Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2017

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 January 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.



Versions of "Men of Harlech"[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, not copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The following versions of "Men of Harlech" have no license information, and I could not discover their copyright status:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Found some info on some of them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
For Men of Harlech (Royal Canadian Hussars) the question becomes: does a public domain work become copyrighted by the change of a single word? Otherwise it is identical to Men of Harlech (Oliphant, 1862). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Adding a single word is likely not enough for a (United States) copyright under 34 C.F.R. § 202.1(a) (nor, apparently, a copyright in the UK). In any event, adding new material to a public domain work gives you rights only in the new material you added; the rest of the underlying original work stays in the public domain. (The relevant language is found in Section 103(b) of the Copyright Act). Tarmstro99 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lord Lister and Sir Alexander Fleming[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this PD? Year 1944, author died in 1974— Mpaa (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the listed CC-BY license didn't exist in 1944 :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, CC-BY-4.0 certainly did not exist in 1944. But the image hosted at Wellcome Libraries is under CC-BY-4.0: [1]

Library reference no.: External Reference from a slide presented by Sir V.Z.C.
Copyrighted work available under Creative Commons Attribution only licence CC BY 4.0

So, for this case and others in general, how is such a situation handled? What exactly is meant by "Copyrighted work" - the image they host, the print they got or the poem itself?—Vivrax (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This situation I would assess as a locally held historical record granted by the author to the research body, which they have the rights. It is a slight jump that they have passed on the IP rights to the work, and would depend on any terms and conditions in the granting of the record to the archives, though that should be their assessment when they have released the documents under the licence. Should we worry about it and take it down due to that slight gap in knowledge, my opinion is no. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. For any other work from the archive we should remain alert to the reviewing the licence on the work, as we have done here. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Index:Knight (1975) Past, Future and the Problem of Communication in the Work of V V Klhebnikov.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn - Assuming Good faith by uploader
The issue I have a concern about is 2 pages to the the rear which seem to be an article, with a different author. I am aware of the OTRS permission, but am being cautious in wanting to know if this covers the article at the rear as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you undertaken the courtesy of discussing this with the uploader? They have been through the OTRS process so they are hardly not knowledgeable about process. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I have done so, they say they'll upload a new version. So when that happens this is effectively Withdrawn. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave the uploader a note suggesting they might want to get another slip for the article as well :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Fear by W. Somerset Maugham.djvu[edit]

Clearly PD-US, by date, however this is claimed to be PD-old-70 at Commons, which given that the (British?) author died in 1965, can't possibly be correct.

At best (and considering whether it counts as a periodical contribution or not.), it's PD-US and so should ideally be locally hosted, until 2035. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For starters, it's an extract from a periodical, which should not be uploaded here separately to the rest of the issue. We already host some issues of Century Magazine. Yes, it's PD-US. Yes, it can be hosted here instead of Commons. Just make sure it's the whole issue of the periodical. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. What was the policy on "extracts" again? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn- License was updated at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:War poems.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: file is now local —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Querying suitability for commons given the 1957 year of death of the author? Fine for local hosting given publication date.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Query also :

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to questions of Commons hosting, would you not get better results by posting the discussion on Commons? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Based on past advice, and the fact that Commons often neglects to pass back a deletion notification, I raise the issue here first, so that the process is managed properly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue has been that you have solely put it into a deletion process at Commons and they get deleted and affected works here. If it is clearly CV and here, then letting us know to transfer; or alerting us to a conversation at Commons in which we may wish to express an opinion. As the "The Sword of Welleran" is not used locally, I do not see that it is our issue at this time. Have you had the conversation with Akme? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
File:War poems.djvu is now local and needs updating. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

National Anthem of the Soviet Union[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Written 1943; last author died 2009. Like other national anthems, not automatically subject to {{PD-EdictGov}}. Russian copyright law of 1933 exempted state symbols (whether USSR symbols counted or not is another matter, of course), so was PD in Russia at URAA, but {{PD-1996}} also has other requirements; can we confirm that it meets all the requirements of {{PD-1996}} or another suitable license tag? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Aryans - A Study of Indo-European Origins.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, simultaneous US publication and not renewed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Australian author working in Britan (died 1957). So despite not being renewed, this one might possibly have been revieved by URAA. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the title page, I would assume that Alfred A. Knopf published it with in 30 days of the UK publication; someone could certainly check the original copyright registrations. If so, it was a work first published in the US for the purposes of US copyright law, and therefore wouldn't be revived by the URAA. Someone should probably move it from Commons, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on a quick search of Stanford and the USCO by last name, no renewals of this specific work are evident...other works by Gordon Childe pop up, but not this one. Also, a quick check of the copies of the 1926 and 1927 registers at the Internet Archive don't show an initial registration. Revent (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(not to claim this was an authoritative search, a manual check of the renewals for the early-to-mid 1950's would be in order. Revent (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Two questions:
  1. How would you find the exact date of publication? Without an exact date of publication, you won't be able to tell whether the first United States publication was within 30 days or not.
  2. Where does the 30-day rule come from? c:Template:PD-URAA-Simul says that the answer is given at w:WP:NUSC, but I can't find it there. 17 U.S.C. § 104 A only talks about countries other than the United States and only about publication in multiple countries on the same day, and doesn't mention any 30-day rule. The Berne Convention states that in the event that a work was published in more than one country within 30 days, the source country is the country with the shortest term, and "no renewal" is not a copyright term according to the French supreme court.[2] If a copyright term is defined in the same way in the United States, it would seem that you would instead have to determine whether the full US term of 95 years from publication is shorter than the British term of life+70 years, and restore the copyright if life+70 years is shorter. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: The Berne Convention, article 3, subsection 4... "A work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication."
17 USC 101.. "a work is a “United States work” only if—(1) in the case of a published work, the work is first published— (A) in the United States; (B) simultaneously in the United States and another treaty party or parties, whose law grants a term of copyright protection that is the same as or longer than the term provided in the United States; (C) simultaneously in the United States and a foreign nation that is not a treaty party;"
Also, 17 USC 104 (b)(6) "... For purposes of paragraph (2), a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party within 30 days after publication in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States or such treaty party, as the case may be." Revent (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As an even better explanation, after a bit of searching... from "ESTATE OF Gunter S. ELKAN v. HASBRO, INC., and its wholly owned subsidiary Milton Bradley Company (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2007)"... "In order for a foreign copyright to restore an expired United States copyright, a published work must have been published first in the foreign country and "not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country." Id. § 104A(h)(6)(D)" Revent (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
According to 17 USC 101, the source country depends on the length of the copyright term: USA is only the source country if USA has the shortest term. If the other country has a shorter term, then that country is the source country instead. This means that U.S. courts have to find out whether life+70 is shorter than publication+95 years in a lot of situations where less than 25 years have passed since the first publication of the work and the author still is alive. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but it is a point that would seem to be a bit moot in most cases, since the US does not, and has never had, a 'rule of the shorter term'... if the US is not the source country simply because the other country is a treaty partner with a shorter term, through 'bilateral recognition' the work is still entitled to the longer term in the United States under 104(b)(2), which allows for a foreign work published in a treaty partner to be protected under the US terms. If such works then lost US protection (because of a failure to renew, for example) they would normally then be eligible works under the URAA. Revent (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually no, the U.S. does not use the definitions from the Berne Convention. The "source country" is the country of first publication (even if 1 day before another country); if even that is a tie then the source country is the one "with the greatest contacts to the work" (more of a common-sense definition). The URAA "source country" is analogous to the Berne "country of origin" but there are some differences, particularly in the simultaneous publication case. However, the URAA does take advantage of the 30-day publication window to claim such works as U.S. works, and those are not subject to URAA restoration (since they do not qualify as a "restored work" in the first place) so there is no need to identify a source country. This is the definition of restored work in 17 USC 104A(h)(6)(D). The "source country" is defined in 17 USC 104A(h)(8), but that only comes into play if something is a restored work to start with. There is no definition of source country in 17 USC 101, and the length of the copyright term elsewhere is irrelevant for U.S. status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Not certain if you were disagreeing with Stefan, or with me... I think it was with him, as regarding the 'source country' being dependent on the term of copyright... my point was that in such a case which country was the 'source' in such a case would be irrelevant... even if the US was considered the source in that situation (and you are correct that it would not) it would not make any effective difference, since it would get the US term anyhow through bilateral recognition.... a work can be treated as a "US work" even if the US would not be the "source country" (horrible terms, tbh). I was admittedly a bit vague about the difference between a work that has the US as the 'source country' and a 'US work' above.
And yes, it should be understood that 17 USC 104(c) explicitly states that no US copyright is dependent on the terms of the Berne Convention, but only on provisions of US law. My starting with the Berne Convention '30 day' rule was just a starting point, there are actually multiple '30 day rules', that all come down to 'simultaneous publication'. Revent (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was responding to Stefan, sorry. His statement looks to be quite wrong (which is strange for him). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a fairly clear case of published in both country essentially simultaneously according to OCLC:4562992all editions, front matter, etc., so it is a US work, and it was not renewed in the US making it PD US, but it may not be PD in the UK due to both author and editor and UK publishing, but that is a problem for Commons to care about...? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

*comment -- if deleting it, please move/copy it to ? it's PD as PMA-50 there. Lx 121 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, based on the discussion above it looks like there is no reason to consider it copyvio in the US. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hino Nacional do Brasil[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, moving translation: ns and attributing as user generated translation — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The translations are not cited, and I could find no info about the translator. They might be original translations by the uploader, or not, but if not they are unlikely to be PD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. The translation added by the anonymous contributor in 2005 (column "Free Translation") may very well be an original translation, since any other reference to the same lyrics on the internet is a later publication. But without the miraculous reappearance from the same IP user, I don't know how we'd ever be able to prove such a thing.
The other column ("a more literal translation") is almost the same one currently on the Norwegian Wikipedia article for this work, and its addition there significantly predates its addition here (eg see the original noWS article from 2004-12-20). We may be able to ask a contributor there for the provenance of this translation. (There's a few minor differences -- cry instead of clamor -- but otherwise appears to be the same. Other translations use significantly different structures/word choices.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Stick it into Translation ns? If we cannot find identical copy on the web it is very possible to be a community translation, as it is that type of work. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think it's reasonable to assume that an otherwise unidentified translation is user-created, I'm willing to take that position also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone volunteering to move to Translation: ns and convert the header template? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'll take care of it when I also do National Anthem of the Soviet Union. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Only specious arguments have been advanced for deletion. If the outcome of the Commons discussion (unnecessarily started at the same time) is to delete, then we can host. However, that's looking like a SNOW keep. We don't need to spend any more time on this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here, because of an unusual situation that arose:-

These are PD-US based on the date:- Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha (Volume 2).djvu Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha (Volume 3).djvu

However, other than a publisher there's no editor/translator noted for what seems to be an early 20th century translation (or update of an earlier translation). It's not clear if this was ever published in the US (other than that the source copy on seems to have been in the archive of a US organisation.)

At best it's a UK published work, with the translators/editors uncredited, which means that it may not suitable for Commons hosting.

Despite efforts having been made in respect of this work, in good faith I am therefore requesting that's it's status is reviewed cautiously ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the text not just the KJV? I'd be more worried about the images, myself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Per IRC, despite what you might think the KJV has a 'freak' copyright, that owing to history doesn't expire in it's origin country w:King_James_Version#Copyright_status, This means that as such the KJV was technically still in copyright in 1996 in it's origin country, even though an awful lot of US publishers have overlooked this for years. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's irrelevant in the US; the KJV was published before 1923 and thus is out of copyright in the US, URAA or no. (Even the questionable Ninth Circuit decisions would push that back to only 1909.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The three volumes are now in DR's at Commons, based on an disscussion in the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
According to commons:Category:King James Bible, "The UK Copyright Act 1775 established a type of perpetual copyright under which the King James Bible was allowed to be printed only by the Royal printer and by the printers of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This provision was abolished by the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, but under transitional arrangements (Schedule I, section 13(1)) these printing rights do not fully expire until 2039. However, images of King James bible pages are allowed on Commons since electronic copies do not infringe this printing right."
In that case, the files are ok on Commons, and they are trivially ok in the US (pre-1923) so they are okay here too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Which Commons DR came to that conclusion, or was it from higher up? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
In any event the claim suggests that until 2039, it is (potentially) copyright in it's origin country, which means it can't necessarily be hosted

at Commons, if you are applying the strictest interpretation of Commons policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind simple issues being brought up here, but if you want to interpret fine details of Commons policy, go to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The other issue as raised in the Commons DR, concerns the added artwork, which although (potentially) PD-US given a 1911 date, aren't necessarily PD elsewhere, given that the artists aren't credited (elsewhere the criteria has been "reasonable research" to determine them.). If the longest term is applied, given that this is clearly a UK published edition initally, and it's not been determined when US publication occured, then it's not necessarily safe to assume the artwork is public domain until at least 120 years after it was created (which nominally given the 1911 publication date, is 2031).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:King James Bible which would affect more than just the above mentioned indexs.
At the very least, KJV stuff can't be edited by UK contributors notwithstanding any efforts made in good faith previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
As Beleg Tâl pointed out, the law doesn't restrict electronic publishing the KJV, and even if it were illegal, that's between an editor and their laws; they are more than welcome to edit it under our rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the regular approach to push boundaries on copyright violations. It seems that you are looking for reasons to delete, and some purity of site. Put your best case forward and leave it at that. If there is a problem with these files we will bring them here. They are are pre-1923, and out of copyright outside of the UK. Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

UK Traffic Signs Manual, and related materials[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept at Commons —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

and all related Page: and sub-pages.

These are brought here because in the course of trying to determine the status of another unrelated document(in relation to a DR at Commons amongst other things), concerns arose in response to comments in an e-mail correspondence; regarding the precise status of certain design elements contained in Road signs (namely the "Transport" and "Motorway" typefaces; and the "S" and "T" series pictogram artwork.). The relevant e-mail correspondence is on OTRS as [Ticket#: 2017052210016428].

Because of the ambiguity which had arisen, a series of DR's for the artwork were commenced at Wikimedia Commons. Whilst it would seem unlikely that these would fall outside OGL, comments were also expressed that Crown copyright or Crown assigned material should not be released under Creative Commons licenses.

The comments concerning apparent incompatibility between Crown copyright material (previously understood to be largely under OGL) and Creative Commons licenses were expressed in response to correspondence attached to a message now lodged under OTRS ticket [Ticket#2017052210014402], in relation to a different issue.

As the status of these works is in doubt, with respect to certain elements, as and as to their compatibility with Wikisource licensing, they have been brought here, for further discussion on the basis that Wikimedia projects don't like ambiguity.

A direct approach to the Department for Transport for an OTRS slip would be desirable, and I'm awaiting a response in relation to enquries in that direction. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Amended to make it clear where an apparent claim was coming from ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User talk notification has not been felt necessary as for the most part these were an effort by myself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment see Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#UK transport-related graphics for the umbrella discussion at Commons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of the discussions were closed as kept at commons, with the following rationale:

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation:On Fortune[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, author attribution incorrect, original dates to 1913 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Author still living, no indication of free status. The original is also hosted at ja:運について, source (via Google Translate) is: Bottom: Yoshinori Shimizu "Fukuzawa Yukichi is full of mysteries. Psychological novel" October 10, 2006 first edition first press Issue ISBN 978-409386167-0Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I checked with jaWS: Shimizu was quoting an older poem, and they found a copy dating from 1913. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Stand in the Schoolhouse Door Speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept & moved to scan —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
1963 work from US state governor, so not covered by USGov, and I can see evidence at the linked source ath the state archives that it is in the public domain, or has been freely released. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's a scan; could this fall under {{PD-US-no-notice}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: thoughts? you are way more the expert here. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
and if we do keep, then we should grab the images. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oof. Well, it was done as part of his duties as governor, so the state would own the copyright. Unsure if it was issued as an official proclamation, though it has that form. Simply making the speech would not cause it to be published -- not even sure that transcriptions published elsewhere would count (those were not distributed by the copyright owner). Also don't think that throwing away a copy (the scans above) would count as publication, though there's a slight chance -- that's a pretty fascinating wrinkle. Giving copies out just so that commentators knew the content would not be publication (that was ruled in the MLK speech, which was not ruled published by such copies). But, if state or governor's office gave out copies to newspapers to be printed, that would have to be publication, so at the very least this would have been published with notice. I do see mention that the Tuscaloosa News published the speech in its entirety -- unsure if it was printed that same day, or the next. But, it seems likely then that copies were given to newspapers, so it probably should be considered published. At that point, since it was before 1964, a renewal would have been necessary, and I cannot find one on under Wallace's name or the state's. So, I'd probably Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as {{PD-US-not_renewed}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

PD-EdictGov New Start[edit]

The following discussion is closed: template kept, misuse can be brought up as a separate discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
See Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-EdictGov Jeepday (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Bump. See [3]. CopyVio? --Elvey (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Bumpety bump. Sentencing_Statement_of_Tarek_Mehanna:CopyVio?--Elvey (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-EdictGov}} is kept by consensus, is there any use leaving this discussion open? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Not in my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Copyright enquiry relates to the cover art and title illustration attributed to

Roy Krenkel, Jr. , w:Roy Gerald Krenkel give death as 1983?

The original portion by Rice Burroughs should be fine :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Roy Krenkel who died in 1983 (Wikipedia link is actually w:Roy Krenkel) was born in 1918. The printing of Pellucidar is 1915. I think it's a different Krenkel. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless the year on the Index and File at Commons (1915) for Pellucidar is wrong. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Bingo, that's it. It's the 1962 printing: [4]. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Was it renewed (in respect of the Krenkel contribution)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
RE511880 says "Ill.: Mahlon Blaine.", new material illustration, and date 25Oct62. That's for , though. This is probably good, unless it was used in another book that was renewed or was separately renewed as copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) mentions a map. This edition has a map. Think you can dig up an older edition?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's this map: File:Pellucidar-map.gif -- then it's the original from the 1915 first edition. (Where, here, "first edition" refers to the 4-part serial printing in All-Story Weekly; the first printed edition was in 1923.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I've included that image on Page:Pellucidar.djvu/4, which you can compare to the image on the page; they're clearly the same.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So that's not accurate; I've replaced Pellucidar-map.gif with the version from the book. No copyrightable difference I can tell.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Have you checked for renewals of Roy Krenkel Jr. or the publisher? When would 1962 material be renewable? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Works published in 1962 would have been renewed in 1990 (plus or minus a year). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
And no sign of Pellucidar art by a Roy Krenkel at ; Symbol keep vote.svg KeepBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Early in the morning I gazed at the eastern skies ...[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn. Thanks for answering.--Jusjih (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
US license?--Jusjih (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Any chance of no-notice or not-renewed? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It was first published in The Last of the Trunk Och Brev I Urval (2007) and The Collected Letters of Robert E. Howard Volume One: 1923-1929 (2007), which means it's {{PD-old-US}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much anything that appeared in The Last of the Trunk Och Brev I Urval will be PD-old-US, as it was unpublished material legally published in Sweden in 2007 to acquire a European publication copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Airplane photography.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept: license updated, work is hostable —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
File is incorrectly licensed at Commons, where a discussion has been started, obivously PD-1923 by date though, so work is perfectly acceptable for local hosting. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
License at Commons Updated, after I was able to update the license at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Index:Bradshaw's Shareholders' Guide for 1905.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Clearly PD-US, The concern is how it interacts with the UK. The only listed author is the Editor, and they died in 1939 (I created an Author page). I'd be optimistic that's it thus PD-old-70 (with a caveat about the unnamed staff compilers/writers under him.).

Treat as a situation of the editor being the principal author? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but if there are no authors listed, it would be anonymous and thus PD-UK-unknown. Either way, seems fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Mozilla Public Licenses[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Are the texts of the Mozilla Public Licenses (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) compatible with our copyright policy? I don't think the text of the MPL is itself licensed under the MPL. @Ciridae: I saw you worked on this recently and you may have some valuable input on this question.

Also: are texts released under the MPL compatible with our copyright policy? (Assuming they are also in scope.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Texts released under the MPL are compatible with our copyright policy as such works are accepted at Commons. I am unsure how the MPL text itself is licensed. There is no real copyright information specific to the license text and "unless otherwise noted, text on Mozilla’s site are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported license, or any later version." However, section 6 of the MPL (version 1.1) itself deals with derivative works. What do you think? Ciridae (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The w:Mozilla Public License is accepted by Debian, FSF, and OSI. The 2.0 version is convertible to the GPL. If we don't accept the GFDL, we shouldn't accept the MPL, but I see no reason for us to reject either of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The GFDL is a whole other can of worms as you know. But it's my understanding that the GFDL is only problematic because of the WMF Terms of Service and not because of incompatibility with our copyright policy. So I am happy to ignore that aspect of the discussion and allow MPL as it is accepted on Commons. As for the licenses themselves, I guess the notice of CC-BY-SA-unless-otherwise-noted is the closest to a definitive answer. I'll mark the documents accordingly. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory Constitution Order 2004[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, uploaded locally and marked for deletion on Commons —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Texts of the document still subject to unexpired United Kingdom (UK) Crown copyright and Crown copyright (British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Administration). ---
It is not under copyright in the US, because it is the edict of a government. The en-WS servers are in the US. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded it locally and marked it copyvio on Commons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:Miscellanea, Volume IX.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: all authors identified —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Although this was published in 1914 and is listed as PD-70 on Commons, There's no additional information given to confirm this. I will be checking for individual author names.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This what I've found so far.

  • Rev J.H Pollen. S.J (1858-1925)
  • William Martin Hunnybun (1839-1932)
  • Josepeh Gillow (1850-1921)
  • Joseph Stanislaus Hansom, FRIBA (1845-1931)
  • Rev. Bede Jarrett OP (1881–1934)
  • Carlisle James Scott Spedding (1852 - 1915)
  • James Rae Baterden (1854 - 1937)
  • Mrs Martin?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly OK as PD-US (pre 1923 publication), ans based on the above identified authors possibly PD-70 as at Commons, but it would be nice to have some information on the currently identified authors for which no dates exist currently and which I've not been able to determine from online sources ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Carlisle James Scott Spedding 1852 - 1915
  • Mrs T. E. Martin is the indexer, worked with Miss M. A. B. Martin on later editions; her address is listed in the member roll at the back of the book. Not sure if that's useful.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Where is it listed? I can probably do some digging if there is an address. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice that this particular index doesn't have the list of members after the Index. But the info I found is as follows:
  • 1904 [5] Martin, Mrs. T. E., Heatley, Cricket Field Road, Torquay.
  • 1913 [6] Martin, Mrs. (T. E.), 6 Wimborne Gardens, Ealing. W.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Cannot find her or her daughter on that information. There were over 200 Martins in Torquay in 1900 census, and nothing obvious for herself or daughter, or husband (though he may have well been dead); nor anything overtly obvious for Ealing in 1911 census. Noting that TE Martinwas back in Torquay in 1921, showing as life member of CRS. Without more information, eg. personal names, it is going to be next to impossible to identify. Someone may be able to write to CRS and see if they could provide that information as she would have been an early life member. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a "Thomasine E. B. Martin" 1859-1934 listed in Civil Deaths & Burials, Newton Abbot, Devon, England (10 minutes from Torquay) at this site. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Reasonably confident this is the right person. Here's the obituary: "Jan 20th [1934]. Thomasine Edith Martin, aged 75, of Torquay. Mrs. Martin was the widow of Dr. J. M. H. Martin, J.P., of Blackburn, Lanes., to whom she was married in 1882, a few months before being received into the Catholic Church. In 1929 she was enrolled as an Oblate of Buckfast Abbey. The burial was in the Abbey cemetery, Jan. 23rd." [7]Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
And the daughter is Mary Angela Baynes Martin, b. 1890. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks... That's one done, Pagelisted the work in any event.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks , Likely this is work is OK, but pinning down Baterden as a pre 1946 death would be good. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
James R. Baterden died 1937, aged 85. Lichfield. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: where did you find that info? just curious. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
FreeBMD (most likely), I have other sources for this and others. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept--Jusjih (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
1851 work where the translation was published in 1923 as claimed at the source and by the contributor. As the US cut off is the end of 1922 for free from copyright, it does not seem that we can host the work unless we can demonstrate that the work did not meet US copyright requirements. It would seem that the translation would not come of copyright until 95 years after publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
As the contributor who posted it, I'll admit the error of trusting too much in the source's assertion that the work was in the public domain. In the hour and a half or so since the copyright issue was raised, I did make a rudimentary search for some indication as to whether or not Freedom Press renewed the copyright after the first 28 years was up, but the fact that I came up empty-handed in that search does not in itself suggest that the copyright was never renewed. To be on the safe side, we could delete it for now, and then it could be put back up when we're more certain that the copyright has actually expired. It's not like it would be that terribly long of a wait.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If the translator is John Beverley Robinson, and this old Wikipedia article is right about him being an American who died in 1923, then I don't see a renewal, and it would have expired in 1993 in the UK, meaning the URAA would not have resurrected the copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, if published in the UK or US. This also says he died in 1923. There was definitely an architect by that name who died in 1923, who wrote at least one book, and this seems to be the same person. If published in the UK, it would have expired there in 1974, and not been restored in 1996 (as it was also beyond 70pma), thus there is no URAA restoration. And unless Mr. Robinson was actually living in the UK, it would not have been eligible for the URAA anyways (I think there needed to be at least one rightsholder who was either a national or domiciliary of a non-U.S. country -- an American simply publishing a work in a foreign country would not have been eligible for restoration). Thus, it seems like the work would have needed to be renewed. If no U.S. renewal, then it would seem to be OK as PD-US-not_renewed (and PD-old-80 for users in other countries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If the copyright was renewed, Stanford doesn't have the renewal in its catalog, so I'm tending to suspect that it was never renewed (especially considering the knowledge that Robinson had been dead for 28 years when it came time to renew the copyright).—MNTRT2009 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A Mick in Israel and Dreaming[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
US license?--Jusjih (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Both were first published in The Last of the Trunk Och Brev I Urval according to The Neverending Hunt, which means they're {{PD-old-US|1936}} and {{PD-posthumous|2007}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as published with suitable license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: the text in question is now at Page:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu/239Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I've omitted text here Page:Niger_Delta_Ecosystems-_the_ERA_Handbook,_1998.pdf/239 because it was a third party document quoted in full, and currently Wikisource doesn't allow fair use.

However, I'd like a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any info on the quoted document that would indicate its copyright status? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really, the accompanying text seems to imply it was an internal company document (and thus not necessarily formally published originally.).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If it wasn't published previously, I think that means that this copy is the original publication, and so (and I could be wrong) the copyright of the whole work applies to this quoted work too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


Suttas added by Ronggy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted as CV
Three Suttas have been added by Ronggy that have neither source, nor licence, and are recent translations.

I have marked these works and left the user a note. We will need to see where to from here, and someone may wish to work with the user to see if they belong here, and where they may belong. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The first two are from here (Avijja, Avijjapaccaya) and are CC-BY-NC 4.0 which is incompatible with our policy. The last is here, originally from Everyman's Ethics: Four Discourses by the Buddha (WH 14), which is copyright 1985 and released under a non-commercial license also (see the bottom of the source page). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted for unknown translation license--Jusjih (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This work states its source as Brooks, Lester (1968). "Behind Japan's Surrender: The Secret Struggle That Ended an Empire." New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. p. 312. I am presuming that includes the translation from the Japanese, though that is presumed. I am not sure whether either the original work, or the translation are in the public domain as we require. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Source of this particular translation seems to be under copyright Marjoleinkl (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Joni Madraiwiwi, Fiji's 2001 Elections: Our Country at the Crossroads, 15 August 2001[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Prepared speech by Fijian judge/lawyer. No evidence n the public domain. No source. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete{{{1}}}Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Can’t find anything about copyright status either Marjoleinkl (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
After doing some searching this seems like a very recent publication (within the last 2 decades) and I haven’t been able to find any kind of "allowed" licensing. Marjoleinkl (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete no indication of copyright status, and probably out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete{{{1}}}Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I'm assuming his website is and has a "© John C Bird" at the bottom and therefore takes his copyright very seriously.—Rochefoucauld (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's 2016 election victory speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted, work under copyright, no evidence that work has been released — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Having already speedy-deleted Trump speech at the Republican National Convention 2016 as a G6-Copyvio contributed by the same editor, I thought it would be best to check with the community that my understanding is correct and that speeches made by Donald Trump before he accedes to the Presidency are copyright. I have a vague recollection that the same situation arose with Obama's speeches prior to his accession. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As the person who marked this as "no license", I concur that my understanding regarding copyright status is the same as yours. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Limehouse Declaration[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Limehouse Declaration is the text of a statement issued in 1981 by several British politicians. As far as I can tell, it wasn't ever formally published, which leaves it in the realm of unpublished media which would mean it's still under copyright (I think?). Of the four authors, three are still alive, the last died in 2003.

The work itself has no license. While an important work as far as I can tell, I'm not entirely convinced it's OK for us to host it. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, no indication of a free license —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as reasoned above (we should check enWP for a link if we delete) — billinghurst sDrewth 08:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It looks clearly published to me; the Wikipedia article implies that copies were provided to all who wanted them, which is basically the definition of published. Still, it's a 1981 British work; short of an explicit free license, we won't be able to host it for a long time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders is a 2005 Catholic ... work of some kind (not sure what the term is). Authorship is attributed to "the Congregation for Catholic Eduction" and the translator is "unknown."

It's currently using {{PD-EdictGov}} for the original and is missing the translation license. I'm mostly certain that the {{PD-EdictGov}} is wrong, since the Vatican is only government of Vatican City, so a proclamation-thingy for the Church doesn't fall under any sort of "government" auspices. The notes on the author header claims it came from this site, which attributes an author, but no license. The page itself says "Any original material on these pages is copyright © 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution." I'm not sure that's compatible.

So ... two questions I guess. First, is {{PD-EdictGov}} the correct license for the Italian original? and second, is the translation usable or is it not compatible with our restrictions? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The translator is given as Robert Mickens. I think the translation should be fine, but the copyright status of ecclesiastical governance documents issued by the Holy See is a complicated one and I would Symbol delete vote.svg Delete it just in case, citing a few discussions (1 2) as precedent. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The Vatican claims full copyright in all of its publications whether they are by individual officials or by "congregations". Because the Vatican is a sovereign state, Italian copyright law doesn't apply and PD-EdictGov is not appropriate. This means that the original (probably in Latin, but in whatever language) is copyright and we cannot host the work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unless there is clear evidence that it has a sitable licence for us to host. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted; copyright violation
Internet Archive version at gives a date of 2005, and an ND license.

How does this qualify as license compatible with Wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The original is CC-by-NC-ND. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Which is not compatible with Wikimedia Licensing practice.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Now seemingly deleted at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Have marked the index and pages for speedy, as the scan is no longer accessible on Commons ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Giving from the Heart/Brooke Newell de Gunzburg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted to match remainder of work having been deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
All related pages have been removed due to copyright violation, this is the only subpage left of content from event Giving from the Heart. Talk page lists that it was placed in the public domain by The Prem Rawat Foundation but I can’t find any confirmation of that. If it is valid maybe we should restore the other deleted pages for the same reason? Marjoleinkl (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Big Bend.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
I hope I'm being overly paranoid, but I found a number of the images in this work were attributed to third parties, (not the NPS.) I've thus put them on DR at Commons, and commented/removed them in the Index/Pages here

However, I wanted a second view before I do any more, because I might be being too agressive, or applying policy too literally. If you think I am being over cautious I will withdraw/revert immediately.

Some of them seem to be raw page scans in any event.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The attribution page is page 130. It does seem like a lot of pages have potential copyright problems. I think we can assume that anything "from the files of Big Bend National Park and the National Park Service" is okay.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00, @Prosfilaes: File:Big Bend.djvu has been deleted at Commons. clpo13(talk) 22:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Last Speeches to Judge Webster Thayer and Bartolomeo Vanzetti's Speech to the Court[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted for missing license--Jusjih (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the status of this? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
Not sure they are even copyrightable in the US (extemporaneous speech not previously written down), but even if they are they would be PD -- expired in Italy before the URAA date. (Italy switched from 50pma -- in reality an effective 55pma when counting wartime extensions -- to 70pma only after the URAA date.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Italy is irrelevant here; Sacco and Vanzetti were American murderers. But I think it's pretty safe to say that however we cut it, they weren't copyrighted in the US. (Their letters were renewed, however.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. But yes, probably not copyrightable in the first place then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Sacco and Vanzetti were murdered Americans", fixed that for you. unsigned comment by (talk) .
While I cant be certain yet, I believe these were included in The letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, edited by Marion Denman Frankfurter and Gardner Jackson Renewal R161508. I have no idea about registration/renewal of speeches from that era, but the default position in the modern era is that a speech is copyrighted once it becomes fixed, so either by the orator if they worked from prepared notes, or when the speech was transcribed. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I Am - Somebody[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The poem I Am - Somebody by William Holmes Borders, Sr., was written "in the 1950s" according to the Wikipedia article. It was popularized when Jesse Jackson recited (a slightly different version of it) on Sesame Street in the 1970s.

I'm not sure if it was ever formally published, but I'm also not sure that it counts as public domain either as an unpublished work. If Rev. Jackson's recitation is considered first publication, then it would still be under copyright, I think. Either way, there's no license on the work and I don't know what to put it as. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As an unpublished work, it would be under copyright until 1996 + 70 years. TV and publication of a recited poem is massively complex. It could easily have been published somewhere that was renewed or not renewed or never copyrighted; it's impossible to tell without more evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This version of the poem seems to be the poem as recited by Jesse Jackson, not the original poem by Borders, Sr.
From The African American Lectionary: The late Reverend Borders, the former pastor of Wheat Street Baptist in Atlanta, Georgia, introduced this poem of racial praise on January 10, 1943; it was broadcast on "Wings Over Jordan." Between eight incremental repetitions of the refrain: "I am somebody," Reverend Borders praised past and present African American statesmen, sports figures, entertainers, writers, intellectuals, business tycoons, patriots, clergymen, et. al. Marjoleinkl (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, broadcasting something doesn't publish it. It looks like tracing the first publication with permission of the author is going to be hard. It's not improbable it's PD due to lack of notice or failure to renew, but we need that all critical first publication to check.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Works published by Peepang[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted all as translation copyvios.--Jusjih (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
; Copyright violations
Works published by @Peepang: are apparently copyvio:
  1. Translation:Consumer protection Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) was copied from Thailand law forum website, which says "© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved".
  2. Translation:Act Promulgating the Land Code B.E. 2497 (1954) was from Thailand law forum website, which says "Copyright © 2008 Chaninat & Leeds, All Rights Reserved".
  3. Translation:Immigration Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) was copied (with slight modification at introductory text) from Thailand law forum website, which says "© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved".
  4. Translation:Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) was copied (with slight modification at introductory text) from Thailand law forum website, which says "© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved".
I nominate the above works for deletion.

--iudexvivorum (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. The original is obviously {{PD-EdictGov}}, but despite User:Peepang's assertion that these are original Wikisource translations, they clearly are not. (It is, of course, possible that these translations are not by the Thailand Law Forum either and that the copyright notice on their site does not apply.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 15:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Key To Health[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
When was this work published and translated?--Jusjih (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: you are our Gandhi expert. Do you know? — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I don’t know exactly when it was first published, but it is certainly covered by the URAA, so not in the public domain in USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
URAA provision is applicable for an Indian writer when the work was published in 1923 or later and the author died before 1941. Gandhi died in 1948, so there is no applicability of URAA for his books. Gandhi started writing this book in Gujarati on 27-08-1942 while confined to Agakhan Palace at Poona. He completed writing it on 18-12-1942. It was translated into English by w:Sushila Nayyar and published in October 1948 by Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad. Scan of the 1st edition available here along with this declaration: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Hrishikes (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The URAA restored copyright to PD works in the US, so it would be more appropriate to say it applies to works like Gandhi's, not works that it didn't change the status of (left as public domain).--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the license of CC-NC/ND is enough to not allow us to reproduce the work, irrespective of any argument around the original. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Billinghurst's reasoning about the translation. At this point, any argument as to the status of the original is moot since the translation itself's license is not compatible. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

January 17th 2005 NK Youth Freedom League Statement[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Unknown source and license of the work.--Jusjih (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

God Bless Our Homeland Ghana[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted: copyrighted, and author still living —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
National anthem of Ghana, still under copyright per [9]. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Galtee Mountain Boy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Not a traditional song as it claims. Some of the words are original to w:Christy Moore and obvious copyvio; in Moore's autobiography he describes meeting the songwriter Patsy Halloran in 1963, which even if Halloran was on his deathbed puts the song well past URAA cutoff with Ireland's life+70 copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Traditional are traditional, and if someone adapts components and puts it into print in a form doesn't necessarily make it copyrighted. So there would need to be evidence and/or provenance to cite "traditional" and if that doesn't exist then we probably cannot retain. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The description is "A traditional folk song about the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War"; assuming that description is correct, the Irish Civil War started half-way through 1922. No matter who wrote it, it would have had to have been published before the Civil War was over in 1923, or be written by someone who died before 1926, or be anonymous and be published before 1926 to not get revived by the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The description says "traditional", but all sources I have found in my research concur that the first three verses are original to Halloran and the fourth to Moore, so I would have to assert that the description is wrong. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I can't find any proof that this is in any way PD. Everything I found also attributes the first three verses to Halloran and the last one to Moore. Without any evidence to the contrary, I say delete. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines for Opus Dei within the Diocese of Westminster[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted along with author page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
1981 work by Cardinal Hume for the RC church. No licence, source is now a dead url. It looks more like a fair use addition rather than something that is freely licensed. Author died 1990s so not 70 years post death. If we delete the work, we should also consider deleting the author page. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete on both the work and the author. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete work. The author page might be a candidate for keeping with a copyright notice. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Education We Want[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This work comes from here (direct PDF link). It was written in 2013 and I could not see any license grant or PD release. BethNaught (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete no sign of any copyright release in the work itself or on the source website. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:BRA Review Autumn 1977.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted at commons (no OTRS permission in 30 days) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see on the evidence given how a 1977 British Publication can be PD as of 1996.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploader has left a note on Commons explaining that permission from the originating organsation has been sought, and an e-mail to OTRS is pending.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:Dostoevsky - letters and reminiscences.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The Concern here is not the original, Dostoevsky being a 19th century writer, but the translation copyright, as the British Translators noted did not die until the mid 1950's.
  • Murry, John Middleton, 1889-1957 (Expires in 2027)
  • Samuel Solomonovich Koteliansky 1880-1955 (Expires in 2025).

This is claimed to be under a PD license at Commons, but gives a date of 1923.

At best I am saying this might be PD US in the US due to various publication requirements, but it's not as far as I can see public domain in the UK (given the potential translation copyright.

Perhaps someone would carefully review this?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(Just a comment because I don't know enough about UK copyright stuff.) The scan in Commons and IA was published in London/UK in 1923. HathiTrust has a 1923 US printing from A. A. Knopf of terrible quality here; the scan is missing pages including the title page, so I can't see if it included a copyright statement. Either way it appears to have been published on both sides of the pond at the same time. (The Stanford database doesn't appear to have a renewal.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete if it is 1923 publication then it wasn't published before 1923. If it has all the copyright components and overseas published, then it is "95 years after publication date". So not until 1918. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It wasn't renewed, so if it was published within 30 days in the US, it's PD in the US. I understand proving that is pretty hard, so we may have to put it off to 2018.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
In any event I am not sure it's OK for commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete -- I think that proving publication within 30 days is pretty much an exercise in futility -- and, truthfully, not worth the effort. No transcription work has been done on this work, so I think that if some user would like to hang on to the PDF for a year we can delete it for now, then upload it again in 2018 when it's clearly out of copyright (1923+95=2018). --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: you can use your new powers to Undelete it in 2018 :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Except that I don't think it's OK for commons to host either, which will mean it gets deleted there too. (and I'm no commons admin....) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted at Commons, moved here, now it is a local problem only. Feel free to have a crack.

We probably should be looking to create a "delete in 20nn" pages as we are arriving at the years when 1923 + 95 have dawned. We may even wish to look back at what we have deleted over the years (if anyone can be bothered). My question is whether it is +95 from the date of publication, or from the end of the year of publication? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAIC, a work goes in PD on the 1 January of the year following to the year in which the 95-year term started from the publication date is getting elapsed. That is, the works of the 1923 year go into the PD on the 1 January of 2019 year (not 2018), because in 2018 year the 95-year term elapses, but then going into PD is postponed until the 1 January of the next (2019) year. I think that it is also worth to be mentioned that the 2019 year is the very year, when normal annual getting works into PD is expected to be resumed in the US, arter 20-year freeze imposed by the extension of the copyright term in the US caused by Copyright Term Extension Act passed in the 1998 year. And that freeze, as I understand, lasts from 1999 to 2018 (inclusively) years, so the next—2018—year is expected to be the last year of the time interval when works still don't go into PD in the US at the beginning of the year. --Nigmont (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That is my understanding. During 2018, we will transition all PD-1923 tags to PD-US-95 or something like that, as both tags will be true during 2018, and starting on January 1, 2019 the 95 years from publication should then apply going forward. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted aready —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Per Commons notice and note in work - "(C) World Health Organization 1981

Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. For rights of reproduction or translation of WHO publications, in part or in toto, application should be made to the Office of Publications, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. The World Health Organization welcomes such applications."

Nothing a request for OTRS wouldn't resolve though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00:, Given this is a widely used media file across Wikimedia projects, and doesnt have a high impact on English Wikisource, and we have ignored it for over a year!, Commons would be a better spot for a centralised discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No progress since 2016, Scans Nominated for DR at Commons, per copyright note on second page of scans ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Now Deleted at Commons, And despite the comment in the DR, no one at commons thought to let people here know :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 8 February 2017

Letter to Editor of the Time and Life Magazine (5 October 1956)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
article published in magazine in 1956, author died 1990s. No evidence of further release to public domain. I have not found evidence that we can reproduce without a license. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. If proved to be copyrighted by the magazine, we will check if it may be kept here or Canadial Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jusjih (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Gender at Azerbaijan[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This would appear to be a copy-paste of the 2003 book "Gender in Azerbaijan" (Google Books) by Zumrud Kulizade (or something like that, transcriptions vary and I don't know Azerbaijani). No evidence of PD or a suitable license release by the author. It was published by the United Nations Population Fund, but I don't see how it could meet the criteria for Template:PD-UN. BethNaught (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete both and coyright their website — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per above. Clearly copyvio and {{PD-UN}} doesn't apply. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jusjih (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deletion upheld, but alternate acceptable translation found and uploaded —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This was published at least in 1924 in Tibet: Past and Present by Author:Charles Alfred Bell who died in 1945. This is in PD, at least in PD-India, since Charles Bell was an official of British India. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a different translation than the one that was deleted. Was this translation PD in 1996 in the country in which it was first published? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
To try and answer my own question: it looks like this translation was first published in India, and India was (and is) a 60 PMA country, so the translation would not have become PD in India until 2005. Because it was copyrighted in 1996, the URAA would have made it copyright in the USA until 1945 + 95 = 2040. So unfortunately, unless I am misunderstanding something here, we won't be able to host this translation either for a good while yet. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The book by Bell was published in 1924 originally (Tibet, past & present by Charles Alfred Bell( Book ) 83 editions published between 1924 and 2012 in 5 languages and held by 753 WorldCat member libraries worldwide, see also [10]) therefore, it is PD-India and PD-UKGov. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Bell died in 1945, so his books, published in India, were copyrighted upto 2005, irrespective of publication year. Therefore, this work is copyrighted in USA and not hostable here. Hrishikes (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok for Bell, BUT, he cites a source With The Russians In Mongolia by Perry-ayscough , H.g.c. And Otter-barry, R.b., published in 1914, page 10 to 13 : [11]. This is in PD. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that book is hostable in Commons, having simultaneous pre-1923 US publication. The proper way would be to upload the whole book, instead of a few pages, and then proofread-cum-transclude. Hrishikes (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I found this book here [12]. I do not know how to transfer it. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll take care of it. Hrishikes (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: c:File:With the Russians in Mongolia.djvu -- Hrishikes (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Impressively fast @Hrishikes:. Is it possible to copy and paste the translation of Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913)? The text has an importance in its own. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: -- Done: With the Russians in Mongolia/Mongol-Tibetan Treaty. Although the book has it as a part of the Introduction, it is actually a piece between Introduction and Chapter 1. Hrishikes (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Many Thanks. As it is a translation that differs from Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913), I propose to have this page entitled With the Russians in Mongolia/Mongol-Tibetan Treaty linked to w:Treaty of friendship and alliance between the Government of Mongolia and Tibet. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
India was 50 pma until 1991 when they non-retroactively went to 60 pma. Doesn't necessarily change this one, although there have been some arguments that a drafting error in the law may have meant that existing works were not extended (although that was the intent of the 1991 change). The U.S. term is 95 years from publication, not death, so a 1924 publication should become PD in 2020 (if it was indeed restored by the URAA). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Can you please elaborate on the drafting error? The original intent of the 1992 amendment was to extend copyright of Tagore's works (see here) and copyright of Tagore's works was indeed extended by 10 years (that's why his post-1923 works are not allowed here), so was the case with other works then under copyright. Therefore, can u pse elaborate about how copyright of Bell's book was not extended due to drafting error? Hrishikes (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I did find this editorial (by a former judge) on the matter. I think the argument is that the 1957 law, in its transition section at the end, said that the *scope* of existing copyrights was changed by the new law, but the *term* of existing works would still be determined by the previous law. That law really only changed the term of photographs (went from 50 years from creation to 50 years from publication), and that section may have meant that existing photographs should still have a term based on creation. The 1956 UK copyright act made a similar change, but had a section which explicitly stated that the publication-based term of photographs is only for photographs created after the new law came in force, i.e. earlier photographs were still based on year of creation (which of course the EU retroactive changes made irrelevant in 1996). So, the India transitional section may have been a more subtle way of doing that same thing, saying that photographs created before 1958 are still based on year of creation, not publication. When the law was modified in December 1991 (by a presidential ordinance, see (here) and confirmed by a law once parliament reconvened (here, retroactive to the date of the ordinance), it simply said that the 1957 law was modified by replacing "fifty years" with "sixty years". So, the argument would be that since article 79 was not changed by the 1991/1992 amendments, and that Tagore's works were created before 1958, then his copyright term is still 50pma because that was the term under the earlier law. The editorial does cite a 1977 decision where a technicality of the earlier 1914 law (reversion of rights from an assignee to heirs at 25pma for the remaining 25 years of the term) was held to be still valid after the 1957 law, based on that clause, so the effect of the 1957 law does seem more clear. But I don't think there has been an explicit ruling after the 1991/1992 change, i.e. a ruling that the term was not extended despite the clear intention to do so, so I would be hesitant to follow that logic unless we get a court ruling to that effect. But if true, that would have some effect on the URAA restorations -- the line would be 1946 not 1941. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Many thanks for this great exposition. @Mahitgar, @Bodhisattwa: please take note. Hrishikes (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Halkin Sesi (People's Voice) Party Program[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
People's Voice Party is a defunct Turkish political party. Its program can be found on Wayback: Turkish, Google Translate. This text is a fluent English translation of the program; no attribution is given to any translator, if it is not the uploader themself. In any case, I can see nowhere where the original text could have been appropriately licensed, but because I don't know Turkish, and Google Translate can hideously mangle stuff, I wanted to check. BethNaught (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sokoli Tomari Iccha[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per nom, can be undeleted if further data shows it to be PD —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Tagged a while ago by Jayantanth (talkcontribs), presumably as the linked source does not have a free licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have not seen this book] physically ie Grace and Mercy in Her Wild Hair : Selected Poems to the Mother Goddess 2nd Edition

by Ramprasad Sen (Author).But the traslalator is Clinton Seely (Translator), Leonard Nathan (Translator), Andrew Schelling (Foreword). I presume that translation is copyvio. Jayantanth (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Jayantanth: This discussion requires more data. Original is not by Ramprasad Sen, but by Narachandra Ray, see alternate translation here. So the translation present here is not from Nathan and Seely's book. The song is present in section 18 and section 22 of Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, several English translations of that work exist. Online source of the version here is this blog, which also contains another translation below it, taken from chapter 43 of The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (1942), a translation of the Kathamrita by Swami Nikhilananda. So the first version (the one present here) is possibly from another translation of the Kathamrita. The 1907 translation of Kathamrita by Swami Abhedananda, present here as Index:The Gospel of Râmakrishna.djvu is an abridged version, and I could not locate this song in the work. So, the work's copyright status can be determined only by getting more data. Till then, it is suspect copyvio. Hrishikes (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Naya Kashmir[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
From the talk page:

Naya Kashmir was adopted as a manifesto of the National Conference and has not been copyrighted being a public document of a political party.I have not copyrighted my English translation .

But it automatically has copyright unless the documents are specifically put into the public domain. Being a public document or of a political party I do not believe would exclude it from copyright laws. So this means that you either need to demonstrate that the document is excluded from copyright, or we need to go through a permissions process aligned with Commons:OTRS. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please understand the history of this document:

1.It was a memorandum submitted by Sheikh Abdullah the president of National Conference to the ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh in 1944.

2. I fail to understand how a memorandum submitted to a ruler which is in the nature of an official document can be copyrighted.

3. It has no single author being a collaborative effort of the friends of the National Conference

4. It was adopted as a manifesto by the National Conference but that does not make it a property of the National Conference

5.Post 1947 the Maharaja was deposed after he ran away from Srinagar. Sheikh Abdullah was arrested and the National Conference converted into Plebiscite Front which reconverted itself into National Conference decades later.The National Conference whuich exists at present is not the same National Conference which existed in 1944.

6. In plain and simple words the so called "Naya Kashmir" is nothing but a petition submitted to a ruler by some of his subjects.By no stretch of imagination can a petition submitted to a ruler be considered to be a copyright document.

8. Neither the Ruler nor his State exists at present(except perhaps on the agenda of the United Nations and its Security Council which has resolved that the final status of the State would be determined solely after the will of its inhabitants is ascertained by a plebiscite). Indeed there is no single person or group of persons or party who are owners of this document.

7.This is precisely why Raheed Taseer reprinted the Urdu Version of the entire document in his book without infringing any copyright law nor has it ever been challenged on that ground in the more than thirty years that have elapsed since the publication of his book in 1973.

8. As mentioned before I too have not copyrighted my English Translation

9. I may mention that I am also taking steps to publish my translation as a work in the Public Domain( Without copyright)

Taffazull (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of these reasons would put the original in PD in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: As a matter of Indian copyright this may be within your area of knowledge. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
As per my understanding:
  1. The work originated in Kashmir in 1944, then a British vassal state, therefore subject to the Indian Copyright Act of 1914, later replaced by the Act of 1957.
  2. The translator claimed it as a public document, i.e., copyright-exempt from the beginning, being a memorandum submitted to the king.
  3. As per Indian Copyright Act, only certain government works are copyright-exempt from the beginning.
  4. This document is not a government work as defined in section 2 (k), therefore not a public document.
  5. This is a case of organisational authorship (section 17-dd-iii) or a case of joint authorship (section 2-z).
  6. Therefore copyright subsisted for 60 years after publication (i.e., submission to the king) or 60 years after the death of the last-dying author (if all are dead).
  7. Therefore it was not PD-India on URAA date.

Hrishikes (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Prize acceptance speech (Schweitzer)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Clear copyvio Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Published 1952 (in French) in Les Prix Nobel, whose copyright is owned by the Nobel Foundation. If I'm not mistaken, this puts it under Swedish law, which is (currently at least) life + 70, which puts this particular entry under copyright in source country until 2035, and in USA for even longer. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Clear copyvio—the blanked out Title page is also a clue to be suspicious. Deleted and a notice put on the Commons file Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The author died in 1951, so I am thinking this can't be hosted on Commons, as it's post 1921. (It will expire in 2021). When was it originally written?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the Stanford entry. Published March 1925, renewed May 1952. Hence still in copyright in USA and should also be deleted from Commons. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with above. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Didn't realize they renewed it. Sorry. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I know it says it's PD on Internet Archive, but as this example proves, you can't trust them. You need to investigate the situation yourself and use the correct copyright tag, not just the default that the IA-upload tool uses. Not that I couldn't say the same thing to some other people around here... BethNaught (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Platform of Demands of the Seventh Indigenous March of the Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East, Chaco, and Amazon[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted for no license--Jusjih (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Another social movement document which, while clearly intended to be widely distributed, has no evidence of release under a suitable license. The source is from here, though the document itself is unavailable. Another document issued by them is here. No sign of copyright statements or releases anywhere. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite {{PD-Israel}} (which seems to be both confusing and wrong), this work published in 1948 would not have passed 50 years since creation in 1996 and therefore would still be copyvio in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
On further investigation, it looks like creation+50 only applies to photographs, and works would have been subject to life+50; my argument still holds though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hanuman Chalisa[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Source: (website claims self as translator and Google has no earlier listings for the text). No indication of free license or release. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Without further clarification and information, it looks like delete. Throwing in a ping for good measure @Ma.Sarada.Swamini:billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Senate Prayer[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Not an edict of government, not a work of federal government, author still living, no free license, &c. Probably speedy-able, just want to make sure. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Angelie Quest[edit]

The following discussion is closed: page already deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
2017 work, no source, no license. Hrishikes (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted, translation is not "official" and copyright has yet to expire in USA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
National anthem of Slovenia, 7th verse of a longer poem. The original is fine, but the 1954 "official" translation by Janko Lavrin, despite being published on the Slovenian Goverment website, doesn't appear to have any claim to being EdictGov, and is therefore probably copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-EdictGov}} also applies to official translations, technically. From the Compendium III: As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties. That was usually more for translations of the law itself, and unsure if it would apply to a song translation, but it might. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: thank you for clarifying that point; I have often wondered whether official translations count under {{PD-EdictGov}}. However, in this case, I put "official" in quotation marks, because although the government is publishing the translation of that verse on their website, there is no indication that Lavrin was a "government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties", and furthermore he translated the whole poem and not only the single verse listed on the government website. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure on that score. But if it was published as an official text, then it would be explicitly excluded from Slovene copyright law, section 9:
Article 9.
(1) Copyright protection shall not be afforded to:
1. ideas, principles, discoveries;
2. official legislative, administrative and judicial texts;
3. folk literary and artistic creations.
(2) Translations of texts mentioned under item 2 of the foregoing paragraph shall enjoy copyright protection, unless they are published as official texts.
That would line up with PD-EdictGov as well. To your point though, I don't think this became the national anthem until the late 1980s or early 1990s, and the translation existed in 1954 so it was a private copyright to begin with. As far as I can tell, it was published in a book called "Selection of Poems: Francè Prešeren" edited by William Kleesmann Matthews and ‎Anton Slodnjak, and published by Blackwell in the UK in 1954.[13] I also see a copy printed in a volume of the Christian Democratic News Service, either in 1954 or 1955, which was a New York publication. Both of those have a different last line ("From ours and other good hearts here") than the version you linked, so Lavrin may have tweaked his translation in later publications. The anthem verse is identical though. That book may have been published in other countries, but it's quite possible then the country of origin is the UK. But if the US publication was "simultaneous" (within 30 days), then it would not have been eligible for URAA restoration. (I can't find a registration or renewal for the Blackwell volume.) Seems most likely that the U.S. publication lifted it from the UK one, but it does not seem to be credited -- just the translator. But, Google is only giving very limited search abilities there, so it's easy to miss stuff, and I can't tell which volume or date that it was (the Google book is a compilation of multiple volumes). If Matthews/Slodnjak were fishing around for publishers separately, then it could be an independent publication -- the question is the dates of both. Matthews was born in Estonia but grew up in England, and was working in the UK in 1954, and Slodnjak was in Slovenia. Just not sure. It does seem to have been quoted widely -- phrases from the anthem verse have hits in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s on Google Books from before it was the official anthem. I guess I'd probably lean delete, though much would depend on the date of that New York publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Searching for "March 1956" and "April "1956" shows that the March issue is pp. 177 through 192, and "The Toast" is on p. 189. So we can safely say that the UK version predates the US version by over a year. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Works of Author:Muhammad Yunus[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted (speedied); no consensus to delete author page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It would seem that both these works are copyright unless we can find evidence that they are not

The first we should be able to link to the relevant page at — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've speedied them, as both of them are available on their publishers' websites with explicit copyright notices [14], [15]. Also vote Symbol delete vote.svg Delete on the author. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: If the works are freely available on the web to legally view, then I believe that the author page should link to the works. No reason not to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I thought that it was our usual policy to delete author pages if they have no hostable works. There are lots of authors who have copyrighted content published on the web. I don't see how this one is different. However, I don't really care either way, so I change my vote to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It is an ancient discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-11#Author pages and your comments display the ambiguity of where we are and how things have changed in the intervening years that more work is coming on limited release by authors. The deletion of author pages came about as we had random author pages of people who were not authors, and we were not going to get works added. We have avoided giving guidance on the matter, and maybe that is right; or maybe it is wrong. I do think that there is probably value in shaking out this tablecloth and looking at the picnic set again. Are we only showing local works, or are we also able to show works hosted elsewhere. Probably better to be had in WS:S.— billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position: I think that linking to nonfree works is a separate issue to keeping of nonfree authors. We had a number of discussions recently where authors who had no hostable content were deleted, regardless of the availability of their works. However, I don't see a problem with linking from an existing author page to nonfree content hosted elsewhere. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Final March for Reform[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Created by "Organizing for America", a project of the Democratic National Committee. I doubt that this counts as PD-USGov, but I'm not sure. The documents themselves are from but that leads to a web of redirects. I found some terms of service for a related site it claims copyright to all content of "the Web site operated by OFA and other OFA Web sites which link to these Site Terms" and licenses it for "informational, non-commercial and personal use only". The documents themselves contain no licensing information. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as public domain or should we delete it here ?[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted; congressional record does not invalidated copyright, and fair use is explicitly prohibited on enWS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
[[File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf|thumb|8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|100px]]

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was added here to Wikisource.

I had originally added the file to Wikimedia Commons.

They nominated it for deletion there and they don't think it is public domain, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf.

Is public testimony in an open public hearing read out loud as such before the United States Congress public domain?

If so, should we keep the document in written format here at Wikisource , and if not, should we delete it from Wikisource?

Thanks for your helpful advice ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I am no expert on the subject. Based on previous discussions, this is my understanding: everything is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is written down unless there is an explicit release. If this document was first put into writing by US government officials, it's public domain as {{PD-USGov}}. On the other hand, if it was first put into writing by James Comey, it is copyright unless explicitly released into the public domain by Comey. Based on your statement on Commons, "He read the document out loud", suggests he wrote it down beforehand. Therefore, my !vote is Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
… With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record.

  • about how people can reproduce except where copyright restrictions prevail. If you want the statements fully in the public domain, you will need to get then released under a free license or direction that they are public domain.

    Noting arguments about who pays for a website, and that it is the US government are no exclusion from lawful protection. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep prepared remarks of private citizens is their copyright, but keep here as "fair use." the transcript is on and c-span, encyclopedic Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    As per WS:COPY, Wikisource does not do fair use. To change that rule would be non-trivial and probably require discussion with the WMF.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    but we could adopt an EDP as per Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy_.28EDP.29. the WMF has given us the option, and this is the perfect case. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    The proposal did not get much commentary or support at the time. So what may become policy in the future may allow undeletion at a time in the future. However, it is not policy at this time so I don't believe that allows retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • yes, at what point will the community be appalled enough to adopt the policy? might want to make a list of items deleted at commons that are ripe to be posted. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment file deleted at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Liao-Fan's Four Lessons[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Translation from an audio book by "The Education Foundation of Liao-Fan's Four Lessons". A copy issued by them is here. License statement in the copy says "This book is not to be sold. FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION", which is more restrictive than our copyright policy allows. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ar Hyd y Nos (Sugars)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Translation of Ar Hyd y Nos (All Through the Night) by J. Mark Sugars, professor at Californa State University Long Beach[16], still living. No indication of free license on this page or anywhere else on the Internet that I could find. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Lamb - Hydrodynamics, 6th edition, 1945.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a reprint of a 1932 edition, The British Author died in 1934, would have expired in the UK in 2004, which post-dates URAA. However I am willing to accept no US renewal, if someone checks.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that US renewal doesn't matter for works published outside the USA that were still copyrighted in the source country in 1996. It would have to satisfy {{PD-1996}} in that case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The original 6th Edition ( 1932) would have now expired in the UK in any event.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as 1923-77 with no evidence that it was published in the US means 95 years, so out of copyright in 2027 in US. If it was published in the US we would need to demonstrate that there was a copy that was not compliant with US copyright law at the time. In lieu of that ... nada. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:U.S.A. Presidential Debates and Category:U.S.A. Vice-Presidential Debates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. To be restored only with new evidence of licensing.Jusjih (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would debate responses be protected by copyright in the United States? I imagine the questions themselves are drafted beforehand and meet the requirement that they be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, but the responses are probably a mix of prepared material of unknown fixity and impromptu expression. Weird gray area. Prosody (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The question is, whether these were published in a "tangible" medium, that can be "touched". Irrespective of any pre-existing (but unpublished) draft, a speech or verbal debate, by definition, is published "verbally", therefore intangible. You cannot touch spoken words. Therefore these are not copyrightable, IMO. If these were later published in a written form, or as a CD, then that would come under copyright. Hrishikes (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
These matters have had airings before, and there is debate that should be referenced in the archived. People may also be better referencing expert opinion pages rather than stating personal opinions, eg. see sDrewth 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To note that there have again been contributions in this area and I have deleted these contributions and left a note. To see the previous discussions of the community on this subject matter please look at results of the search presidential prefix:Wikisource:Copyright discussionsbillinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete if no one proves their licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1960 U.S. Presidential Debate - September 26
  • 1960 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 7
  • 1960 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 13
  • 1960 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 21
  • 1976 U.S. Presidential Debate - September 23
  • 1976 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 6
  • 1976 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 22
  • 1980 U.S. Presidential Debate - September 21
  • 1980 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 28
  • 1984 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 7
  • 1984 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 21
  • 1996 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 16
  • 1996 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 6
  • 2000 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 3
  • 2000 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 11
  • 2000 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 17
  • 2004 U.S. Presidential Debate - September 30
  • 2004 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 8
  • 2004 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 13
  • 2008 U.S. Presidential Debate - September 26
  • 2008 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 7
  • 2008 U.S. Presidential Debate - October 15
  • 2000 U.S. Vice-Presidential Debate
  • 2004 U.S. Vice-Presidential Debate
  • 2004 U.S. Vice-Presidential Debate - October 5
  • 2008 U.S. Vice-Presidential Debate Jusjih (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, Declaration of Dr. David R. Legates in support of defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per proposal —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
; Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Peter Watson, Plaintiff's Final Response to Government's Motion for Summary Judgment
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Peter Watson, Second Amended Complaint
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, Plaintiff's Final Response to Government's Motion for Summary Judgement
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, Plaintiff's motion to strike declarations attached to defendants' reply memorandum and portions of defendants' motion for summary judgment and reply memorandum

None of these files are products of the US government, nor are they rulings of a court. As such, they're still copyright of their authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

These are all documents submitted to a court case? I think this depends on the outcome of the discussion above, #Copyright status of court submissions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree and I think unlikely to be free of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Freud - Studies on hysteria[edit]

The following discussion is closed: copyright restored by URAA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Can we have this book here (Studies on hysteria [by] Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud. Translated from the German and edited by James Strachey (1887–1967), in collaboration with Anna Freud, assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson.)? It was uploaded on Commons, then deleted because the UK edition is not in the public domain. But it seems the US edition is, either for lack of notice or lack of renewal. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freud - Studies on hysteria.djvu and Hathitrust record. The UK and the US publishers are different, if it matters. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: That is not the 1950s version, it is a later reprint. Without knowing what year that reprint was undertaken, we cannot be certain whether the lack of copyright notice is relevant or not. So either we need to check the 1950s edition, or we need to know whether it was printed <= 1977, or <=1989, then we can better comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a clear reprint of the 1955 UK version, and wasn't published in the US within a couple years, so I don't think the US version is in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hathitrust mentions that it was published in the USA in 1957. There is no date in this reprint, so how can you know that it is not this edition? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
On Commons, Carl Lindberg says that the US copyright was restored by URAA. So that fixes the issue. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Work published in India in 1931. Translator died in 1967, editor in 1964. Neither PD-1923 nor PD-India. Hrishikes (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment by uploader:
This book may be deleted as I am doubtful about its copyright. Thanks. --Sushant savla (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page. Hrishikes (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done It looks as though Commons came to the same conclusion. The work has no release for copyright indicated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:War poems.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This work was marked as 1900 by the Internet Archive, but Wikipedia and Lord Dunsany: Master of the Anglo-Irish Imagination give its date as 1941, which is consistent with the references to Adolf Hitler. There does not seem to be a renewal, but there's no evidence one was needed either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment: When IA is not certain of the date of a work, it is sometimes assigned a century year, e.g. 1800 or 1900. For any work dated this way, a check ought to be made. We might want to look at other works so dated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete All sources I can find suggest it was first published in 1941 by Hutchison and is thus still in copyright in most countries (p.m.a. 60 for Lord Dunsany). --Xover (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, we won't be at p.m.a. 60 until next year. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. If it did need renewal, I don't find such a US copyright renewal in 1968 or 1969. Certainly, it's still under copyright in the UK until 2028, so if it is PD-US, we'd have to host it locally. However, I don't see any evidence that it was published in the US, so it ought to be under copyright because of the URAA. WorldCat gives London and Melbourne as the only places of publication in 1941. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Lord Dunsany: A Comprehensive Bibliography: Second Edition lists but one edition of this work, that published in London in 1941.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Puntofijo Pact[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
A pact between political parties of Venezuela. Not a government work. Hrishikes (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
According to commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Venezuela, Venezuela is basically life+60. Rafael Caldera, one of the signers, lived to 2009. So it will be out of copyright no earlier than 2070 in Venezuela, unless someone lived longer (I only checked a couple signers.) The Spanish original will be out of copyright for 1958 or 1959 + 95 years from publication in the US, in 2055 or 2056. I don't see any exception in the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Yes it's copyvio of course, but I don't think it is a matter of individual copyright. The signers represented their political parties, so copyright should rest with the political parties. That means, it is a matter of organisational copyright, isn't it? Hrishikes (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter much for US law for pre-1978 works, and this was in copyright in Venezuela in 1996, so the URAA would have restored it. I suspect the signers wrote at least part of it, and as far as I know, most countries will give them a copyright at least until the last known author is dead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I am not arguing that it is not copyrighted, just the opposite. But as an academic curiosity, I want to understand the nature of the copyright. Had it been a treaty between governments, copyright would be with the governments concerned, not the signers. Here too, the signers acted "on behalf" of their parties. So how is it that the signers are copyright-holders and not the parties? How is the scenario different from a government treaty in the matter of copyright assignment? Can you point to any such law/rule/court judgment, as per which representatives of an organisation should get the copyright to what they signed, and not their organisations? Hrishikes (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Had it been a treaty, it would be a whole different matter. w:Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l denied copyright on a building code that was enacted as part of law.
I don't know about copyright holders--except for the US, it doesn't have much to do with what I do--but copyright duration usually goes by the life of the authors. (In this case, I could be wrong, but it strikes me as a work that Rafael Caldera and the other signers were at least partially authors of.) If you look at w:List of countries' copyright lengths, films are frequently an exception to the life+n rules, but just as frequently films get a duration based on the life of a number of people: e.g. for France, it's the author of the scenario, the author of the dialogue, the author of the musical compositions, with or without words, specially composed for the work and the main director. Copyright is rarely in the hands of any of those people, but the length of the film is still based on them. In the US, works made for hire are treated the same as anonymous works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I did not respond earlier, being somewhat confused. Now after some reading, I still feel that organisational copyright is correct in this case. In US law, this is called "work made for hire". Chapter 1, Section 101 of the US law gives a long definition, including many items, including films. Two are pertinent here: "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" and "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work". A treaty or a pact is certainly a "collective work", being signed by multiple persons. It can be assumed that this pact was commissioned by the concerned political parties who had empowered the representatives to contribute and sign on their behalf, otherwise the political parties would not have abided by the terms of the treaty, which they did. Therefore, organisational copyright, and not individual, should be assumed in this case. What is your take? Hrishikes (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
US law here is simply different from that of many other nations here. Copyright duration in many nations are based purely on life of the author or authors. The organization may hold the copyright, but that's irrelevant to the duration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The article contributor has stated on the work that it is {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, and this may or may not cover the original work, it does not cover a translation which would also have a copyright, and would seem to place it into the Symbol delete vote.svg Delete basket. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You can go ahead and delete. I thought I had the correct copyright information but I did not realize there was one required for any translations. Thank you!--ZiaLater (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

In Plenty and In Time of Need[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
According to the Barbados Copyright Act, 1982 [17]: "3. Notwithstanding the provision of any Act to the contrary, the copyright in the words and music of the National Anthem and in the design of the National Emblems is vested in the Crown in perpetuity." Furthermore, I see no other reason to consider this in the public domain: author is still living, lyrics are not printed in any legislation, etc. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Works of Author:Carson Cistulli ?[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted all works as unlicensed--Jusjih (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at some of the works listed at the author page, and following links, I haven't seen evidence that any of the works are in the public domain. The author talk page makes some claims, though I don't see evidence. I would appreciate if someone could double check and see if I am missing the obvious. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The works of the author

have no evidence that they are in the public domain. So these works and the author page should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Also, previous discussion on this topic found no evidence to corroborate the claim of PD or CC license.Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that the about page at the New Enthusiast website has a contact address. When I have some time, I may drop an email to ask about copyright of the works (unless someone beats me to it). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: did you have a chance to contact them on this issue? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and sent an email. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
With no response I still !vote Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Imam Ali's First Sermon in His Peak of Eloquence[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Translation by Syed Mohammad Askari Jafrey, first published in Pakistan in 1960 [18]. Pakistan is 50 pma, translator to my knowledge is still living. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Letter from Ali Khan, Majid Khan's father[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
A letter reproduced from a publication. No evidence that the work has been released to the publid domain or freely licensed, though I can understand that it may be displayed as fair use at some places, that is not our criteria. @Geo Swan:billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hymni i Flamurit[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted as copyrighted translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
National anthem of Albania. Earliest online version of the translation I can find is [19] which predates our and Wikipedia's copy, and says it is from a bulletin published in the US. No indication of freedom from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Setne Khamwas and Naneferkaptah[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted both--Jusjih (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This recently added work appears to be from scanned text at A search shoes that M. Lichtheim published those works in the 1970s, so unless we can demonstrate that the works are clearly out of copyright, it would appear that we cannot host the translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a couple minor things pre-1963 that weren't renewed, but most of her publications seem post-1963. The Archive scan seems to be missing title page and verso, but the 2006 publication has a proper copyright notice for 1980, and the Archive copy doesn't look like a work that would have forgotten the copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Setne Khamwas and Si-Osire is by the same author and was added by the same contributor. It is likely in a similar copyright situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted without prejudice. Please appeal only with evidence of licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Has been tagged as "not published" and "not licensed" for a while. The source website has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom. This mailing list discussion suggests that the copyright holders "are likely going to put it under

CC BY, though this will take a while"... but in the meantime the work should be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Karl Marx translations[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted some, kept some, replaced some with PD translations —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In light of [20], I did a quick check of his works here, and it's not looking very good. See Author_talk:Karl_Marx#Copyrighted_translations. I'll leave it to regulars here to contact the authors and do more digging. --Piotrus (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You added this list:

The first one checks out as public domain, so I'll risk dealing with all six of them at a time here.

  • Wages, Price and Profit (1910): PD-1923.
  • On Landed Property depends on first publication date (Lawrence and Wishart publication) About five paragraphs long.
    • Collected Works says of this work and another, "In English they were first published in full in The General Council of the First International. 1868-1870, Moscow, 1966. p. 392." There is also a 1964 work (the earliest of GoogleBooks and InternetArchive) about the same General Council in Google snippet view (presumably a partial publication). So either way a URAA like Das Kapital vol. 2. ResScholar (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Critique of the Gotha Programme (1908): PD-1923; The 1908 version has some slight differences.
  • Das Kapital Volume Two (1975) probably Lawrence and Wishart. It doesn't matter much because only a few small pieces of it were ever added to Wikisource.
    • Progress Publishers, Moscow 1956, translated by I. Lasker; that makes it a URAA restoral if the Soviet Union was a pma-50 (or more) country, because Russia would have continued the pma-50 (or more) by 2006 surely.
  • Mr. George Howell’s History of the International Working-Men’s Association claim it's from an 1878 translation.
  • Theses on Feuerbach (trans. Progress Publishers, 1946) 2007 public domain release by Carl Manchester.

ResScholar (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If we don't want to do any more research, we can remove numbers two and four and correct #3. ResScholar (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Selected Essays by Karl Marx: Published by Leonard Parsons, London, 1926. Translator died after 1950. Also a URAA restoral, so I move for removal. False information on translator field and copyright template.

ResScholar (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There may be no false information in the copyright template. The work was published in New York the same year by a different publisher: what eventually became a sister firm of London's Lawrence and Wishart that was called International Publishers. Unknown how the one month rule applies here. If it was less than a month, the template is good enough as it applies even to never-registered works for all the stronger reason. If it was more than a month, it's a URAA restoral case. ResScholar (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted On Landed Property per the notes above. Das Kapital Volume Two has already been deleted and re-created from a different source. Selected Essays by Karl Marx may or may not be copyvio based on the above discussion of the one-month rule; I'd wager there's no way to find out whether it's copyvio or not, so should it be deleted? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
NVM, apparently {{PD-URAA-same-year}} exists, so I have tagged it with that and left it alone. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone care to create OPL3 and curate[edit]

The following discussion is closed: done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that the UKGov is now up to OPL3 and we are still at OPL1. If someone has the time it would be great if we could do a review of our licensing in that space and see what is the the best means to have our licences. We may wish to disamigbuate our licenses, or just update, or build some redundancy into the existing template for the versions that we need. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done : moved {{OPL}} to {{OPL1}} and updated links, and created {{OPL3}}. Is there anything further to be done here? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

1945 UK Labour Party Manifesto[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Moved to Canadian Wikilivres:1945 UK Labour Party Manifesto--Jusjih (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
There were a number of UK political party manifestos uploaded, those that were less than 70 years old I have deleted as copyright violations. This work is not labelled with an author, and as being 1945 is now more than 70 years old. It will presumably not have been published in the US. To me it is probably covered by 95 years, or maybe not in public domain by 1 January 1996, however, it needs discussion rather than immediate deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any reason it would have been in the public domain in the UK by 1996, so it should be still in copyright in the US. I can see the possibility of publication in the US; perhaps the New York Times or some other major newspaper or journal might have got a contemporary copy for publication. I don't see a copy of it in the New York Times online archive index (which subscribers have full access to up to 1980), but it's still possible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Move per Canadian Wikilivres:Help:Public domain? With sources found.[21] [22]--Jusjih (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The afternoon tea book & What shall we have for breakfast?[edit]

The following discussion is closed: information provided
Status check on these two turn of the century cookery works, based on the dates I am

saying PD-US-1923 and PD-UK, but wanted a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The IA items are: and respectively.

Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

All we need is PD-US-1923; the second is clearly that. The first has no internal date, but the cover looks like the second, and gives a date of 1915, so I think we're safe on it. I don't know when Helen Edden died, and without that we can't say PD-UK.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Bother. That means until we track down Ms Edden, I can't put them up on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Helen Emma Edden, b. 1852 Fradley, Staffordshire, d. 1929, Kensington, London. I don't see an obituary in 1929. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW C.A. will presumably be Culinary Academy, however, the M. defeats me. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Then again it could be something like "Master of Culinary Arts" hazarding a guess, and I still know nothing. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The Universal Cookery and Food Association had members and licentiates and refers to MCAs and LCAs in their magazine so I am guessing that MCA indicates a member of that association? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki (Felt)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: no decision, see alternate discussion at WS:PD
Nihon Shoki (Felt) is incomplete and if it were complete it would probably be largely redundant with the PD Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697.

The translator appears to be still alive[23] and Nihon Shoki claims that that the translation was published in 2008. I have found very little information about this translation off-wiki, although the fact that Columbia has a PhD candidate with this name and lists the Nihon Shoki as a research interest of his, combined with the fact that "2008" would otherwise be an arbitrary date, leads me to believe it probably exists, but it's almost certainly a copyright-violation unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.

Our current text consists entirely of a list of books (whose copyrightable status is probably questionable) and one short book, but the only reason it isn't a clearer COPYVIO is because it was abandoned in 2011.

Hijiri88 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Nihon Shoki (Felt) gives a link to where the licensing indicates that it should be okay to host. To me this seems to be more a case of whether we should host and suggest that this discussion may be better held at WS:PDbillinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There is already a discussion on this work at WS:PD.Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

US non-Federal government works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted 2 kept 1
Is there a blanket copyright template and policy for works produced by or by officers of US State governments? Not the Federal government, which would fall under {{PD-USGov}}. It seems like {{PD-EdictGov}} could cover some of them, if the work was an edict (per the template: "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents.") Speeches, for example, do not fall under that umbrella.

Here's some examples, all missing licenses (which is why I'm asking because I have no idea what to tag them with):

  1. Whiskey Speech (1952) by Noah S. Sweat - per Wikipedia, speech on the floor of the Mississippi state legislature
  2. We Won't be Quiet (2006) by Rocky Anderson - speech by the mayor of Salt Lake City
  3. Proclamation by His Excellency Bobby Jindal Governor of the State of Louisiana, Dated February 1 , 2008, Convening the Legislature of Louisiana in Extraordinary Session - what it says on the tin; I'm not sure a "proclamation" counts as an edict

Thanks. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Works of state governments are by default copyrighted. We Won't be Quiet should be deleted; there's no question it's copyrighted. That proclamation is an edict, in my opinion, and clearly falls under PD-EdictGov, so it can be kept under that license. The Whiskey Speech is hard; it should be in the public domain, but I can't see any reason why it is. It strikes me as something that everyone has taken as uncopyrighted, and it will never ever but a subject of a court case, but the technicalities of the law argue against it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes about 2) and 3), though, looking at 1) I am more willing to think that it may or may not have been presented on the fly. I am comfortable for the speech element to rule until we are given a take-down. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article, Noah Sweat worked on the Whiskey Speech for months in preparation, so it's definitely no extemporaneous speech. Is there a license I can put on it in the meantime? {{PD-EdictGov}} doesn't seem appropriate. It would be nice to have a "in good faith we believe this to be PD but we can't say why" template. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
According to The Prohibition Hangover, Whiskey Speech is explicitly copyrighted and was renewed in 1980. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Then there it is. The Whiskey Speech should clearly be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Paper and Its Uses.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: file relocated to be local — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Currently this is at commons, but based on the evidence uncovered in a Scriptorium discussion Scriptorium#Index:Paper_and_Its_Uses.djvu the British author was still alive in 1963.

I am therefore making a request here that the file should be made local, as although the the UK copyright may not have expired yet, the work is published prior to 1923 with regards to the US situation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Three articles about Johann Christian Claudius Devaranne[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted 2, kept 1 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I discovered the following three articles on my rounds, translated from German newspaper articles by User:Richard Bartholomew:
  1. Translation:Death Sentence after the "Russian Truncheon Insurgency"
  2. Translation:New Sources about Devaranne
  3. Translation:Wald honors its Freedom Hero Devaranne

Somewhat suspicious about the copyright status of the originals, I discovered that there were discussions between Bartholomew and User:John Vandenberg on the former's talk page. The status appears to be as follows:

  1. The first was published in 2003, and Bartholomew states that permissions were requested from the newspaper; no update was provided as to whether permission was received. This appears to be unquestionable copyvio.
  2. The second Bartholomew states was published in 1933–1935, and the author appears to have died after 1960. Again, almost certainly copyvio.
  3. The third is a bit different. Published in 1933, the author is unidentified save for initials. Could be {{PD-anon-1996}} depending on German copyright law. The newspaper holding the copyright disappeared in 1935, and Bartholomew received a note from the city archivist stating that reproduction would be acceptable. Bartholomew forwarded this note to ; whether that led to anything or not is beyond my knowledge.

I am inclined to delete the first two, unless there are objections. The third one looks like it could be hostable, but I am curious as to how it one ought to be handled. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

US-PD works in UK[edit]

The following discussion is closed: pre-1923 is PD in the US, but no claims are made that they are PD in the UK or elsewhere —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
According to this article:

According to the article the UK didn't technically apply shorter term between 1956 and 1996. This according to the article means that the established principle of all (US) pre 1923 works being globally PD (as implied by some licensing templates) might not be

This isn't a major concern as English Wikisource is nominally US Hosted (and thus follows US rules which don't apply shorter term in any event.) , but it's a potential headache for some contributors that want to re-use material which the license tags indicate in good faith as being Public-domain.

Perhaps someone would like to update the license tags accordingly and review any affected works accordingly? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The community is aware that pre-1923 applies only to works published in the US. This is why some of our scans are hosted locally rather than on Commons. (Commons requires that the work be PD in both the US and the country of origin.) Which templates in particular were of concern for you? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Well ideally any template that says PD-US (and the expiry date for the US term is after Jan 1st 1956) would need to be updated with an explicit caveat, and the relevant work moved from Commons to being locally hosted. PD-1923 is the most obvious PD template affected by this, but there may be others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-1923}} explicitly states "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S." The caveat is already there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay then. Apologies... I must have been all over the place last night.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems from a little digging that {{PD-1923}} shouldn't be used directly given that {{PD/1923}} does the extended code that would be needed, if the blog postings claim about US works in the UK is accurate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
At the very least it would be "advised" to have year of death for all authors on Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be good, but it's not possible. Some authors we don't know the death date of, and likely will never know the death date of. We do the best we can, but we're not going to make an ironclad rule.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion nominations at Commons for PD-UN work post 1984[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept most; documents can be kept at Commons under {{PD-UN-doc}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The following file are at Commons and have been nominated for deletion. They had been labelled PD-UN here though it seems that Commons is of the opinion that {{PD-UN}} is not an acceptable licence for works published after 1984. We can let the deletions progress and this will affect the transcluded works, which we would need to either recover the underlying works back here, or we can delete these works too. Works effected are

Please make any comment about the files deletion nomination at c:Commons:Deletion requests/2015/06/04 (no. 215 and 216), please make any recommendation about our handling of transcluded works here. Access to the files an be via Portal:Kosovo. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The entire premise for deprecating the UN tag is based on the "old" annex issuance which was superseded and then modified twice more. You can't argue with the Commons know-it-alls-unless-its-not-a-picture-of-a-cute-kitty it seems. fwiw Here's the history (as of 2015, Part V. p. 34) in short...
As for the docs listed above, all except the [last] OSCE one seem to qualify as in the public domain per ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 - I.2.(a) to me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I will move them back to enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That will work fine for this list of false positives this week but unless the PD-UN template is restored to a legit status, I'm afraid this will be an ongoing circle-jerk with Commons. :( George Orwell III (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 - I.2.(a) is a valid license. We'll see how the argument goes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I am going to move the UN related docs back to enWS, and delete the OCSE works as they appear contrary to the conditions on the OCSE website. We can work out our matters with the UN works. If they delete we are covered, if they are kept, then we can delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Many of them were kept at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ombudsperson of Kosovo with the newly minted c:Template:PD-UN-doc, which I am guessing concluded the PD-UN deletion spree. Do we need a local copy of these media files? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Luceafărul--Jusjih (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a translation of Luceafărul by Mihai Eminescu (1850–1889). The underlying work is fine, but the translation is listed as being by Petre Grimm (1888-1944), founder of the English department at the University of Cluj. Google Books shows a couple copies of it, the earliest in the 1964 Rumanian Review, so almost certainly not the first publication. (Romanian) says he did his thesis in 1924, so it's unlikely to be PD-1923. I know that Romania was PD-70 at the end of 1996, but I don't know if the new copyright law in that year changed the length, because the URAA might not have extended Grimm's copyright if it was PD-50 in 1996. Of course, he might have published in Germany or France or the UK instead of Romania, in which case that's moot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, weakly, just in case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
May be too late, but I think this is a Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, unless it was registered and renewed in the U.S. -- Romania was 50 pma on Jan 1 1996 (and their move to 70pma later in 1996 was not intended to be retroactive -- and I believe their implementations of the EU term were also not retroactive, though that is no longer relevant in Romania). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Legislation-CAGov, a.k.a. documents hosted under the auspices of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Templates updated to indicate PD in USA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this is not a proposal for deletion, or at least I hope not—there are a lot of works hosted here under this legislation, and it would be a shame for them to be removed. However, I notice that the order requires as a condition of reproduction that "due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced", which to my understanding does not allow for derivative works. If I am correct, then this may not be compatible with our copyright policy, and I think a discussion on this matter is warranted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Note, I am putting this forward under the assumption that this category is broader than {{PD-EdictGov}} allows for. I could be wrong about this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting conceptually as we would always look to reproduce faithfully, though we would say derivatives can be generated, though derivatives can be described as a omnibus, or components, rather than accurate reproduction. I am comfortable stipulating in our licence tag that derivatives should still represent the condition of reproduction. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
That could be reasonable, though not in the spirit of our policy's "without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)", though reproduction accuracy could be added to the list of acceptable limitations in the copyright policy.
More concerning to me is the fact that, since there is no explicit release to make derivative works, the phrasing of the reproduction order in my mind does not only restrict any such derivative works, but actually removes any implied license to create any in the first place.
An acceptable solution to my thinking would be to treat this license as purely informational, but to require that works so licensed also be licensed under an acceptable license such as {{PD-EdictGov}}, which most of them would be regardless. This approach is already used with some licenses such as {{PD-old-50}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: For the assistance of the community, could you please provide a page and anchor link to the statement that you cite. I personally don't want to get caught up in an overarching concept where a more nuanced set of statements is appropriate. The licences have developed over time, and numbers of governments approach to licensing. It is not WMF's position that should be our approach, so let us explore it appropriately. To crack the vernacular, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is the line from our copyright policy, describing the content we may host: "Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)." Emphasis mine, with the explicit allowances being specifically "simple attribution" and "transmission of freedoms".
More explicitly, from our licensing compatibility page: "Non-derivative works are prohibited on Wikisource, whose license allows end-users and redistributors to make derivative works from all Wikisource content." This page also lists past discussions that establish this consensus.
I actually do want to get caught up in overarching concept: I want to make sure that all works that are hosted under any license that only allow reproduction are actually hostable. I think a nuanced set of statements could address the overarching concept sufficiently, by either clarifying that these licenses aren't non-derivative, or by taking simple and appropriate steps to ensure that such works are also hosted under a different, compatible license, or through some other means I haven't thought of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this accuracy clause any different from the one in the crown wavier license which proceeded {{OGL3}}? A big ask would of course be for Wikimedia Canada to lobby for OGL implementation on Canadian Govt (Crown) works, but I don't see that happening very quickly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
{{OGL3}} explicitly allows anyone to "adapt the Information" and only requires attribution, neither of which is true of {{Legislation-CAGov}}. I don't know whether we have any works based on a comparable crown waiver that preceded {{OGL3}}, but if we do then my concern would apply to those as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is what we do considered a derivative work? We're presenting the original text and graphics without annotation. I think an annotated work -- like Constitution Act, 1867 (annotated) -- would be derivative, but reproducing the unadulterated content appears to be in line with the spirit of the law. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
What we do is not derivative, but our copyright policy mandates that all hosted works are licensed such that anyone can create derivative works if they so wish. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Oooooh. I understand now.
So, firstly, I think anything that we're hosting that's annotated by enWS users is clearly against the original license since that's a derivative work. There's a few works like that, like the Constitution Act I linked previously. And secondly, I do believe that our own CC-By-SA 3.0 license, which allows for derivatives works, is incompatible since we'd be releasing our hosted work with a more permissive license than the original.
From my non-lawyer perspective, I think you're correct in that the license is incompatible with our own licensing. But I think we may want to confirm with a real lawyer? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten about annotations (and user translations too) which are as you say derivative works created by WS users. Good catch. To your other comment: CC-BY-SA applies only to our contributions, and not to third-party content such as hosted works. Third-party content is available under whatever compatible license that it was already under: PD, CC, or whatever. (It would be nice if we had a real lawyer to confirm all our discussions; it would make curating WS:CV so much easier!) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any further thoughts on this? I'm currently thinking to add a US-specific phrase inside {{Legislation-CAGov}} that states: "This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents.""

I'd be curious whether it's even possible for a work to meet {{Legislation-CAGov}} but not {{PD-EdictGov}}. The former includes "consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada" and "reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals"; do those count as "edicts of government" under US law? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Further note: {{PD-INGov}} appears to have the same problem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In PD-INGov, (section 52-1-r, Indian Copyright Act) derivatives are not prohibited (except when the Govt. is selling a parallel version), condition being that a disclaimer be put up that the version is not authorised by the Govt. Hrishikes (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
52-1-r appears to be talking about translations. I think the relevant section is 52-1-q, which makes no mention of a disclaimer. But I could be wrong, it's kind of hard to read Indian Copyright Law with how it's formatted. I think {{PD-INGov}} is fine. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Section 52-1-q permits "reproduction" and "publication" of certain works; 52-1-r permits "translation" of works; neither appears to permit other modification of works. It may be fine, but I think that it's unlikley for INGov to be fine and CAGov to be not fine at the same time. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Derivatives like annotated versions are allowed for INGov material; please see the court judgements cited by Mahitgar at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Problematic work Indian Copyright Law Hrishikes (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: This article linked by Mahitgar states "The judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority is exempted from copyright protection." This sentence itself, if it is part of Indian copyright law, is enough to make such judgments and orders hostable. In that case, if that were the wording used in {{PD-INGov}} I would gladly concede that this license is sufficient to host the judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority. However, neither {{PD-INGov}} nor Indian copyright law appear to provide such broad copyright exemptions, nor do I see these exemptions applied to documents other than court orders and judgments. (I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that I still don't see, in the linked legislation, the freedoms required by our copyright policy. —And keep in mind, that even if {{PD-INGov}} doesn't provide a suitable license, most if not all of these works are still hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, so I'm not suggesting the removal of works that are licensed that way either.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Not that article; please go through para 6 of this landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India and this judgement, based on the earlier one. The cases were about copyright of derivative works (annotated court judgements). The court ruled that copyright of the annotation portion belonged to the editor, and this judgement was based on 52-1-q. This interpretation of the Supreme Court is therefore applicable to any item mentioned in that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Again, only applies to "The act of reproduction of any judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority" (quoted from para. 6), and mentions in passing "the very purpose of making these judgments in public domain". The other document says "The website [i.e. JUDIS] is easily accessible to all and the information available falls within the public domain." So here we have evidence that court judgments are explicitly PD, but not (necessarily) other works covered by 52(1)(q), nor does 52(1)(q) actually say they're PD. In fact, {{PD-INGov}} says the opposite: "This work still copyrighted".
Do you think {{PD-INGov}} could be updated to say that, based on court precedent, works covered by 52(1)(q) appear to be in the public domain, even though 52(1)(q) itself only gives allowance for reproduction and translation, and even then only under certain conditions? And that such documents aren't actually copytrighted after all? OR, that court judgments are explicitly PD based on court precedent, but other works covered by 52(1)(q) are copyrighted and subject to the restrictions of 52(1)(q), and therefore can only be hosted if an additional license (such as {{PD-EdictGov}}) applies? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: The judgement of a court is basically an interpretation of the law of the land. Here 52-1-q was explicitly cited in the judgement. The section itself does not discriminate between various items covered by it. So the items are not separable. All or none will apply here. If the court judgement gives a certain interpretation, it will apply to the whole section, because of lack of discrimination within that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Based in the info you've provided, I've drafted a new, more accurate version of {{PD-INGov}} at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/pd-ingov. What do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Citation should be to the original judgement at . Please read pages 36-39 for understanding the viewpoint of the court. As per my understanding, the term "public domain" as used by the court is different from the sense ascribed in wikiprojects. Basically, the court says (p. 39) that the items covered in the INGov template comes under the definition of "government work" as per section 2(k) and the Government owns the first copyright to these items as per section 17(d). But because of exemption under section 52(1)(q), these are in the public domain and derivative works are permissible. This means that copyright actually does exist; the court uses the term public domain in the sense of a CC license; but permits derivatives without any restriction. Moreover, addition of commentary and other original matter to legislative acts is permitted in 52-1-q itself; the court judgement extends it to court documents. Hrishikes (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. If the term "public domain" were used in the same sense as used in our copyright policy we'd be completely in the clear. If it's used in another sense then I don't know how we are to determine if it is compatible with our policy. The works do need to be "in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition" [namely that they] "can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation" with the only exceptions being simple attribution and transmission of freedoms. This is our policy. If, in your opinion, the words "public domain" used in the Supreme Court decision grant these necessary freedoms, then I am happy with the drafted replacement license tag and I think we can agree that this is sufficient grounds for hosting all of these works at Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Freedoms are not restricted, as far as I can see. Moreover, in practice, annotated versions of laws and judgements are regularly published by reputed publishers. So the template is OK, I think. Hrishikes (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Query, Does Indian law implement database rights? Some of what I was planning very long term was compilation of "Table of effects" where there wasn't one in the scans?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Original matter can be added while reproducing Indian laws as per section 52-1-q-ii of Indian Copyright Act. Hrishikes (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Images used in The Higher Education of Women[edit]

The following discussion is closed: files deleted at Commons despite keep decision at WS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Jasonanaggie has uploaded the following images to Commons: File:Anchoraspsi.png, File:Chapt2header.png, File:Lettert.png, File:Chapter1header.png, File:Letteri.png. They are extracted from File:The Higher Education of Women.djvu. Therefore they are PD/1923. However they have no authorship indicated. The problem is that although the front matter would appear to indicate publication in London and New York, I cannot find information about exact dates, meaning it might count as a non-US work, which might invoke Commons requirements for UK licensing information. This would be the stringent rules of c:Template:PD-UK-unknown, which have nt been shown. They are arguably de minimis in the whole work, but suggest evacuating the individual files to Wikisource? In any case, better licensing information should be given.

Also, if you look at commons:Special:ListFiles/Jasonanaggie, there are many other files with deficient information, i.e. no mention of original author or copyright status of the individual work. It appears Jasonanaggie is simply using the default settings without understanding what they mean, or what the requirements for licensing and attribution are. This would appear to be the issue with #Index:Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925).djvu above as well. BethNaught (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm not convinced about de minimis because the whole work is deliberately included. Is it better to evacuate the whole djvu? Or will Commons let us get away with it since it's 150 years old and so probably OK? BethNaught (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think this is rather overkill. If we have to identify the illustrator of dropinitials and text headers we won't be able to host anything. I think that if an illustrator isn't specified then c:Template:PD-UK-unknown is fine. I myself would just copy-paste the license from the containing work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
...we won't be able to host anything. No—I wasn't advocating deletion for any of these files, merely asking whether we should move them to Wikisource where we can host them under PD/1923 without needing to identify the authors. The problem with PD-UK-unknown is that I have no idea what or how much research is legally necessary. I myself would just copy-paste the license from the containing work. But there is no way of knowing where the UK PD rationale for the text (death year 1921) applies to the images... BethNaught (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
My problem with this line of thought is that we have hundreds, possibly thousands, of works ornamented by graphical text decorations and dropinitials, all (or almost all) of which are uncited, and almost certainly created by the publishing house itself. This leads to two observations: 1) the number of cases which don't satisfy PD-UK-unknown is so vanishingly small, that any serious research into the identity of the graphic artist is not worth more than a cursory Google unless someone kicks up a fuss; and 2) If graphic ornaments and other creative embellishments created by the publishing house are not PD, then the containing book is not PD either as it contains copyvio material; since the publishing house is a corporate entity, in jurisdictions like the UK the book as a whole would then not become PD until 70 years after the death of the last surviving person who was a member of the publishing house on the date of publication, which I think is far beyond anyone's reasonable expectation of how this works. Instead, since the book is considered PD after the death of the authoring contributors, I would say that if the book is PD then any publisher's embellishments contained within are PD for the same reason the containing work is. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I let it slide when uploading the djvu to Commons, because it was published 150 years ago: minus 70 years is 80 years, so if the artist was aged say 15, they would almost surely have died before 95 and so would be PD in the UK if we knew their identity. I was "kicking up a fuss" about Jasonanaggie's incorrect and insufficient tagging. If you're going to upload them individually, you really should check their individual copyright status. If someone is happy to take on themselves the burden of proof for PD-UK-unknown, or just to upload the files locally under PD/1923, fine.
I'm not happy with your attitude: you're assuming a "reasonable expectation" and arguing from it, rather than from the law, and I think your analysis about "last surviving member" is faulty. That said, I would have let slide the question about the djvu if you hadn't started spouting dubious and wrong assertions ("just copy-paste the license", "we won't be able to host anything"). Now the separate images have been removed from the transcription, it's a matter for Commons, and I suggest this discussion be closed. BethNaught (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught: I apologise if my words were inflammatory. I admit that I was rather exaggerating the situation. If you want to leave this discussion alone, I understand. I do hope, however, that my dubious and wrong opinions will be corrected, and that a good consensus for how to deal with this sort of situation can be reached. If you want to leave that for someone else to deal with, that's perfectly alright.
I do think that a DJVU (or other) file that contains an illustration that is copyvio, cannot be hosted unless that illustration is excised. This is true here and also on Commons. If File:Anchoraspsi.png does not meet the conditions for hosting as free content, then neither does File:The Higher Education of Women.djvu. Conversely, if File:The Higher Education of Women.djvu is actually PD, then any excerpt from it must also be PD. For this reason, I do sincerely believe that you can just copy-paste the license. The only time I can think of that this will fail, is if the license of the DJVU file is wrong in the first place. Of course, the excerpts may be also hostable under a different license or PD rationale as well, but that's beside the point.
It has also been my experience that graphical embellishments of this kind rarely, if ever, identify the creator. It is my understanding that, unless otherwise noted, they are pretty much always the creation of the publishing house itself. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have based on the works I've proofread and researched. I do not know whether to treat such illustrations as the work of an anonymous person, or the work of the publishing house itself. In the former case, c:Template:PD-UK-unknown is correct. In the latter, then, by UK law for copyright to a group of people, the copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the last known member of the group. That is my understanding. I am no expert in copyright law. I could be wrong.
Again, I apologise for any offence given, for bad attitude, and dubious or wrong assertions. It is my hope for this, and every other discussion on WS:CV, that we all can improve our understanding of copyright laws and their application to the works we want to host. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I think I understand you better now—thank you for explaining more clearly. You are indeed correct that if the DjVu has been properly tagged, it is OK to copy the relevant tags to the file descriptions. My beef with your statement is then, that the DjVu tagging may be faulty. In this case, the solution is to have more detailed tagging of the DjVu files on Commons to ensure that all the different parts of the book are accounted for. At some point soon I will go through my Commons uploads to ensure this is the case. BethNaught (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Works that are commissioned by the publishing house at that point of time had the copyright of the publishing house (corporate ownership), rather than independent copyright of the author. So it is my understanding that we would have had fifty years from the time of publication. This was the case even to later in the 20thC 1956 Act. They are not PMA-rated. Either way, these works are soooo old, a 21 year old in 1866 would have been 100 in 1945 [PD-70+], it sounds reasonable to call it PD-old and let us move on. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    The 1995 regulations extending the UK to 70pma revived some old copyrights, but I don't pretend to understand the nuances, and as you say, it's almost certainly fine under current law. So at this point I'm happy to go with it. Sorry for the drama... BethNaught (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    Could you perhaps point me to the legislation that says copyright belonging to a publishing house lasts 50/70 years from publication? I used to think that was the case, but when I actually looked into the legislation the only relevant text I could find was the one that specified 50/70 years after the death of the last person in the group. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    BethNaught; Only for works where author died after 1944/5. Re corporate, Maybe I am mistaken, either way it does not belong to the author, and it will not be in perpetuity, it has to have some anchor. The 1867(?) and 1911 laws are what need to be applied to this work to bring it out of copyright prior to the 1956 Act. And for an 1866 work, I am not wishing to run around further. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Note @BethNaught: @Billinghurst: @Jasonanaggie: these files have been deleted at Commons per uploader request. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Merci, it is much appreciated! -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
FFS. The files should not have been deleted, they will now will be recreated for the work anyway. I will address at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
These files have been undeleted by me at Commons. 06:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The End and the Beginning: The Book of My Life[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted moved to user space —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The project has just started. Contributor intends to post translation of a German work under CC license. Original published in 1929, author died in 1951. Is the original PD as per Austrian law? Hrishikes (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
According to the OpenBookPublishers' website, the translation is CC-BY-NC-ND, which is not a compatible license for hosting on Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright in author's home country[edit]

The following discussion is closed: copyright in home country but not US can be hosted locally; ok to add Weber's work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't seem to figure out if this is listed in any of the help documents (and do we really need so many help documents on Copyright? Seriously. Not sure how we expect anyone to find any information in them.)

The basic question is: if I have a work that I know to be PD-US, but that is not PD in the home country of its' authors/translators, can it be hosted on Commons or must it be hosted locally on enWS?

Long form:

I'm interested in bringing in Max Weber's "From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology." It's on IA here: Weber died in 1920, and the translators died in 1978 and 1962. It was published for the first time -- in the US -- in 1946, with a copyright notice. A copyright renewal would have had to happen in 1974, then, which I could not find and think, therefore that this is now PD in the US (which would explain why IA has it.)

However I think it's still copyright in Germany since they use death + 70 (or maybe 50.) This would mean that since translator Hans Heinrich Gerth died in 1978, it's still copyright in Germany until 2048 (or maybe 2028.) If this is the case, where it's PD-US but not PD-Germany, can the work be hosted on Commons? Or does it have to live on enWS itself? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's not PD in the author's home country, then it won't be hosted on Commons, and must instead be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If it was first published in the US, does not that make it a US work, regardless of the nationality of its translator? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that it was first published in the US. It may have been published simultaneously, or within the same year, in West Germany, but I wouldn't know how to check. All I know is that the copyright date is 1946, and it was published in the US in 1946. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
For Commons upload, German copyright will apply for the original; for the translation, if the original is PD, then US copyright if first published in US; both US and German copyright if first published in Germany. So, that aspect needs to be checked. No non-US publication is mentioned on the title page and colophon; copyright is held by US publishers, so you can upload it in Commons under template PD-US-not renewed. For checking, you can use this page and subsequent pages. Seems that the 1946 edition was US-only and the London edition was published in 1947. Hrishikes (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If Weber died in 1920 and Germany is 70 pma, then the original is PD in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of court submissions[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Court submissions are copyvio unless expired or released by author —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
A court submission (not transcribed here) has been challenged at Commons on the license of {{PD-USGov}}. It is one that we need to which we need to pay attention and look to how this impacts us and how such works are licensed, and whether we should even host court submissions. I am wondering whether the re-publication if undertaken has been more based on fair use, rather than anything else. If it is fair use, then that has not been considered within scope.

While the work is not here, there are other such similar works here and we need to how we may wish to manage such cases— billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it's clearly not {{PD-USGov}} since it's not a work of the Federal government. I've usually used {{PD-EdictGov}} on non-Supreme Court decisions since that particular license includes the phrase "judicial opinions". (Of course, {{PD-EdictGov}} comes with its own license-specific can-of-worms, but we won't mention that now.) We may want to consider a specific PD-CourtDecision tag?
From my understanding of this blog post -- -- all judicial opinions are not copyrightable in the United States, and the blog makes a good case for state statutes as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not a court decision, it is a submission to the court. In this case legal representation of the plaintiff. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Once submitted to the court, it becomes part of the public record. Or, at least, that was my understanding of the process .... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That is the point of this exercise. While it may become a public record, and available as fair use, what part of the law, or legal decision, abstains it from copyright provisions sufficiently for us to reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this not the same issue we had a few years ago with Green Eggs and Ham in the public record due to being read during a parliamentary debate? If I recall correctly, the consensus for that was no, a copyrighted work does not become PD in such cases (or else there was no consensus either way), so it seems to be that such would be the case here as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
According to this article, a court found that republishing court submissions was fair use, but acknowledged that they were copyrighted. So I think that's our answer; fair use isn't allowed on WS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Namibia, Land of the Brave[edit]

The following discussion is closed: no contra-indication, will add —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Namibia, Land of the Brave, national anthem of Namibia, is not (yet) hosted on Wikisource. I'm not sure if I understand the copyright status of this work.
  • Written by Alexei Droeseb, clearly copyrighted at first
  • Copyright was transferred to the Government of Namibia in 1991
  • The text was then published in an edict of government in 1991

So the question is: does the text become public domain in the United States due to being an excerpt of an edict of government, OR should this text be removed from the Act when I get around to adding the Act to Wikisource? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Chaos[edit]

The following discussion is closed: replaced with pre-1923 transcluded copy —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a Dutch (British?) work by an author who died 1946 that was published after 1923. It is most assuredly still copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The header of The Chaos says it was first published in the 1929 5th edition of Drop Your Foreign Accent, which is attested by some online sources [24][25]. However, other online sources, including Wikipedia, state that it first appeared in the 1920 4th edition instead [26][27][28]. Naturally, if it appeared in the 1920 edition, it is PD in the US and hostable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
In works like this, with both PD editions and later editions with unknown changes, we really should get scan backing. Unfortunately, Hathitrust doesn't have an old copy, and judging from Worldcat, there's not a pre-1932 copy in the US. Gallica doesn't seem to have scans, though I'm a little hampered by my lack of French. Is there a major Dutch analog to Hathitrust or Gallica?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
This article seems to be based on scholarly research (and is cited by the other online sources referenced above) and says the poem was first published in 1920 and had 146 lines. This version (linked from [29]) has exactly the same number of lines, so it might be (close to) the first version. Nardog (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's a scan of a version that appeared in the 1922 book Ruize-rijmen by the author himself but as pseudonym Charivarius (hence under the guise of a reprint with permission). A text version is available here. This is surely in the public domain, I assume? Nardog (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Updated the page with the 1922 version. @Beleg Tâl: You might want to hide the older revisions. Nardog (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Book of the West (vol. 2).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept locally, deleted at commons —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
In checking the illustration credits I found a possible problem with this, namely

F.D. Bedford is listed who seems to be Francis Donkin Bedford (1864–1954), meaning their artwork isn't out of copyright in the UK.

The book itself IS PD-US though, it just can't be hosted at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly suggest checking Volume 1 which was transcribed previously as well.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you're probably right, so this work should be moved to local. I don't see Bedford cited in Vol. 1, but all the illustrators should be checked. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded the file locally and nominated the Commons version for deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

PD status for new non-USA works that are PD in source country[edit]

The following discussion is closed: question (mostly) answered) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a stupid question. A non-US work that was written/published AFTER the URAA date 1996, and is PD in its source country: is it PD in the USA? I think that such works are frequently presumed to be PD in the USA, but I don't know whether that is actually true. Two examples for context: 1. {{PD-release}}; 2. Works such as national anthems, which are NOT {{PD-EdictGov}}, but which are legally exempted from copyright in their source country. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
PD-release would work like a CC license, without the restrictions. If the copyright-holder releases it, then that is final, no copyright infringement can happen from any country's law. For example, the Government of Tamil Nadu has nationalized scores of books by eminent people (see here) after acquiring the copyright and released them into the public domain. Those books have been included in Tamil Wikisource. Hrishikes (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Kafka translations by Ian Johnston[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted The Judgment, found PD version of Johnston's other translations has a horde of translations of works, under a non-commercial license. For the shorter Kafka works, it links to whose license is ambiguous. We host at least two, A Hunger Artist and The Judgement. The license given is "Students, teachers, artists, and members of the general public are free to download and distribute the following texts without permission and without charge." It lacks permission to publically perform, and explicit permission to sell, as well as limiting the rights to "Students, teachers, artists, and members of the general public" (which could be argued to not limit anything, but it is a legal principle that the exception proves the rule, that if you list four groups that can use the work, you must have intended to exclude people not in those groups.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. The copyright page makes the noncommercial aspect explicit: "No commercial publishing of these materials is permitted, without the written permission of Ian Johnston." I think these can be speedy deleted for this reason. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Note - some of the works on his website are explicitly public domain, e.g. On Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude [30]. I assume that such a notice overrides the sitewide license, but I am open to being corrected. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Further reseach suggests that older versions are free from copyright., —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)