aarons-law-to-reform-the-cfaa
- Is this text document now public domain?
- It was written by two United States federal government employees.
- Can I add it here to Wikisource ?
Specifically: I am asking about adding to Wikisource this document: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-logren-introduce-aarons-law-to-reform-the-cfaa = its author is attributed to "Communications Office" of the U.S. Senator, an employee of the United States Federal Government.
Thank you for your time,
-- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
17 U.S.C. § 105—Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
- Copyright protection under this title is not available for any
work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
17 U.S.C. § 101—Definitions
- A ‘‘
work of the United States Government’’ is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties.
- So given the above, the question that needs to be answered is if that op-ed was part of Senator Wyden's official duties or not.
- Nope. The only "official" duties of a U.S. Senator are outlined in the Constitution and governed by the Senate's own rules. In short, if it wasn't somehow submitted into the record during a session of the Senate, it's not "official" nor considered part of his "duties". He/they retain copyright over the work even though portions of it point to or summarize formally introduced legislation. (email them & I'm sure they'd release it - eventually :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay thanks, no worries. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. The only "official" duties of a U.S. Senator are outlined in the Constitution and governed by the Senate's own rules. In short, if it wasn't somehow submitted into the record during a session of the Senate, it's not "official" nor considered part of his "duties". He/they retain copyright over the work even though portions of it point to or summarize formally introduced legislation. (email them & I'm sure they'd release it - eventually :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)