Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2019

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

The Elephant Man and other reminiscences[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
kept as PD —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is this work in PD?— Mpaa (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is PD in the UK & Canada, but not PD in the US until Jan 2019. There is no copyright renewal that I can find (which is good), but the work was published simultaneously in the US & UK, so copyright law for works published in the US in 1923 still applies. We'll have to wait a few months before hosting it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no copyright renewal and it was published simultaneously in the US, it should be (under US law) a US work and thus out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of laziness, I volunteer to take the appropriate action after a suitable discussion period of, say, five months. :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
kept; translation is official and therefore covered under {{PD-EdictGov}}

The original German text is obviously PD per {{PD-EdictGov}}. The English translation is by w:Christian Tomuschat and w:David P. Currie, with revisions by Tomuschat and w:Donald P. Kommers "in cooperation with the Language Service of the German Bundestag". The published 2010 edition claims explicit copyright to the translation belongs to the German Bundestat. Can it be considered PD in Germany and/or the USA, either as an "official" translation or otherwise? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but so long as this is the actual publication of this law in English by the Bundestag, I don't see how c:PD-GermanGov could not apply; it doesn't matter how they produced the translation, only that it is a law published by the German government. I think this is a situation directly comparable to PD-USGov documents that include a (mistaken) "All rights reserved" text. In any case, the consequence of which would be that the translation too is {{PD-EdictGov}} here. --Xover (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some reasons I think it might be copyrighted in the USA:
  • None of Tomuschat, Currie, or Kommers appear to be in the employ of the German government. The fact that the German government is publishing their translation (9+ years after the translation was first issued, mind you) might not make their translation "official" within the context of German copyright law. You will note that {{PD-DEGov}} explicitly excludes third-party translations.
  • The US copyright law referenced in {{PD-EdictGov}} does not mention translations, official or otherwise. Translations are like any other derivative work, and do not automatically inherit the copyright of the translated work, so it seems to me that the translation would need to be exempted from copyright separately from the original edict.
  • Even if the translation were in the public domain in Germany simply by virtue of being published by the Bundestag, this would not on its own put the translation in the public domain in the USA, since being published by a foreign government is not sufficient for exemption from copyright in the USA.
I am not a lawyer either, but that makes me more hesitant to assume PD on a work whose status is not clear-cut. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with all those points as points of concern. But, by analogy, the EU, for example, publish their laws in 27+ languages, and all of them are official: all of them are the law. The "official work" (amtliches werk) copyright exception is not limited to works in German; it carves out all works in which the public interest is strong, typically because they have some form of legal or regulatory effect. What licensing or work for hire agreement the Bundestag had with its translators or the graphics shop that produced the cover page is not our concern: it is a work with regulatory effect (strong public interest) published by the German government. If they failed to obtain the necessary rights prior to publication that is the Bundestag's problem, not ours. But to your specific points...
  • Is there any reason to assume the translation was made by Tomuschat et al, as opposed to them being credited with helping "the Language Service of the German Bundestag" with the official translation? They might have merely provided advice rather than any actual text for all we know. The document credits everyone who contributed to it, but only non-government entities are called out by name. The Bundestag eagle logo, for example, was created by Ludwig Gies, who gets credited, along with a graphics shop that touched it up later on. They tell you who printed the thing, and the lunch lady that catered the committee meeting (I kid of course). For this concern to be an issue the translation would have had to have been made independently by Tomuschat et al and then later adopted by the Bundestag. Not impossible, but absent indication that this is the case, Occam forbids us from assuming it to be so.
  • I agree that {{PD-EdictGov}} does not have special provisions for translations. Its applicability depends entirely on the copyright status of the translated document in Germany, not the original German document.
  • If the document is PD in Germany it is PD in the US, absent any complicating factors like the URAA. Further, the determining factor for whether the work is PD in Germany is its "officialness": if it is PD in Germany then {{PD-EdictGov}} applies for the same reason.
Bottom line is that we have no direct guidance on the legal status here (that I have found), so we have to rely on our own legal analysis. And your conclusion will essentially depend on where on the scale of precautionary-ness you fall down. --Xover (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a document is PD in its home country has no effect on its status in US law, barring the URAA. I don't know if it is covered by PD-EdictGov as a translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: I think that you have convinced me that the German understanding of "official work" covers this official revised publication of the translation, as per {{PD-DEGov}}, regardless of whether Tomuschat and Currie were independent third-party translators when they first published their translation. So the translation must be PD in Germany despite the copyright notice in the text. Unfortunately Prosfilaes is correct; PD in Germany does not imply PD in USA. I don't think {{PD-EdictGov}} can be reasonably used for the translation unless this English text is also officially promulgated as law. I hope we can find some precedent or legal something-or-other in US law that will allow us to host official translations, otherwise we may have several other works to delete as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes, @Beleg Tâl: Government Edicts (which is defined widely), explicitly including translations, are ineligible for copyright in the US. Thus: if it is PD in Germany, through being an edict of government, it is PD in the US, by being an edict of a (foreign) government. The notice you see on the template about "not including translations" refers to independent third party translations (which would indeed have their own separate copyright), not any limitation on what is covered under the Edict of Government exception. --Xover (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you a different scenario:
  • The Government of Canada issues copies of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in dozens of languages.
  • The Charter and all its translations are explicitly copyrighted in Canada.
  • The English and French versions are authoritative legal documents, and are clearly "edicts of government" according to American copyright law.
  • Fortunately, the copyright status in Canada does not affect the copyright status in the USA, and so the English and French versions are in the public domain in the USA as "edicts of government".
  • The versions that are neither in English or French have no legal status in Canada. Do they count as "edicts of government" under American copyright law?
The document we are discussing is the same.
  • The Bundestag of Germany issues copies of the Basic Law in several languages.
  • The Basic Law and all official translations are explicitly in the public domain in Germany.
  • The German version is an authoritative legal document, and is clearly an "edict of government" according to American copyright law.
  • Unfortunately, the copyright status in Germany does not affect the copyright status in the USA. However, the German version is still in the public domain in the USA as an "edict of government".
  • The versions that are not in German have no legal status in Germany. Do they count as "edicts of government" under American copyright law?
Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found this relevant piece of information: "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" (from the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). So this brings us back full circle: it looks like it is PD in the USA if the translators were hired by the Bundestag to prepare the translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of (and haven't found) any precedent or direct guidance on whether force of law is actually required to qualify as an edict of government. On the one hand, Government Edict is defined widely (and the exceptions very narrowly), on the other the underlying principle is the principle that all men are presumed to know the law (in the term's widest possible sense) so the written law must be made available to them. On the third hand "the law" includes all sorts of things that are not, strictly speaking, a law. I'm currently doing some digging into the German end of this (the German framework for copyright is… weird). --Xover (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found that the 1991 hard-copy publication listed at Talk:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as the source of this text is actually a completely different translation than the one made by Tomuschat and Currie which is currently under discussion. Which of course means that this translation does not necessarily predate the Bundestag publication, and further research suggests that the 2008 publication by the Bundestag is the original publication. This makes it rather unlikely that this is a third-party translation reprinted by the Bundestag, as I had previously suspected; it's now almost certain that this was prepared for the Bundestag directly. I am inclined to leave it at that, allowing this work as a "translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about ready to tear my hair out looking for something definitive that addressed our questions directly, when by pure happenstance I ran across c:COM:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Official works which says "By German law, documents are in the public domain (gemeinfrei) if they have been published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information." (my underline). Based on that, the translation should be public domain as "official work" regardless of force of law in Germany: if the definition is wide enough to cover "public information" then this translation of a law certainly falls within it. And if it matches the public domain exception of PD-GermanGov it would, in my opinion, be unreasonable to assume that it would not fall under the PD-EdictGov exception in the US (they are complementary in purpose). In other words, unless we run across any directly contradicting guidance, or evidence that undermines the work-for-hire assumption, I conclude that we can lean on Commons having figured this out previously. I could have wished that they had included their legal analysis that led to that conclusion so I could check that it holds up, but I am perfectly well prepared to trust that they know what they are doing on this. --Xover (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The Idealistic Reaction Against Science (1914).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
kept, file moved to local —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be hosted on Commons, original author died in 1964, so it's not PD in the EU. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the underlying file here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn as linked source (via Wyayback) confirms CC release, and uploader is the author submitting his own paper.

Where is the evidence of a Creative Commons release? The source links given don't seem to work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of the file is the author Lyubomir Ivanov himself. The linked source gives CC-BY claim at bottom of page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - OTRS Ticket?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of the Spider/Preface[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept. Determined to be US edition pre 1924, compliant with policy so discussion resolved.

Specfically - The Life of the Spider/Preface , The author Maurice Maeterlinick died in 1949, so in respect that section may be an issue outside the US (at least for a few months). It's clearly PD in US, as a pre 1924 publication. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1949 means PD in pma. 70 countries, or near enough anyway. And since this was first published in the US that is the country of origin. But we could delete it now and tag it to be undeleted 6 months from now if needed. --Xover (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hid the content, anyway.. The original author is French, so I'm not sure if the Preface in this work is the original or a Translation from the French, I can revert based on the discussion here. It is ONLY this section that is affected. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it's Maurice Maeterlinck, not Maurice Maeterlinick (the typo is in the original scan). I've deleted the typo version. Whoever restores the Preface should SIC the name at the end of the Preface (it's spelled correctly elsewhere in the work). --Xover (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's PD in the US, so it's not really our issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have unhidden the content since it is PD in the USA and therefore 100% compliant with our policy. Since the US is the country of origin, it is also compliant with the policy at Commons. If anyone wants to stick a {{PD/1923}} tag on that page, that would be ok as a courtesy, but nothing more than that is needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The header needs adjusting, so that it credits Maeterlinck, as well. I'm not sure how to do this as the header seems integrated with the pages tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn/ resolved per User:Beleg Tâl ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
On Commons and tagged as PD due to lack of renewal. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Published in Baltimore in 1957. Is this edition in PD in the US? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons page claims it's not renewed, and https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals doesn't turn up a renewal for it, so I don't see why not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It says that now, but didn't before. I have been in conversation with the person who uploaded the file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrabiblos[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Text is public domain as a US work with no-renewal. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This work is identified as translated by "J. M. Ashmand", which seems to be the result of copying from a website that makes that claim.

However, the text seems to be the translation by Author:Frank Egleston Robbins for the Loeb Classical Library. The date I have for that text is 1940, though it might have been published earlier.

Can I get confirmation of my suspicions? This may need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the advertisement and proem is from Ashmand's, then it restarts with the proem of Robbins' through to the end of the text, judging from some randomly selected passages. Prosody (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is volume 435, first published in 1940. The start of Book 2 is the same, so presumably it's mostly or completely derived from the Loeb. I don't see copies available online as public domain, but it was not renewed, and has no copyright notice on the "Printed in Great Britain" 1964 edition I'm looking at. It's generally believed that all the early Loebs are PD, but IIRC, WWII complicated the both sides of the pond printing and thus the PD status. I really don't know; @Clindberg:, are you more familiar with the legal issues here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: I don't see a renewal for the Robbins work, published in 1940 apparently by Harvard University, and as an American (living in the U.S.) there are no possible URAA issues even if first published in Great Britain. So it would seem that text is in the U.S. public domain either way (Ashmand's translation being from 1822). I don't think that WWII would have any bearing. There may have been some forgiveness for renewals which needed to be filed during the war, but those would have all been pre-1923 works in the first place, and the original publication appears to have been in the U.S. (before the war started there) anyways. The renewal would have had to be filed by Robbins' estate in 1967 or 1968. It appears Robbins lived from 1884 - 1963. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a page for clean-up? This text does look copyright-free, but is a mix of sources and needs some work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince (Marriott)/Introduction[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn. --Xover (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being:

Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/11 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/12 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/13 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/14 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/15 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/16 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/17 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/18 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/19 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/20 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/21 Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/22

per the concern raised here - Wikisource:Scriptorium#The_Prince_(Marriott), given a lack of clarity about the status of the introduction which is credited to w:Herbert Butterfield (d. 1979) . Given that the latest the scans can be is around 1926, and Butterfield later wrote a work on Machevelli, I don't find it implausible that he could have written an introduction for a 1920's reprint ( Albiet uncredited in it.).

The actual translation (Marriot) is not affected. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Index would be Index:The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott).djvu, and I'm certainly tempted to separately nominate that for deletion as well ( despite having set up the index page), to ensure the version on Wikisource is KNOWN to have an unambiguous status.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curioser and curioser - https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Search/Home?lookfor=%22Marriott,%20W.%20K.%22&type=author&inst=

The Butterfield credit doesn't appear until post-war editions.. Hmm...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the quote 'In translating "The Prince" my aim has been [...]" on the second page of the introduction, I would assume that the introduction is by Marriot. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly concerned about a work that says it's a 1926 printing of a 1908 edition. It's clearly PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn but will reinstate if new information comes to light. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Non-Mathematism The Origin of the Mind and Concept of God.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn by nominator. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatible or unclear license, This says copyright, the transclusion says CC-SA. They can't both be correct, unless there is an OTRS for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: It's OTRS ticked #2011030810007603. It's documented on the File's info page, which is the usual place for such info. --Xover (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Thanks. 15:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand PD Exempt and speeches[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as exempt official work. --Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:

  1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
  2. Constitution and legislations
  3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
  4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports
  5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.

It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukkakukaku: I have no idea, but I'd wager that speeches don't count. It might depend on how the transcription of the speech was first published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work is a report of a paper delivered at a SEAMEO symposium. "The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) is a regional intergovernmental organization established in 1965 among governments of Southeast Asian countries to promote regional cooperation in education, science and culture in the region". The Ministers of Education of the members sit on its council, and it appears to be hosted by Thailand. The working language is almost certainly English (the members have no other language in common that I can see), so the translation is by the Minister or his Ministry. In other words, you can probably take your pick of the three possible reasons for copyright exemption in 7.2(3).
    So, unless anybody wants to argue otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and close this as Symbol keep vote.svg Keep fairly soon. --Xover (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Lojban Language (1997)/Chapter 1[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn. --Xover (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free work. (But The Complete Lojban Language (1997)/Chapter 21 is in public domain.) --神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it non-free? The license says "Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this book, either in electronic or in printed form, provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this book, provided that the modifications are clearly marked as such, and provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one." That sounds perfectly fine; e.g. the CC-BY-SA says "to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work."--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; if the only restrictions are attribution and share-alike, then it is acceptable under our copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes, @Beleg Tâl:User:Jcb deleted most of the images in this work and c:Template:CLL on Commons, so I asked this question:-)(Also asked at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Are_images_in_s:The_Complete_Lojban_Language_allowed_to_be_uploaded_here?.)--神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. It is free, and related files in Commons were restored. --神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Socialism and the great state.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept. Simultaneously published in the UK and US, so country of origin is US for copyright and Commons policy purposes. --Xover (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Work is PD-US, However it's not PD-UK in respect of Cicely Hamilton's contributed chapter, she died in 1952.

I would suggest localising the scans/file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also - Index_talk:Socialism_and_the_great_state.djvu for the other authors not already linked from the Index page itself. There were some I couldn't identify without more reserach. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason to delete it from Commons. It seems the publisher published it simultaneously in UK and US, so US is considered the country of origin. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Essays by Karl Marx translated by Henry James Stenning[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as concurrently published in the US and without renewal. --Xover (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Set of translated works by Marx that have been held by us for a long period. They are noted as the translations being published in 1926, and confirmed as first published, and the author having died 1971 (FreeBMD date). Author is British, and the linked archive.org reprint was during the life of the author, so not a sign that the reprint was able due to no copyright. Archive.org has numbers of Stenning's works[1], though they would all appear to be in copyright.

It would appear that unfortunately that these works are copyright in UK, and US and not out of copyright until at least 95 years after publication (2021). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the 1926 edition was a US publication (New York, International publishers, 1926); was its copyright renewed? Or, maybe, there wa an older British-only publication? Ankry (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I can see a book review in Marxian Essays. — Aberdeen Press and Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland), Thursday, April 01, 1926; pg. 3; Issue 1040.billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst, @Ankry: So the conclusion is delete as copyvio then? --Xover (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was that this work could be simultaneously published in UK and US due to this US edition (URAA does not apply then). However, we do not know the exact dates of both editions, so we cannot be absolutely sure if this happened during the following 30 days. As HathiTrust+ claims this edition copyrighted in US, this may be a doubt. Summarizing, I neither support nor oppose the deletion here. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a little digging… The 1926 US edition is by International Publishers, a publishing house set up in 1924 by Alexander Trachtenberg (among others), to publish various socialist material. They were associated with the Socialist and Communist Party USA, and were at times considered the party's publishing arm (Trachtenberg denied this vehemently). They published new translations and editions of the standard socialist texts, but were on launch warned (by the party, from whom they had requested a list of socialist bookstores in the US) that another publisher had already covered the market for Marx, and it would not be economical to commission new editions of his works. The name, however, reflects their market position: as much as 80% of their print runs were sold to Europe and the Soviet Union, and they frequently bought titles published outside the US for resale domestically. It thus seems overwhelmingly probable that this what happened with this work: it was uneconomical to commission a new translation, but to republish the then-new UK translation would let them publish something by Marx.
The UK edition was received for review (probably before actual publication) at The Guardian on 26 February 1926. The US edition was announced in the Chicago Tribune on 20 March 1926 (probably already on sale then: it's not "books received for review" it's a list of new books for sale). I'm going to go ahead and call that "published within 30 days", or near enough for any reasonable assessment.
The work is thus first published in the US in 1926, and is not subject to the URAA. A search of the copyright renewals turns up nothing related to this title; but it does turn up renewals for others works by Marx that Trachtenberg edited or translated himself (20 years later). In other words, I conclude that this work is out of copyright in the US due to expiration in 1954 (first publication + 28 years), and can be kept here (or on Commons if we can find a scan). @Billinghurst, @Ankry: Do you concur? --Xover (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept. Copyright expired due to lack of renewal. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whose edition and when? If 1963 did someone check for a renewal because the author page for the nominal editor claims most of the editors works are still copyright? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't clear? It says "From Kant: On History, edited by Lewis White Beck (1963)." right on top. There's a link at the top of this page to where you can check renewals; I see none for "Kant: On History" and don't see any that would cover this by "Lewis White Beck".--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I concur with Prosfilaes. I haven't been able to track down a scan of this so I can't tell whether there was a copyright notice, but there is certainly no renewal for it under any reasonable search term, so its US copyright expired at the end of 1991 (1963+28). Outside the US it may very well be in copyright, but in this context it is only the US status that matters. Internationally it may be relevant that while Beck is listed as editor and wrote the introduction, the NLA also lists Robert E. Anchor and Emil L. Fackenheim as translators. Depending on how precise the IP who added the text was, this particular text may have been translated by any one of them (and term of copyright might thus be relative to their death dates). --Xover (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Natural History (Rackham, Jones, & Eichholz) - Vol 05.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
kept; public domain in US, and publishing in UK simultaneously

Could I have confirmation that this book's copyright has not been renewed before I put it on my to do list, please? Cheers Zoeannl (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no renewals for this work under title, author, or translator. --Xover (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeannl: The mentioned author is British, so we would need to check for first publication in the UK, it is not going to be US publication alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The series was published in both the US and the UK at the same time, and the introduction makes it clear the translator was working on this translation for this series when he died, so this is obviously the first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So good to go? Zoeannl (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The work was first published in 1950; concurrently in the UK and US; does not contain a copyright notice (so was never protected by copyright, strictly speaking); and there was no renewal. Its US copyright, to the degree it had such in the first place, thus expired after 1978 (1950+28). In the UK the term is pma. 70, so the majority of the work entered the public domain after 2014 (1944+70). Note that since Rackham died before finishing this volume and it was completed by w:E. H. Warmington, those parts are in copyright in the UK until 2058 (1987+70). Since those parts do not appear to be distinguishable in any way, and the introduction implies they are relatively minor, I do not think we need to worry overly much about them even in a UK copyright context (and UK status is not relevant to policy neither here nor on Commons for this work).
Note that I have corrected the date of publication for the file on Commons. 1938 is the first printing of the first volume in the series. The 5th volume was first printed in 1950, so that is the relevant date for copyright purposes. --Xover (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fraternal greeting from the free Macedonian state - 1944 and other works[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Copyright issues resolved.

Contributions by GStojanov (talkcontribs) from a work published in 1985. The issues that I need to see resolved are

  1. The original works are from the 1940s, and the original authors are not dead by 70 years. Examples.
  2. The translator in the 1985 work has no indication that these works are out of copyright for the translator.

We need to know the copyright status of the work, and did it have any copyright notice? Full name of the work, where it was published, was it co-published in the States, and if yes, was it registered in the years following publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The full name of the book is: "Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State", There are two publishers: Kultura and Makedonska Kniga. The main editor is: Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. It is published in Skopje, Macedonia (still in Yugoslavia back then) in 1985. It was not co-published in the States. I'm not sure if it was registered? How would I check that? The ISBN for the book is: CIP- NUB "Kliment Ohridski", Skopje 949.717.02/.07(093.2). The book does not have any copyright notices associated with it. GStojanov (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I am reading this page, it seems that most, if not all, of these documents fall under: {{PD-EdictGov}} GStojanov (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright of works that were not published in the USA does not require registration, so in general a work published in Macedonia/Yugoslavia in the 1940s will be automatically copyrighted in the USA. Even if {{PD-EdictGov}} covers the original documents, it will not cover the English translation unless the English translation is officially issued by the Macedonian government. It will also not cover any editorial content, including the choice and arrangement of works included in the collection. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked in [2] and I didn't find the book. So it isn't registered in US. According to: [3] the book is in public domain since it is published between: 1 January 1978 - 1 March 1989 and "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996". So I think that the book is in public domain. GStojanov (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, but to be "public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996" it would be necessary for all authors, including the translator and editor, to have died before 1926, which we know is not the case; or, for the work to be an official translation issued by the government and therefore ineligible for copyright in Macedonia. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both publishers: Kultura and Makedonska kniga were government run and government owned. The translator was contracted by them to do the translation. Both the Macedonian and the English edition of the book were published by these two government run publishers. GStojanov (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, excellent! In that case, it seems very likely that this work is in the public domain. Do you have a scan of the entire publication that you can upload? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a scan. I have the actual books. But that is a good idea, I will make a scan and upload it. GStojanov (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────┘
@Billinghurst, @Beleg Tâl: Are we then in agreement that the copyright issues are resolved? --Xover (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the copyright issues are resolved, and the only outstanding issue is the sourcing. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then, absent objections, I propose we close this since the copyright issues are resolved. @GStojanov: Please don't forget about the scan just because the copyright issue gets closed. We strongly prefer scan-backed works here. Drop a note at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help if you need assistance with creating a DjVu or similar. --Xover (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia's Song[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn, as discussion and further research indicates the initial analysis was flat out wrong. Work is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

Poem by Vincent Starrett (1886–1974) first published in Weird Tales in April 1938, and thus in US copyright until 2033 (pma. 70 is 2045). --Xover (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral since the nom may not be correct —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The renewal records for 1966 (28 years from first publication) do not appear to mention either the author or the periodical in which this work appeared, which would make this {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, as automatic renewal does not apply to pre-1964 works, and PMA is irrelevant to pre-1978 published US works (barring URAA problems, which I gather are not present here). But more research may be in order. Not all 1938 works are in US copyright until 2033; only those whose copyrights were validly renewed are. Tarmstro99 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarmstro99: AIUI, Weird Tales was generally renewed, and some (but not all) individual authors also renewed their own contributions. --Xover (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now I'm confused…
    Up until 1961 (renewals for original issues up to 1934), various companies file renewals for all issues of Weird Tales. From 1962 (1935- issues) I stop finding renewals for Weird Tales. I do, however, find registrations—by Ziff-Davies—for new issues of Amazing Stories, which were previously renewed by the same companies that renewed Weird Tales. This holds true up to 1966 (last one I checked), when Ziff-Davies begins renewing issues of Amazing Stories for 1939–1940 but stops registering new issues. I surmise that a change of ownership took place in 1961 and the new owners failed to renew any further copyrights, at least for the five years following.
    And unless there are yet more weird exception rules in play here, this should mean that anything from 1935–1940 that was not individually renewed by the author is definitely PD-US-no-renewal! Issues post-1940 need to be checked to see if this holds true for later years.
    In any case, I'm close to concluding that "Cordelia's Song" is PD-US-no-renewal and that this nom was in error. I'll need to have a closer look at the other Weird Tales related noms here as well in light of this. @Beleg Tâl: It seems the analysis in my nom was misleadingly incomplete, if you want to reassess… --Xover (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep User:AdamBMorgan did a lot of work in finding renewals for Weird Tales, both issue and contribution. Weird Tales/1938#April shows no issue renewal and no renewal on this work, so this should be clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prosfilaes: Mrhrmph. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" It's not enough to note renewals found, we need to document renewals not found but actively checked for; and, not least, add the relevant license tag to the text itself so some overeager gnome doesn't sweep through and needlessly nominate it for deletion. :) --Xover (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Eidolon[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn, as discussion and further research indicates the initial analysis was flat out wrong. Work is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

Short story by Clark Ashton Smith (1893–1961), first published in Weird Tales in January 1935, so in copyright in the US until 2030 (pma. 70 is 2031). --Xover (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep User:AdamBMorgan did a lot of work in finding renewals for Weird Tales, both issue and contribution. Weird Tales/1935#January shows no renewals, so this should be clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Per the discussion above (Cordelia's Song), this issue of Weird Tales is after renewals appears to stop for the magazine, and a search of the records for 1961–1964 revealed no individual renewal for this story. With no renewal by either the magazine or the author, this story should be definitively PD-US-no-renewal. --Xover (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apostille Convention[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Discussion concluded that as an international treaty it is covered by {{PD-EdictGov}} and has been re-tagged accordingly.

A Convention published (corporate author) by the w:Hague Conference on Private International Law (an IGO), whose general statement on copyright is:

Reproduction of the information is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is duly acknowledged.

That is, it is an -NC limitation incompatible with our policy.

Alternately, at the time of signing the following countries were members of the Conference (and must be considered co-authors in this scenario): Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. All these except Portugal and the UK have PD-*Gov copyright exemptions that could possibly be argued to cover an international convention signed by the respective country (which gives it "edict of government"-type authority), and that it is covered by PD-EdictGov in the US. This would still leave us with copyright in Portugal and the UK, but could be considered sufficient to be able to host it on Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an international treaty, isn't it? I'm pretty sure international treaties are covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked on the exact legal definition of a "Convention" vs. a "Treaty", but intuitively I would have said it qualifies as an "international treaty". It certainly functions as one to a layman's understanding. --Xover (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article starts out thus: "The Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, the Apostille Convention, or the Apostille Treaty, is an international treaty" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
do you have any evidence they have enforced an NC? because institutions have a history of putting NC on PD works. and UN is complicated, and conflicted. we could also contact the WiR at UN. Slowking4Rama's revenge 01:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chiming in!
Their enforcement or lack thereof should be immaterial; this issue falls under copyright, not trademarks (where enforcement matters). The -ND limitation is clearly stated in their published license terms and—on available information—not in question. I also do not think the UN is relevant to this particular case, as the HCPIL is an independent IGO and not a part of the UN (except that they seem to have observer status in the UN).
That means that as best I can tell, our only avenue for "country of origin"-PD would be if the community's consensus was that the Hague Conference on Private International Law is not actually the author, for copyright purposes, of the treaty. If the signatories rather then HCPIL are the authors we can apply "government work"-type copyright exceptions where they exist. My initial (superficial) check indicated that this was all the signatories except Portugal and the UK, but if we go that route we would need to check that international treaties like this are actually covered by the respective countries' "government work"-type exceptions.
However, I believe Beleg Tâl's point above was that as an international treaty (which nobody yet has questioned) it should be covered by the US "Edict of Government" exception (PD-EdictGov), making it public domain in the US, and thus within policy on Wikisource on those grounds alone. Unless we see a very good chance that this would actually meet the more stringent Commons standard (US+country of origin), relying on PD-EdictGov would seem to be the sensible path forward. Iff the community agrees that that is the proper application of our policy in this specific case… --Xover (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff, August 12, 2019[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
withdrawn, kept as {{PD-USGov}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does whistleblowing count as falling under official duties for the purposes of {{PD-USGov}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think there's quite a bit of bias speaking, but a government employee is supposed to uphold the law and reporting violations of that is with in their official duties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absent case law anywhere, I'd be sceptical of that. Acting within the law is an implicit part of the duty for all public employees; but the whistleblower institute is a safety mechanism to allow a safe way for employees acting in their personal capacity to report misconduct, including possible violations of the law, that the normal organisational mechanisms have been unable or unwilling to address. I would think whistleblower reports are ipso facto not part of their regular duties. Public records, yes; public domain, no. --Xover (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Then again, there's Garcetti v. Ceballos, where SCOTUS held that for 1st Amendment purposes there is a distinction between speech (whistleblower reports) that falls within the employee's duties and that which pertains to other matters. The Court was divided down the middle, and was addressing 1st Amendment issues rather than the issue we're facing, so there's limited applicability. In the case, the test the majority applied was Ceballos' "interest" in the speech: as a government employee Ceballos by definition had no personal interest in speech related to matters that fell within his official duties, and thus could have no 1st Amendment interest in such speech that merited protection.
As a precedent it is weak, but it does suggest there might be grounds for using subject matter that falls within the official duties rather than acting as part of their official duties as the determining factor for a copyright (exemption) determination. --Xover (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Canadian Singers and Their Songs.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
kept, published more than 95 years ago, so PD

A 1919 work, but some of the poems/songs featured are not necessarily out of copyright...

such as those by Author:Mary Josephine Benson 1965+50= 2015 (which is after the 1996 date for URAA)

A fuller review is requested. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Author:Arthur Stanley Bourinot (1893-1969) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It was published before 1924, and thus is PD in the US. At this point in time, the URAA doesn't matter for works that old.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Household Law (1889)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept. Text was migrated to 1904 edition that is unambiguously in the public domain, scan-backed, and hosted both as a stand-alone edition of the law and within the context of the larger work in which it (our translation) was published.

Sourced to http://core.ecu.edu/hist/tuckerjo/1889law.html, which copied it from http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/3953/, which is clearly labelled "Copyright (c) 1998 by Jeffrey W. Taliaferro. All rights reserved.". --Xover (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The work's talk page links to this 1904 edition of the translated English text in question. Suggest to move to Japan by the Japanese/Appendix A and scan-back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, let's see. First published in the UK in 1904, with no concurrent US publication evident. Editor is Alfred Stead (1877–1933). So UK copyright 1933 + 70 pma. = 2003. US copyright is pre-1923 / publication + 95. URAA would have theoretically restored the (already expired) US copyright. So far so good.
    BUT… this a compendium of works by various prominent Japanese authors, so we need to look at Japanese copyright too. Prior to 30 December 2018, Japan was pma. 50, and the change was not retroactive for already expired works. 2018 - pma. 50 = 1968, so any author who died before 1968 will be PD in Japan. Given they were eminent men in 1904, one may presume they were not entirely spring chickens at that point. Assuming nobody was under 30, and add a further 64 years, we're at 94 years old even for the worst plausible case… Hmm. Yeah, I think it is reasonable to presume all of them were dead before 1968 absent indications to the contrary.
    That'll work. --Xover (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted[edit]

Letter of loaning a statue of the goddess Ishtar to Amenhotep III[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from here, originally from a geocities website that is not available even via wayback machine. Cited authors are Hanson, whose web publications are explicitly noncommercial; Moran, whose work is almost certainly copyright; and Mercer, whose work is also almost certainly copyright —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Exilarch's Letter[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any source for the English translation (Sod Ha'ibur by Richard Fiedler (2014) copies Wikisource). The Aramaic text should probably go to the main Wikisource, though it would be nice to have a source for that, too. We could make a local translation, if necessary; it's pretty short, but Aramaic is not a widely-known language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile wrote on my talk page that "The Aramaic comes from Mann in 1922:[4]. Published in the UK, and confirmed as being out of copyright by IA / Cornell. The English translation is from the same time period but I can’t find the source online (I think I took it from a library); this was five years ago." I wasn't truly worried about the Aramaic, but given that one year later is still in copyright, "from the same time period" isn't much help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, unfortunately, since there's no way to verify —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Mao Zedong's work[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted all but Communism and Dictatorship (1921). The burden of proof rests upon anyone seeking to undelete. Similar to Chinese Wikisource, PD-PRC-exempt does not always apply to Mao's works.--Jusjih (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

There are a few Mao Zedong's work on English Wikisource citing the Article 5 of Chinese copyright law, which exempts all Chinese government and judicial documents, and their official translations, from copyright. However, Mao did not hold any government office after he left the office of the Chairman of the People's Republic of China in 1959. Further more, there is a report that royalties was paid for the translations of Mao's work published outside of China.

Granted the separation of party and state was unclear at time, does Article 5 applies for Mao's work in his capacity as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China? Furthermore, many of Mao's essays were written in his personal capacity, does Article 5 applies to these? -Mys 721tx (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Article 55 of the 1990 copyright law states that "[t]he rights of copyright owners, publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations as provided for in this Law shall, if their term of protection as specified in this Law has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law, be protected in accordance with this Law." If Article 5 does not apply, then Mao's personal works will not enter public domain until 2027. -Mys 721tx (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that many, if not all, unsourced translations of Mao Zedong's work were sourced from "Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung". I was previously transcribing it before it was deleted due to copyvio on both here and Commons. -Einstein95 (talk)
So, Article 5 would exempt anything Mao wrote -- including their translations -- while he was in office. According to the wikipedia article, that would be from 1949 to 1959. I'm not sure if his chairmanship of the Communist party (1943-1976) or his chairmanship of the Central Military Commission (1954-1976) count as government posts. So pretty much anything we have from 1949-1959 is probably covered by Article 5; anything outside of that date range, unless it was prior to the '20s, is probably not.
Unfortunately his author page does not list dates directly. I think it would be most useful to actually identify which of these many works are actually potentially copyright violations. Most of the works that I've looked at linked from that author page seem to be from the 1930s, which predate his holding government officeship, and which thus preclude the use of the Article 5 exemption. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this, which is marked for cleanup, to consider at the same time: Index:Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung.djvu. Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The followings are on Wikisource:

  1. Communism and Dictatorship (November 1920. January 1921)
  2. The Second Anniversary of An Wu-ching's Martyrdom (1929)
  3. On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party (December 1929)
  4. A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire (January 5, 1930)
  5. Oppose Book Worship (May 1930)
  6. Decree Regarding Marriage (January 28, 1931)
  7. A Letter from the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army to Our Brothers the Soldiers of the White Army on the Subject of the Forced Occupation of Manchuria by Japanese Imperialism (September 25, 1931)
  8. The League of Nations is a League of Robbers! (October 6, 1932)
  9. Preliminary Conclusions of the Land Investigation Campaign (August 29, 1933)
  10. The Land Investigation Campaign is the Central Important Task in the Vast (Soviet) Areas (August 31, 1933)
  11. Report to the 2nd National Congress of Workers and Peasants Representatives (January 23, 1934)
  12. Pay Attention to Economic Work (August 20, 1933)
  13. How to Differentiate the Classes in the Rural Areas (October 1933)
  14. Our Economic Policy (January 23, 1934)
  15. Be Concerned With the Well-Being of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Work (January 27, 1934)
  16. Proclamation on the Northward March of the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army to Fight Japan (July, 15 1934)
  17. On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism (December 27, 1935)
  18. To Lin Piao (1936)
  19. We Are Not Going to Turn the Country over to Moscow! (July 23, 1936)
  20. Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War (December 1936)
  21. A Statement of Chiang Kai-shek's Statement (December 28, 1936)
  22. On Guerrilla Warfare (1937)
  23. To Hsu T'eh-li (February 1937)
  24. The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance to Japan (May 3, 1937)
  25. Win the Masses in their Millions for the Anti-Japanese National United Front (May 7, 1937)
  26. Letter to the Spanish People (May 15, 1937)
  27. Inscription for the Founding of the North Shensi Public School (1937)
  28. Speech at the Meeting Celebrating the Completion of the Building of the Anti-Japanese Military and Political University (1937)
  29. On Lu Hsun (1937)
  30. Basic Tactics (1937)
  31. On Practice (July 1937)
  32. On Contradiction (August 1937)
  33. Policies, Measures and Perspectives for Resisting the Japanese Invasion (July 23, 1937)
  34. For the Mobilization of All the Nation's Forces for Victory in the War of Resistance (August 25, 1937)
  35. Combat Liberalism (September 7, 1937)
  36. Urgent Tasks Following the Establishment of Kuomintang-Communist Cooperation (September 29, 1937)
  37. Interview with the British Journalist James Bertram (October 25, 1937)
  38. The Situation and Tasks in the Anti-Japanese War After the Fall of Shanghai and Taiyuan (November 12, 1937)
  39. Dialectical Materialism (April - June, 1938)
  40. Proclamation by the Government of the Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia Border Region and the Rear Headquarters of the Eighth Route Army (May 15, 1938)
  41. Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan (May 1938)
  42. On Protracted War (May 1938)

The following are published while Mao was in office (1 October 1949 to 27 April 1959) and may be considered for inclusion.

  1. Proclamation of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China (October 1, 1949)
  2. Reply to the Provisional People's Government of Xinjiang (October 21, 1949)
  3. Reply to the Xinjiang League for the Defence of Peace and Democracy and to People of the Tacheng-Ili-Ashan Regions (October 21, 1949)
  4. Preface to The Victory of New Democracy in China (October 14, 1949)
  5. Telegram to the Insurrectionists on the "Hailiao" (October 24, 1949)
  6. Inscription for the Inaugural Issue of Renmin Wenxue [People's Literature] (October 25, 1949)
  7. Telegram to Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions (October 26, 1949)
  8. Always Keep to the Style of Plain Living and Hard Struggle (October 26, 1949)
  9. Telegram to Stalin (December 19, 1949)
  10. Address at Birthday Celebration Meeting Held for Stalin (December 21, 1949)
  11. Telegram to President Prasad of the Republic of India (January 28, 1950)
  12. Speech on Departure from Moscow (February 17, 1950)
  13. Request for Opinions on the Tactics for Dealing With Rich Peasants (March 12, 1950)
  14. Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in the Nation's Financial and Economic Situation (June 6, 1950)
  15. Don't Hit Out in All Directions (June 6, 1950)
  16. Be a True Revolitionary (June 23, 1950)
  17. Reply to Ambassador of the Republic of India
  18. You Are Models for the Whole Nation (September 25, 1950)
  19. Order to the Chinese People's Volunteers (October 8, 1950)
  20. Comment on Hearing of Mao Anying's Death (November 1950)
  21. Letter to Huang Niantian (December 2, 1950)
  22. The Chinese People's Volunteers Should Cherish Every Hill, Every River, Every Tree and Every Blade of Grass in Korea (January 19, 1951)
  23. Main Points of the Resolution Adopted at the Enlarged Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (February 18, 1951)
  24. The Party's Mass Line Must Be Followed in Supressing Counter-Revolutionaries (May 1951)
  25. Strike Surely, Accurately and Relentlessly in Supressing Counter-Revolutionaries (December 1950-- September 1951)
  26. Pay Serious Attention to the Discussion of the Film The Life Wu Hsun (May 20, 1951)
  27. Great Victories in Three Mass Movements (October 23, 1951)
  28. On the Struggle Against the "Three Evils" and the "Five Evils" (November 1951--March 1952)
  29. Take Mutual Aid and Co-Operation in Agriculture as a Major Task (December 15, 1951)
  30. Letter to Li Shuqing (October 16, 1952)
  31. New Year's Day Message (January 1, 1952)
  32. On the Policies for Our Work in Tibet -- Directive of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (April 6, 1952)
  33. The Contradiction Between the Working Class and the Bourgeoisie is the Principal Contradiction in China (June 6, 1952)
  34. Let Us Unite and Clearly Distinguish Between Ourselves and the Enemy (August 4, 1952)
  35. Inscription on the Arts (September 26, 1952)
  36. Reply to Ambassador of the Republic of India (September 26, 1952)
  37. Inscription for Inauguration of the Tianshui-Lanzhou Railway (September 28, 1952)
  38. Toast on Third Anniversary of Founding of the PRC (September 30, 1952)
  39. Telegram to the Peace Conference of the Asian and Pacific Region (October 2, 1952)
  40. Letter to Qi Baishi (October 5, 1952)
  41. Telegram to the German Democratic Republic (October 5, 1952)
  42. Talk with Tibetan Delegates (Excerpts) (October 8, 1952)
  43. Letter to Song Qingling (October 10, 1952)
  44. Letter to Tan Zhenlin (October 15, 1952)
  45. Hail the Signal Victory of the Chinese People's Volunteers! (October 24, 1952)
  46. Combat Bureaucracy, Commandism and Violations of the Law and Discipline (January 5, 1953)
  47. Inscription Awarded to Soviet Troops in Lushun (February 23, 1953)
  48. Telegram to Inquire after Stalin's Illness (March 4, 1953)
  49. Telegram to the USSR on Stalin's Death (March 6, 1953)
  50. The Greatest Friendship (March 9, 1953)
  51. Criticize Han Chaunvinism (March 16, 1953)
  52. Solve the Problem of the "Five Excesses" (March 19, 1953)
  53. Liu Shao-chi and Yang Shang-kun Criticized for Breach of Discipline in Issuing Documents in the Name of the Central Committeee without Authorization (May 19, 1953)
  54. Refute Right Deviationist Views that Depart from the General Line (June 15, 1953)
  55. The Youth League in Its Work Must Take the Characteristics of Youth Into Consideration (June 30, 1953)
  56. On State Capitalism (July 9, 1953)
  57. The Party's General Line for the Transition Period (August 1953)
  58. Combat Bourgeois Ideas in the Party (August 12, 1953)
  59. The Only Road for the Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Comme (September 7, 1953)
  60. Our Great Victory in the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea and Our Future Tasks (September 12, 1953)
  61. Criticism of Liang Shu-ming's Reactionary Ideas (September 16-18, 1953)
  62. Two Talks on Mutual Aid and Co-Operation in Agriculture (October and November 1953)
  63. I. The Talk of October 15
  64. II. The Talk of November 4
  65. On the Draft Constitutionon of the People's Republic of China (June 14, 1954)
  66. Strive to Build a Great Socialist Country (September 15, 1954)
  67. Letter Concerning the Study of The Dream of the Red Chamber (October 16, 1954)
  68. The Chinese People Cannot be Cowed by the Atom Bomb (January 28, 1955)
  69. Speeches at the National Conference of the Communist Party of China (March 1955)
  70. In Refutation of "Uniformity of Public Opinion" (May 24, 1955)
  71. Preface and Editor's Notes to Material on the Counter-Revolutionary Hu Feng Clique (May and June 1955)
  72. On the Co-Operative Transformation of Agriculture (July 31, 1955)
  73. Rely on Party and League Members and Poor and Lower-Middle Peasants in the Co-Operative Transformation of Agriculture (September 7, 1955)
  74. Editor's Notes from Socialist Upsurge in China's Countryside (September and December 1955)
  75. Request for Opinions on the Seventeen-Article Document Concerning Agriculture (December 21, 1955)
  76. Talk at the Conference on Intellectuals Called by the Centre (January 20, 1956)
  77. Speed up the Socialist Transformation of Handicrafts (March 5, 1956)
  78. Contradictions Under Socialism (April 5, 1956)
  79. Stalin's Place in History (April 5, 1956)
  80. Speech at Expanded Meeting of CPC Political Bureau (April 25, 1956)
  81. On the Ten Major Relationships (April 25, 1956)
  82. U.S. Imperialism is a Paper Tiger (July 14, 1956)
  83. Chairman Mao's Talk to Music Workers (August 24 1956)
  84. Strengthen Party Unity and Carry Forward Party Traditions (August 30, 1956)
  85. Some Experiences in Our Party's History (September 25, 1956)
  86. In Commemoration of Dr. Sun Yat-sen (November 12, 1956)
  87. Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (November 15, 1956)
  88. Talks at a Conference of Secretaries of Provincial, Municipal and Autonomous Region Party Committees (January 1957)
  89. On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957)
  90. Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957)
  91. Persevere in Plain Living and Hard Struggle, Maintain Close Ties with the Masses (March 1957)
  92. Things Are Beginning to Change (May 15, 1957)
  93. The Chinese Communist Party is the Core of Leadership of the While Chinese Party (May 25, 1957)
  94. Muster Our Forces to Repulse the Rightists' Wild Attacks (June 8, 1957)
  95. Letter to Zhou Enlai (July 7, 1957)
  96. Comment on Class Education with Leaders from Shanghai Motor Power Institute (July, 1957)
  97. Comment to the Loatian Patriotic (Liberation) Front Representative on Education (1957)
  98. Wen Hui Pao's Bourgeois Orientation Should Be Criticized (July 1, 1957)
  99. Beat Back the Attacks of the Bourgeois Rightists (July 9, 1957)
  100. The Situation in the Summer of 1957 (July 1957)
  101. Talk at the Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the 8th Central Committee of the CCP (October 7, 1957)
  102. Be Activists in Promoting the Revolution (October 9, 1957)
  103. Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the People (October 13, 1957)
  104. No Power on Earth Can Separate Us (November 2, 1957)
  105. Speech at Moscow Celebration Meeting (November 6, 1957)
  106. The East Wind Prevails Over the West Wind! (November 17, 1957)
  107. A Dialectical Approach to Inner Party Unity (November 18, 1957)
  108. All Reactionaries Are Paper Tigers (November 18, 1957)
  109. Talks at the Nanning Conference (January 11, 12, 1958)
  110. To the Kwangsi Regional Party Committee on Newspapers (January 12, 1958)
  111. Speech at the Supreme State Conference [excerpts] (28 January 1958)
  112. Sixty Points on Working Methods - A Draft Resolution from the Office of the Centre of the CPC (February 2, 1958)
  113. Talks at the Chengtu Conference (March 1958)
  114. National Minorities (March 1958)
  115. Speech at the Hankow Conference (April 6, 1958)
  116. Introducing a Co-Operative (April 15, 1958)
  117. Speeches at the Second Session of the Eighth Party Congress (May 8-23, 1958)
  118. Speech at the Conference of Heads of Delegations to the Second Session of the 8th Party Congress (May 18 1958)
  119. Speech at the Group Leaders Forum of the Enlarged Meeting of the Military Affairs Committee [excerpts] (28 June 1958)
  120. Instructions (June-September 1958)
  121. Communes Are Better (August 9, 1958)
  122. Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958)
  123. Interview with a Hsinhua news Agency Correspondent (September 29, 1958)
  124. The Masses Can Do Anything (September 29, 1958)
  125. On Huan Hsiang's Comment on the Disintegration of the Western World (November 25, 1958)
  126. A Letter to Chou Shih-chou (November 25, 1958)
  127. Speech at the First Chingchow Conference (November 1958)
  128. On the Question of Whether Imperialism and all Reactionaries are Real Tigers (December 1, 1958)
  129. Talks with the Directors of Various Cooperative Areas (November, December 1958)
  130. Speech at the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee (December 19, 1958)
  131. Reply to Article "Tsinghua University Physics Teaching and Research Group Inclines Toward the 'Left' Rather Than Right in Handling Teachers" (December 22, 1958)
  132. Speech At Conference Of Provincial And Municipal Committee Secretaries (February 2, 1959)
  133. Talk At Symposium Of Hsin, Lo, Hsu And Hsin Local Committees (February 21, 1959)
  134. Speech At Cheng-chow (February 27, 1959)
  135. Intra Party Correspondence (March 1959)
  136. Comment On T’ao Lu-Ch’ieh’s Report On The Five-Level Cadre Conference (March 30, 1959)

-Mys 721tx (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The followings are Mao's early work published before 1922 and may entered public domain in the United States.

  1. A Study of Physical Education (April 1917)
  2. To Hakuro Toten (Miyazaki Toten) (Apri1 1917)
  3. To the Glory of the Hans (July & August 1919)
  4. Miss Chao's Suicide (1919)
  5. Communism and Dictatorship (November 1920. January 1921)

-Mys 721tx (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that only one essay was published before 1922. Should we clean up those that are not in PD as of 2018? -Mys 721tx (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When doubting copyright status, better delete, but please specify which ones.--Jusjih (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything we have between 1922 and 1949 (i.e. all listed with links except Communism and Dictatorship) are not in public domain. -Mys 721tx (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted; not explicitly released under a license compatible with our copyright policy —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the contents of this work, it does not contain a free license or a copyright release. Internet Archive claims that it is public domain, but IA is frequently wrong on this subject. I can find no other authoritative source for considering this document to be in the public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beleg Tâl: I absolutely guarantee that Aaron (aka. AaronSw, and a friend and long-term collaborator of Brewster Kahle) intended the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto to be licensed under the CC public domain dedication. In fact, I feel confident asserting he would have been hopping mad at the very idea that it might be deleted here for licensing reasons. --Xover (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: I am aware of that, and it would be unfortunate if we had to delete it because he inadvertently neglected to release the work from the automatic copyright imposed upon it by the USA Copyright Act -- and yet, if he did not release it, and I see no evidence that he did release it, then we cannot host the text on Wikisource (which is bound by American copyright legislation). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Legally speaking, there is absolutely no chance Aaron did not intend to release the manifesto in such a way as to permit the widest possible reuse. See for example the "(cc) share and enjoy" text on the original guerillaopenaccess.com website, or the unlicense public domain dedication on the manifesto's current git repo, or, indeed, the PD license tagging at IA, which is unlikely to be incorrect given his connections with both Kahle and IA in general (and the IA copy is pretty prominently linked and PageRanked: it's not some obscure PDF with bad metadata going unnoticed). This is precisely the reason why enwp has IAR as a policy: it would be ridiculous on its face for Wikisource (of all places) to delete Aaron Swartz' (of all people) Guerilla Open Access Manifesto (of all things) for not sufficiently jumping through the hoops. And you know what, if push comes to shove, and we actually managed to squeeze a statement out of them, I'm pretty well certain WMF Legal would agree. --Xover (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Policy, precedent, and consensus gathered in previous discussion on enWS all favour deleting works that are obviously intended to be PD, but aren't actually PD. I'll happily undelete a dozen or so such works if WMF and the community sense for IAR indicate that this is no longer the feeling of this community. However, given the new information at guerillaopenaccess.com (is that Swartz's own site?) we may be able to keep it without violating the above anyway. Does "(cc) share and enjoy" match any of the CC licenses at the time, which Swartz would obviously have been aware of, having been involved in their creation?—And yes, I am aware of the ridiculous irony of this discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, works on his website https://aaronsw.com are CC BY-NC-SA, and the NC restriction is both consistent with Swartz's vision and incompatible with our policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
guerillaopenaccess.com was set up by Aaron to host the manifesto, yes, and he then linked to it from his blog. In 2008, the then-current set of CC licenses was 3.0 (and, iirc, what Wikipedia used then too), and "(cc) share and enjoy" is a pretty clear intent to apply CC(-BY)-SA (3.0). The -NC flag on aaronsw.com would perhaps have been concerning had the manifesto been published on his blog, but he just linked to it from there. And besides, the -NC bit wasn't added until 2016 (I'm trying to find out by whom and why), so it doesn't at all reflect any explicit indication of intent by Aaron. --Xover (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the NC clause was added by his estate for this exact reason, namely that Swartz's website and blog was copyrighted material and the estate was pressured to release it under an open license due to the obvious intentions of Swartz himself. Doesn't apply to the Manifesto though, as you pointed out. — I'm willing to accept "(cc) share and enjoy" as CC BY-SA 3.0 if this is supported by consensus here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also emailed Creative Commons to see what their interpretation of "(cc) share and enjoy" might be —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even acknowledging who he was, I'm still uncomfortable without an explicit license, especially given the estate has give us an explicit license we can't use. RMS is one of the leaders in the open content movement, and he very clearly releases his essays under licenses that don't permit general derivatives. It's one thing to release code under a free license, it's another thing to release an opinionated essay under a license that lets people edit their own opinions into it. I'd note that one of the taboos on Wikimedia projects is editing other people's comments, no matter how legal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy, precedent, and consensus gathered in previous discussion on enWS all favour deleting works that are obviously intended to be PD, but aren't actually PD" - good faith license error uploads are kept at commons if it is US government saying "all rights reserved", but not if PD Mark, or custom attempts to invoke public domain (as from before CC licenses). the "actually PD" presumes a lot; it is more the ideology of the deletionist, than a standard of practice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beleg Tâl: Is there a OTRS ticket for that? –MJLTalk 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the latest? –MJLTalk 19:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: OTRS ticket for what? For my email to Commons? I emailed Commons, not OTRS, and I never heard back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page:American Seashells (1954).djvu/1 and others[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Pages have been deleted, so no need for discussion Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The work these where nominally transcribed was deleted on Commons (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/American seashells (1954), and the index file here was apparently also deleted. However the individual pages https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?search=prefix%3APage%3AAmerican+Seashells+%281954%29.djvu&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go seemingly got missed.

If the file was a copyright violation, then the pages need to go as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IA said "no known copyright." may be PD not renewed, not here [5]; [6]; [7]; [8] -- good one for a DRV. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked Stanford, and it doesn't turn up there, so it should be PD. I've opened up a request for undeletion on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. i would suggest not taking deletion at commons automatically; they in general do not do the research for renewals. when they are deleting archival material, it should go to a workflow for more research. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICD-11 MMS[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied under WS:CSD#G6 as clear copyvio. --Xover (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The World Health Assembly that is happening this week has endorsed the final draft of ICD-11 MMS for use in member countries from 1 January 2022. Shortly after the announcement of the endorsement, this page was created. At present it is a simple list of chapter titles. However, based on the pdf at this link the WHO will need to license the text to us before we can host it. Although the WHO is a part of the UN, the PD-UN licenses don't carry forward because the critereon "not including public information that is offered for sale" is not met. I modified some of the text in the header 24 hours ago knowing that I would need to come back and examine in more detail. I'm aware that we do host a copy of ICD-10-CM (2010), but this is the US national modification (and an old version at that) which was licensed to the US Govt by WHO for modification and distribution. WHO is not expecting member countries to need to make national modifications of ICD-11 MMS and therefore I think it unlikely that we would be able to host this. Disclosure (and the reason I'm not deleting this outright): I use the various revisions of ICD in my day job and will be involved in developing education material for ICD-11 MMS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indications that suggest any part of ICD-11 might be covered by a compatible license, but do see a lot of evidence that the WHO do, intentionally, use copyright and licensing to maintain control and restrict uses and derivative works. In particular, they require that reusers apply for a license; differentiate (separate licenses, separate application) between commercial and non-commercial use; and prohibit sub-licensing. My conclusion is that ICD-11 MMS (and the rest of it) is not compatible with hosting on Wikisource, or any other Wikimedia project. --Xover (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Fidelis[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Delete as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page has two separate works on them:

First, who is Charles Barr and when was this written? I can't find any sources; problematically, some of the webpages are just citing us. http://www.josephsons.org/slmtc/m32298.htm actually offers texts for many of his works, but still no dates or sources.

Secondly, there was more recent words for same song. However, it says "Copyright by Don Farrar 2009 | All rights reserved | Permission granted for use in Wikipedia by Don Farrar 5/12/09". That technically doesn't even give us the right to host it, but it clearly doesn't offer the type of Free license that Wikimedia demands for works. Nor does it seem to fit in our scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes: I think it's the same Charles Burr who apparently co-wrote an English stage version of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg in 1979. I managed to track down some of the lyrics on the webpage you linked to a review here (snippet view on Google Books), dated 1973, which matches that timeframe. Without further info I think it's probably a copyvio. —Nizolan (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for both works as well as Author:Charles BurrBeleg Tâl (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Promised Key[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Delete work as copyvio; keep author page. --Xover (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 1935 work by a Jamaican author who died in 1981, published in Jamaica which had in 1996 and has life+95 copyright laws. I don't see any way it's not copyrighted in the United States (as well as every Berne Convention country).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom, along with Author:Leonard Percival HowellBeleg Tâl (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about deleting the Author page; there's potentially some pre-1923 work that's hostable (and Jamaica is an Anglophone country and Howell wrote in English, so no translation worries) and it's only 12 years until this work is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Chatterley's Lover[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a previous discussion here Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2007-10#Lady_Chatterley's_Lover, but I see no discussion that goes to the point that it's a British novel by a British author not published in the US for years after first publication. That means the URAA restored its copyright, and it doesn't enter US copyright until 95 years after publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur. There's some question over where "first publication" took place: there were private editions in Italy, France, and Australia in 1928–1929, and a different edition in Germany in the same time frame. But there's a "strong national ties" standard at work that suggests the work as such should be considered to be a UK work. And since the UK is pma. 70, the UK copyright lasted until 2000; meaning its US copyright (if previous copyright formalities were not observed and the previous copyright lapsed) was restored by the URAA in 1996. It is thus in copyright in the US until 2023 at the very earliest; and in practice probably for much longer because there are at least three authorial versions of this work as well several editions of various degrees of expurgation, so any actual text we host is likely to have a much later terminus (1950s/1960s + 95 years) for copyright calculation.
    To me this is sufficiently clear cut (though complicated) that if nobody objects in the very near future I'm going to go ahead and speedy it under WS:CSD#G6. We're strictly speaking just past the suggested 2-week minimum, but there's been little discussion and it's summer so best to give it a little extra time IMO. --Xover (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essays in Persuasion[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keynes died in 1946 , so the work IS PD in 70 year pma countries, however the publication is after 1924, so URAA may apply in relation to the US, clarification needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original upload said "copied from Gutenberg" but that is probably in reference to this version on www.gutenberg.ca, which is explicitly just PD under Canadian law, not U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • UK copyright term ended in 2016 (pma. 70 → 1946 + 70), so in copyright in source country on the URAA date (1996); and so covered by US copyright until 2025 (pub. + 95 → 1930 + 95). Absent other complicating factors, I'd say this is clear-cut copyvio under our policies and should be speedied. --Xover (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Fields of Athenry[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged as copyvio by Charles Matthews on 2 September 2012, but no thread was ever opened here that I can find, so I'm dumping it here to get the issue resolved.

The Fields of Athenry is w:The Fields of Athenry, which essentially says this was written in 1970(-ish) and doesn't even mention Edward Bellamy (to whom it is attributed here). It also contains what it describes as an excerpt from The Glasgow Herald for 10 April 1996, which would also be a copyvio. No real source is given, but it looks like something cut&paste'ed from a web page somewhere. All in all I would have called it speedy-level obvious copyvio, but don't want to wade in there when a more experienced admin has previously declined to do so (even though it was 7 years ago ;D). --Xover (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, go for it. I can't recall the occasion, but it was obviously a drive-by moment by me. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied, obvious copyvio of both the Herald article and the quoted song lyrics. I checked the "links to this page", there were no discussions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Pledge (India)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Published 1962, author Pydimarri Venkata Subba Rao died 1988. I see no reason to consider this PD in either the USA or India. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Yeah clear copyvio imo. –MJLTalk 23:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Clear enough that I would have speedied if I ran across it unprompted. The other works by this contributor also merit scrutiny: several were added without license or source information, and this obviously inapplicable license tag was added after prompting on their talk page. --Xover (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrabuddhaBharata and PrabuddhaBharata/November 1930/The Economic Views of Swami Vivekananda[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only content on Wikisource was published 1930, author w:Swami Ashokananda died 1969, seems to me that URAA would have restored copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete India is pma. 60, and has URAA date 1 January 1996. In general, all works published by authors who died after 1936 were affected by the URAA. The work in question is copyright in India until 2030 (1969+60), and in the US until 2026 (1930+95). --Xover (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Scriptorum Disscusion, where there as a claim of a renewal for one of the editions used.

Firstly which edition do we ACTUALLLY have, as opposed to what the texinfo etc. claims?

Secondly, Is it an out of copyright edition, if not then it should be deleted, in respect of the new material which postdates 1924? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Just repeating what I said at Scriptorium:) This is a 1952 edition per the text itself. The IP (according to their statement on the talk page) seems to have only used IA's 1916 edition as an aid to transcribe the 1952 edition, which they presumably had a physical copy of. The 1952 edition was renewed and is not PD. —Nizolan (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we then conclude that this is not PD and should be deleted? --Xover (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be better to delete and start over with the IA version. —Nizolan (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With "a version" from IA , the google scans linked aren't the best... Someone might need to do some digging, There are also 2 editions, (1883 and 1888) as I can determine, with slight differences between them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Since the text was originally pulled from the 1916 edition, I think we should replace our copy with the 1916 edition. We can add the 1883 and/or 1888 editions as well if desired. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the foreword of the 1952 edition was renewed and is copyvio; the bulk of the text is PD, but in my opinion we should delete the whole thing anyway since there are multiple editions that are 100% PD that we can use instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Fight Song[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no information about authorship, nor any indication that this work is PD or freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I concur. While the style is pretty old fashioned, UCSD was founded in 1960, so it can't be older than that. And no UCSD website hosting the lyrics give any sort of indication of a free license. --Xover (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Language of the Gods[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which edition? Credit line says London: Macmillan and Co. (1918) Ed. moonth (2016)... So is this the 1918 edition or a 2016 reprint? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and burn with fire. It appears to be some sort of backwards or mixed-up version of Candle of Vision/Chapter 14 (1918), re-assembled and (possibly) editorialized by someone called "moonth" in 2016, with no specified source or license. There's a "title page" of sorts here which suggests the work is from sacred-texts.com, but I can only find the 1918 version there. @Calebjbaker: you added this text, do you have any insight as to where this weird edition came from and what the licensing on it is? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinople Agreement[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as copyvio in 2016 by Billinghurst, but never discussed here. Superficially it looks like speedy-candidate copyvio, but I haven't looked at it in any detail. Just dumping it here to get it resolved. --Xover (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source. Collection of translations of relevant historical documents; translations are European in origin and date from 1928 to 1952. Copyright is almost certainly provided by URAA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Having looked closer I concur with Beleg Tâl. Not quite speedy material though. --Xover (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence of Catalonia[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as third-party translation under copyright. --Xover (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as copyvio by Billinghurst in 2017, but never discussed here. Probably speedy-able, but I haven't looked at it in depth. There's no source, and no indication that it might be PD or under a free license, and as a 2017 document it must be assumed to be in copyright absent any specific indications to the contrary. --Xover (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by {{PD-EdictGov}} provided that the translation is official. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone suggests that the Parliament of Catalonia does not merit {{PD-EdictGov}}, I will point them at /Archives/2018#Constitution of the Principality of Sealand. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is an interesting case. The Parliament of Catalonia is very definitely an entity of government: the Spanish government! That is, this declaration was adopted by a devolved part of the actual Spanish government, and not some extrajudicial entity claiming legal powers to govern. But here's the kicker, adopting the declaration was illegal (unconstitutional) for any part of the Spanish governance structure, and the central government overruled the adoption and pressed charges against the leaders of the devolved parliament. The declaration thus has no force whatever in the relevant jurisdiction, and PD-EdictGov does require some level of force of law (it won't apply to mere speeches, say). The constitution of Sealand had some credibility through claiming new "land" in international waters. However, both cases are a bit of "Schrödinger's copyright": if the claims to sovereign statehood succeed, the US copyright is void under EdictGov, but if they fail, the copyright will always have existed per the usual rules.
However, for practical purposes, a more salient fact is that the declaration was written in Catalan, not English, and so what we have here is actually a third-party translation of unknown provenance. *shrug* I have no strong opinion either way. --Xover (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a declaration of law nonetheless. US lawbooks are filled with laws that have been declared unconstitutional, in degrees ranging explicitly called out in a Supreme Court case, to being clearly and universally understood as being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, even if the SC was dealing with a different law, all the way down to laws that a few people think is unconstitutional. I would think that it would be a complex line to walk, if states could use copyright to protect unconstitutional law. But yes, the fact we have a translation kills it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source. Footnote states "non official translation". Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the original is a {{PD-EdictGov}}, this is a copyvio unless the translation itself is either official, or was explicitly released under a compatible license. 31.154.101.236 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policies of Resistance Economy (iran)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted as CV

Tagged as copyvio by Billinghurst in 2016, but never discussed here. The text is a 2014 translation and summation of a speech by Khamenei, ultimately sourced to the translator's blog: http://www.rezahakbari.com/blog/2016/2/17/the-unveiling-of-irans-resistance-economy

Regardless of the copyright situation for the original speech, I see no indication that the translation is somehow PD or freely licensed. --Xover (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyright notice on the original blog, I would speedy this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No obvious copyright notice; but that makes no difference post-19xx when notice was no longer required in the US. There is no indication of license of any kind that I could see. --Xover (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've had a chance to check myself, and do a bit of googling, I concur. Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Minister of Education, Singapore at 31st Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Council[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as copyvio by Billinghurst in 2018, but not discussed here. The text is a brief speech (statement, more like) by Lee Yock Suan (1946–) at the SEAMEC conference discussed elsewhere on this page (then in the context of Thai law). Singapore has publication + 70 for government works and no obvious exceptions that would apply here. PD-EdictGov for the US cannot reasonably be said to apply to this case. In other words, it seems to be in copyright until 2066 in Singapore and until 2091 in the US. --Xover (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the statement was released at a council in Thailand, does not Thai law apply? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if the copyright status of a government speech changed based on where that speech was read aloud from the manuscript prepared back at home. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more in terms of "publication" as it applies to "country of origin", but you might be right -- and anyway in the end it's only American copyright law that matters, so we should probably delete it regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See the section above entitled "Works linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol", which discusses other works by this same minister. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is the minister of Singapore; the above section discusses the minister of Thailand. Thai law has PD-ThaiGov copyright exceptions, but none such exist in Singaporean law that I could find. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Tortoise Lives Long translation[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as third-party translation of unknown copyright status, --Xover (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history, the creator of the wikisource page states that the the translation was done by an "unknown" translator. This was later changed by another user to credit Wikisource, but there is no indication for this to be correct. In addition, if you put a line of the poem in Google books, you will find that the translation existed before the creation of the wikisource page. See example (not sure if this is the origin of the translation but it seems so, but it does shows that the origin is not wikisource). --Cold Season (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also have doubts about this one by the same page creator:

It links English Wikipedia as source, which coincidentally also contains the translation of the first poem (also predates the Wikipedia contribution too). As both poems seems to have been copied over from English Wikipedia (both contributed by the same Wikipedia user) and the first poem is not free, I have no reason to believe this second poem is attributed to the correct source either. --Cold Season (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I'm having trouble finding anything conclusive on these.
    Both were added 22 June 2012‎ by Benjitheijneb (original versions: "Though the Tortoise Lives Long", "Short Song Style") with the edit summary created page as addition to Author:Cao Cao, taking text from Wikipedia.
    On enwp, these are currently on w:Poetry of Cao Cao, but were originally added to w:Cao Cao: "Though the Tortoise Lives Long" on 19 April 2005 (diff) by Plastictv and "Short Song Style" on 3 December 2009 (diff) by TheAsianGURU (neither user has edited in years).
    Both were added here in the main namespace and with translator listed as "unknown", but were moved to the Translation: namespace on 7 April 2014‎ by Jusjih who also changed the translator to Wikisource (removed |translator=unknown) and added {{CC-BY-SA}} and {{GFDL}} as the translation license. I would guess they were just doing general cleanup and adding the licenses because the text was copied from enwp, rather than acting on any direct knowledge, but possibly you can clarify Jusjih?
    This translation appears to be commonly used, but there are others (I found one that a DeviantART user made for a school project, that was quite different). I'm not familiar with Chinese literary history as a field so I don't know whether there are any "standard" translations of this, and Google wasn't much help. I do see that this particular translation seems to exist in works published prior to the creation of Wikipedia, which certainly seems to suggest that this is not an original translation by either of the two mentioned Wikipedia editors.
    My conclusion so far is that these are copy&paste additions from a pre-existing source rather than original translations by the Wikipedia editors, and that unless we can determine with reasonable certainty that the source translation is in the public domain we must assume they are still in copyright and cannot be hosted here. The strongest indication to the contrary is that no source I found names the translator (which tends to suggest it's an old one, and probably 19th-century), but that is both very uncertain and not sufficient under the precautionary principle. --Xover (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this looks like we assumed the translation was written by the editors of Wikipedia, and this assumption was wrong in this case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Screen[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The translator is 1905 to 1987 as best as I can tell, so the work looks to have been published in Japanese in 1918, rather than the translation. Detail is slim here, and I have not had the ability to cast wider. I doubt that the translator did the work at age 13. Some further checks should be undertaken, though this looks like it needs to be flagged. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete According to Wikipedia, the translation was originally published in Hell Screen and Other Stories, Tokyo: Hokuseido, 1948. I see no reason to believe copyright is expired or waived. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the works currently linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol are claimed to be in the public domain due to Thai copyright law. That's not so.

In general, I do not think it is appropriate to call a minister the author of every policy his ministry produces under his tenure, but that's not a copyright issue. Huon (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment see also the additional discussion listed above #Thailand PD Exempt and speeches --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first is a cut&paste of an article in The Bangkok Post that happens to report on a speech by Rangsitpol, not the speech itself. This is clearly not PD and I'll speedy it as a clear copyvio relatively soon if nobody objects.
    The second appears to be a summation regarding what the Ministry's policies are, and being on a Ministry of Education website, it looks like that someone is the Ministry of Education itself. Not only does the original document mention Bumrung Chiablam, the text was uploaded here by Bumrung Chiablam. But by the design of the site I'm going to go ahead and guess that Bumrung Chiablam is an employee in the Ministry of Education's ICT department that created that custom microsite to which this document belongs (a feat often called out in 1997, before CMSs took over; I've been credited like that myself), or possibly someone serving as the secretary for a meeting or conference where the information was presented, and not an actual author of the content. Meaning it is a MoE document, and falls under PD-ThaiGov under the same provisions as the document at question in the thread above.
    The third is a "Paper submitted to the 45th session of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, 1996", by Rangsitpol, then sitting Minister of Education, and having just launched a new 10-year strategy for education connected with the w:1997 Constitution of Thailand (and surrounding events). IOW, I'd say this qualifies as PD-ThaiGov. --Xover (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Huon: I've deleted the first as clear copyvio. Do you have any comments on the other two, cf. my comments above? --Xover (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: I'm not familiar with how Wikisource handles copyright. If guessing that the person who explicitly claims copyright in the source doesn't actually hold it is valid grounds for keeping the content here, I don't agree with that standard, but I'm not going to fight about it. Huon (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Wikisource handles copyright pretty much like every other Wikimedia project: clear cut cases have a clear answer, and for other cases we have a discussion to try to get as close to the right answer as we can with the information available to us.
In this case, the source provided for the text is the actual website of the Department of Education, making the default assumption that the content hosted there is also created by the Ministry of Education. It is also part of a microsite (follow the navigation links at the top of the page) that lays out the Ministry of Education's vision for education over the next decade (1997–2007), in which the text in question does not stand out in any way. The only indication to the contrary is the mention of this Bumrung Chiablam; and they are credited in the footer as "Program by Mr.Bumrung Chiablam" which, allowing for non-native English speakers, might mean anything from "Programming of this web application was provided by …", through "The conference where we presented this content was arranged by …", up to "This is a text we're hosting on behalf of the third party … who also holds the copyright.". But the credit follows a line stating that the content is "Copyright © 1997 MOENet Thailand Service"—"MOENet" being the Ministry of Education's website—making the reference to Bumrung Chiablam less likely to be an assertion of copyright. On balance, this evidence heavily favours the Ministry of Education itself being the author for copyright purposes.
The answer is not clear cut, and it is absolutely possible that my conclusion is incorrect, but that was the conclusion I reached based on the observable evidence. Hence the ping: I wanted to check whether you too found the information I dug up persuasive. --Xover (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────┘
Note Since this issue is inherently not cut&dry (we have imperfect information to base our assessment on), and there is disagreement with my attempt to reach a conclusion, this issue needs further input from the community to decide what to do. --Xover (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot determine whether it is copyrighted or not, we must delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my own conclusion above I'd be happy to accept this reasoning as determinative. I would, personally, prefer to see more community input before acting, but would certainly have no objection if another admin feels this is sufficient on its own. It's been sitting here for 4.5 months without resolution so no conclusion now could reasonably be characterised as overly hasty. :) --Xover (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have posted my independent verification of the text in question at the author's talk page. I believe that except one, the works listed are copyrighted by the institution that prepared the report and/or accepted the work for presentation. I note that in English Wikipedia, articles about the author and/or his daughter are prone to edits by the sockpuppet, though the issue is not relevant here. Most of the works should be deleted due to it being copyright violation. Regards. --G(x) (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that thorough analysis G(x)! Based on G(x)'s analysis and per Beleg Tâl's invocation of the precautionary principle, I have now deleted all works in this category save the one found to be legitimately PD-ThaiGov. Courtesy ping to discussion participants / nominator: @Huon, @Beleg Tâl, @G(x):--Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridegroom due to translation[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. --Xover (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The work Bridegroom is an unsourced work by Antoni Lange, and translated by w:Watson Kirkconnell. The translator died in 1977, it would seem unreasonable to expect that the translation was pre-1924 and there is no evidence that the translated work is in the public domain. Mentioned in "Introduction to Modern Polish Literature", ed. by Adam Gillon, Ludwik Krzyzanowski, and Krystyna Olszer, 2 Edition, Hippocrene Books, NY, 1982 though without a date. The Polish original does seem to be out of copyright. If deleted, we would need to edit Polish author page to null link. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The timing does seem awkward, and a good chronology of his publications is maddeningly hard to come by, but I did find Internet Archive identifier : internationalasp00kirkuoft which does appear to have been published in 1923, and in whose foreword Kirkconnell claims to have visited "a dozen" different countries. Given this it is not at all implausible that he could have published one translated 12-line poem by the time he was 29. Worldcat also shows multiple publications from the 1920s (and increasing through the 30s etc.), so it does seem like he started publishing in the 1920s. Then again, they also show him with 5 publications in the 1890s, so some skepticism may be warranted regarding their data. :) --Xover (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Searching HathiTrust says the first line is in A golden treasury of Polish lyrics, selected and rendered into English (1936), though it won't show me more. Looking at their catalog of his works, the first of literary interest was "European elegies : one hundred poems chosen and translated from European literatures in fifty languages" in 1928. So unless there's some literary journal or something where this was published, it's not PD for a few years, probably until 2032.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absent any actual indication to the contrary I agree we must assume this particular translation was first published in the 1936 book. As it was first published in Canada, and Canada is pma. 50, it is in copyright there until the end of 2027 (1977+50), and in copyright in the US until the end of 2031 (1936+95). --Xover (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable approach conclusion. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Tryst With Destiny[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted and moved to Wikilivres —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See w:A Tryst With Destiny. This is a 1947 speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Current copyright law in India gives it a copyright as a government work of 60 years, so it would be out of copyright in India in 2008. (Or so sayth Wikipedia.) I don't see it as PD in the US, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was published in the U.S. within 30 days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Move to BiblioWiki? I am no longer able to do it.--Jusjih (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been sitting here as a known copyvio for a year and a half, and with the copyvio tag on the work itself. Anybody want to volunteer to import it at Wikilivres or should we just go ahead and delete it? --Xover (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio, and notified Commons. --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raised a concern here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Index:To_the_Victor_Belongs_the_Spoils.djvu back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

Bringing it here, so that there is at least a disscussion.

The problem is the inclusion of 'third-party' images which are NOT necessarily under the same Creative Commons license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian photographs taken before 1955 are public domain now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong country: Wikisource is hosted in the United States, not in Australia. It says that the document was published in 1999, and if this was when the photographs were first published, then they will be unfree for several more decades in the United States. I can also not find any evidence that the Creative Commons licence claim for the text is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that the uploader of the original PDF, which was then moved to Common and converted to DJVU because the PDF wouldn't display, said his contribution was CC. This probably need someone with admin access at Commons and English Wikisource to do trace back what the originals were linking to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Australian photographs created before 1946 were public domain in Australia in 1996 and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. It is unlikely that photographs taken from external sources would have been first published in that paper. If the Creative Commons license is not valid, that is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Australian photographs were in the public domain 50 years after the making of the negative, nothing to do with publication.section "Provisions as to photographs" Again having and researching an evidence base for any argument would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you state that something is in the public domain, you must also state in which country it is in the public domain. This is in particular important in countries which do not use the rule of the shorter term, such as the United States. No Australian photographs created before 1955 entered the public domain in the United States 50 years after creation of the negative. That's when the copyright expired in Australia, but USA uses different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of such works expired in the U.S. when they were published without a copyright notice. Photos created 1946 and later could well have an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Australian photographs which were published usually entered the public domain either immediately upon publication (no notice) or 28 years after publication (no renewal). There could be some which were published with notice and renewal, but I suppose that's uncommon for non-US works. The main problems are photos not published until after 1963 (no renewal needed) and photos created after 1945 (URAA automatically added any missing notices and submitted any missing renewals). In either case, the copyright didn't expire in the United States 50 years after creation; that was only the case in Australia and in countries which recognise the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is some evidence that a photo was kept unpublished for some time, the usual assumption for foreign photos is publication without notice. That also precludes renewals being an issue, though that is also a fallback sometimes if it turns out there was a notice. But yes, the main problem would be photos created after 1945 -- those would have had their U.S. copyright restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper photographers seem to take lots of photographs of each event but only end up publishing one or two of them. Family photographs are also usually unpublished. Some of these unpublished photographs might later end up somewhere and become published a lot later. Therefore, it seems that most photographs are unpublished and that we can't assume that a photograph is published unless we have some indication that this is the case. Also, it does not seem safe to assume that a photograph was published without a notice, in particular not after many countries started signing the Universal Copyright Convention which mentions copyright notices. Most European publications currently contain a copyright notice, although this was a lot less common in the past. The only thing we can safely assume is that pictures were published without a renewal as there should have been very few people outside the United States who bothered submitting a renewal to the United States authorities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images post-date 1955. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break (To the Victor Belongs the Spoils)

Ok, this has now been sitting as a known copyvio since 2014 (that's 5 years!) and nobody has worked on it since ShakespeareFan00 did the work to determine what copyright statuses they could back then. This discussion has pretty much just confirmed that anything in there not published pre-1946 is a copyvio, and has been sitting here unclosed for 3.5 years! And the file is hosted on Commons, where I can pretty much guarantee that if we file a deletion proposal it will get nuked as soon as someone gets to that point in the backlog.

Even allowing for a generally conservative approach and wanting to salvage as much as we can, there are limits to what legal liability we can and should shoulder (and subject our volunteers and reusers to) and how much effort we should expend on saving this particular work (where, I'll note, the original author has been notably lax about copyright for someone wanting to release their own work as CC). If nobody in that time is willing to put in the effort and do the work required to salvage what can be salvaged, then perhaps the work is not worth salvaging.

So I say it's time to close this, delete the index and pages, notify Commons, and move on. And absent some actual progress, plausible arguments, or well-founded objections, in some reasonable timeframe (and I mean measured in days not years, just to be clear), that is what I will do. Please chime in on this (whatever your position: even "Dunno" and "Don't care" would be appreciated if that is where you're at)! --Xover (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal course of action is for a user to censor the offending images from the source scan so that we can transclude it using {{image removed}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'll second that: redacting just the problematic images and keeping the rest would be the ideal resolution if someone was willing to take that on. And while it would be quite a lot of work, ShakespeareFan00 has made a great roadmap of which images need to be redacted, which should make the job much more manageable. --Xover (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to Donald Trump from President Nixon[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
nomination by contributor, speedied

It seems likely at this point that the copyright is still owned by the Nixon Foundation; see the discussion at Talk:Letter to Donald Trump from President Nixon. Somewhat of a shame, but since the text of the letter, the original of which now hangs in the Oval Office, is so short, it's probably fair game to host the crux of it over at Wikiquote. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schuman Declaration[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as third-party translation subject to copyright.

A 1950 statement by a French politician, in French, and here from an unknown translator. The listed site does not show the respective documents in their original, though the europa.eu has the English translation, though no evidence that it is not in copyright. I have my doubts that both the original and the translation would be out of copyright, though no nothing of either. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The original speech might be PD-FrenchGov in France, since Schuman was Foreign Minister at the time, and as PD in its home country on the URAA date would not be affected by the URAA. It would be borderline for PD-EdictGov in the US, but I'd at least be willing to entertain arguments to that effect. The translation, however, if the given source is accurate, is copyright by the EU, which does not have a PD-USGov-style general exemption from copyright that I am aware of. As a third party translation it is exceedingly unlikely that the translation would be covered under PD-EdictGov in the US even if the original was determined to covered. --Xover (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahdname of Milodraž[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

The only source I can find for this translation is this poster, and I see no indication that it is out of copyright or in the public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The page gives this web page as a source, which links to/is a subpage of [9], attributed to Darko Zubrinic of Zagreb in 1995, whose profile on that same website is here, and who was alive as recently as 2012. There is no indication that this person has released the translation under a suitable free license. If the translation is misattributed, then there is no evidence it is freely licensed, and there is no good source available. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per BethNaught. --Xover (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ode to Nemanja[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Translation by Aleksandar Raković and Srđa Trifković, from here, no indication that translation is PD, nor could I find any such indication through googling. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete My google-fu suggests the two credited translators are both still alive, born in 1972 and 1954, and I can find no other obvious reasons to consider the translation PD or compatibly licensed. --Xover (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Buckwheat Season[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted

No license added after a year and a half. I can find no indication anywhere that either the original (via URAA) nor the translation are PD or freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original was published by an author who died in 1942 in Korea, which is life+50, thus out of copyright in 1996. So the original should be fine; which of course is not a statement about the version we're currently hosting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Actually, I'm guessing that this is a Wikisource translation or close to it. Google suggests The Buckwheat Season is irresistible to would-be translators interested in Korean literature (ten published translations in six decades, one said), and the hits for the given translator's name suggest several profiles that would be roughly in alignment with someone who would upload it here (and it is possibly dual-published on one other site, but that's hard to tell for sure). But in any case, that's just a guess, and without any of the formalities I don't think we have any real choice but to delete it: the translation is almost certainly in someone's copyright, and we have no indication of a compatible license. --Xover (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought of that, but I could find no link between the uploader's username or history and the linked translator. @Doririroring: do you have any input on this question? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with you. The English of the translation doesn't feel professional, but without a license, or a clear statement that it is a Wikisource translation, we probably shouldn't keep it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whitetissues[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as cross-wiki LTA / spam / promo / probably copyvio. Any time you see new users posting stuff related to Sukavich Rangsitpol (former minister of education in Thailand), his daughter Thita Rangsitpol Manitkul, or the Thai Ministry of Education, you can assume it's someone spamming using a sock account. As best I can tell they're trying to promote Rangsitpol, not defame or attack them, so news items about and speeches by Rangsitpol seems to be the part of their obsession we see here. English Wikipedia and Wikiquote has different but related problems with this LTA.

Speech published in this document, copyright UNESCO 1997. However I am not sure whether UNESCO can claim the copyright to the speech, whether the copyright is with the speaker, or someone else; so I'm hesitant to call this a G6 "clear and proven" copyvio.

This diff in the Sandbox will also need redacting. BethNaught (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fuenteovejuna[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

This has sat around since 2010 with no source, translator or licence. Googling snippets did not turn up an obvious source. Additionally it is a translation of only the first of three acts, and poorly formatted. BethNaught (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, multiple problems. Tarmstro99 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, I strongly suspect that this is a machine translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom + previous comments. --Xover (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete + Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment English translations seem to be only fairly recent, and copyrighted. E.g. this one dates from 1961 and was renewed (RE0000440084). Sadly, it doesn't look very likely there is a PD translation. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Concert Commission Director Interview[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Cornell Concert Commission Director Interview - no evidence of an open license, nor copyright waiver, just a stated "permission to share a transcript of this interview with the public or publish it". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was uploaded by the copyright holder, and so by posting it she released it under CC-BY-SA/GFDL. That being said, I emailed her instructions for OTRS back in April and she hasn't responded, so maybe we should delete it anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"uploaded by the copyright holder" As I said, there is no evidence of this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete On the copyright, I think we should strongly prefer to have OTRS confirmation for any works that have not "aged out" of copyright or have strong external evidence of compatible license. There are just too many pitfalls with allowing the mere upload and assertion here to be sufficient: deliberate misrepresentation is one definite concern, and a good-faith uploader simply not understanding the legal implications of our licensing is another. So I agree with Beleg Tâl above that this work should be deleted for that reason.
    But this work does not appear to be previously published either, and is thus out of scope too. And it doesn't help that the uploading user looks to be a publicist working with the subject interviewed: it appears likely that this is an attempt to use Wikisource for publicity, and as a free web host for an interview they could not get published anywhere else. --Xover (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Order of the 8th Army of Red Army for subjugating Estonia on 13 June 1940[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

The underlying work is presumably PD, but the translation comes up at Google Books from a 2006 journal, four years before it was posted here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pansies (1929) by D. H. Lawrence[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. Still in copyright in the US until 2024 due to the URAA.

Lord Scantaethon recently contributed the texts of several poems by D. H. Lawrence (1885–1930) from the collection Pansies (1929) under the belief that the copyright for the work had expired.

However, in discussing their status, we eventually concluded that these are still in copyright.

The collection was first published in the UK in 1929, and not published in the US within 30 days. At the time the UK copyright term was pma. 50 (so in copyright until 1980). However, in 1995 the UK changed their terms of protection to pma. 70 (i.e. until 2000) and made the change retroactive, restoring copyright to previously expired works. The work was thus in copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996, the URAA date for the UK, and its US copyright was thus set to 95 years after publication (1929 + 95 = 2024). In other words, Pansies is now in the public domain in the UK but is still in copyright in the US until the end of 2024.

Can anyone spot any flaws in this analysis? This issue affects many (if not all) of Lawrence's works published post-1924 (we have previously deleted some), so it would be good to have multiple eyes checking the reasoning. --Xover (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems pretty clear that the only exceptions in the public domain are going to be works published in the US within 30 days.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WMF legal advice, "However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status." -- Slowking4Rama's revenge 02:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note for the record… I agree that that WMF advice is a good factor to weigh in some situations (we don't always have to be more Catholic than the Pope!), but in this specific instance there is no apparent ambiguity to wiggle around in. It's here at WS:CV rather than a speedy mainly in case I had made a mistake in my original analysis, and not because there is any doubt about the copyright status. --Xover (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Controversial Canadian report released to the public only after a freedom of information request, and under Canadian Crown copyright. The report contains the following permissions statement (my underlining):

This report may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Department of Justice Canada, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; that the Department of Justice Canada is identified as the source department; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the original report.

So far as I can interpret, that underlined bit means that derivative works are not actually permitted (only faithful replicas), making this incompatible with our policy (and Commons'). Or, conversely, if that underlined bit is not to be taken as an -ND limitation, it should be suitable for move to Commons. --Xover (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, we've had other discussions about government documents with similar restrictions, and if I recall correctly we've determined every time that this is not compatible with our licensing policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good candidate to replace our "author-based categories" example for "Precedent-based deletions" perhaps? --Xover (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more of a policy-based deletion (CSD G6: Copyvio), but we can list it under precedent-based as well for clarity's sake. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo Nation Statement (November 27, 2017)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

The uploader was directed to send the permissions to OTRS back in January 2018. OTRS has confirmed that no permissions have been received. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Absent evidence to the contrary, this is clear copyvio. --Xover (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Itineraries for March 19-April 9, 2018 (Justin Trudeau)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio and of questionable scope.

These are copied from Trudeau's website. Several of them are merely placeholders with no content. It is dubious whether they are even in scope. But most importantly, this content is copyrighted material owned by the Office of the Prime Minister, and the license under which they are released does not allow for derivative or commercial use. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i would say that diaries and day books of chief government officials are in scope, but unlike US, there will be crown copyright. - Slowking4Rama's revenge 02:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. And agree that scope is "dubious at best". --Xover (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Agreement of the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Work sat here with no license or evidence of permission since 2010. What Wikipedia lists as the official website of the conference has the text here, with no mention of the public domain or a free license (though no mention of copyright either). BethNaught (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete No license apparent, so normal copyright must be presumed. I can't find any theory that would make this PD-*Gov or PD-EdictGov, nor otherwise exempt from copyright. --Xover (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Canada[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Tagged as lacking license since 2008. No indication of compatible licensing on the source website. I see no reason to presume this is not in copyright. --Xover (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete agreed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown's speech on becoming Leader of the UK Labour Party, 24 June 2007[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Tagged as needing license since 2008. Brown made this speech as the leader of his party, not in any government post, so I see no reason to presume this is not in copyright. --Xover (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On My Faith and My Church[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

2008 article by Barack Obama. Before becoming POTUS, and clearly written in a private capacity. I see no reason to presume this is not in copyright. --Xover (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Shalabi v. Barack Obama (2009-09-26)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Tagged as no license since 2017. Submission to the court by the lawyer of the plaintiff, and not a finding by the court, and hence not under PD-USGov. It's a public record, but not public domain: copyright rests with the plaintiff and their lawyer. --Xover (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's an excerpt too. The now-dead PDF has a cover letter and two attached exhibits, of which this text (letter) is one. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Also, there are a lot of Guantanamo-related documents just like it that are almost certainly copyvio, if anyone wants to take the time to go through them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And so his boyhood ...[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Apparently tagged as "no source" and "no license" at creation in 2015. Poem by Robert Ervin Howard (1906–1936) first published (says Wikipedia) in Weird Tales in December 1937, and so in US copyright until 2033 (but pma. 70 is 2006). AIUI from previous discussions, Weird Tales was generally renewed (I haven't searched exhaustively), so there's little chance of no-notice/no-renewal expiry. --Xover (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and in fact this is almost certainly renewal R369098 from 1965. --Xover (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, just for the record, the 1937 issues of Weird Tales were never renewed by the magazine's owners, so the individual renewal by the author should be determinative (provided I've understood that reversal-to-author stuff correctly). --Xover (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Short story by Stacy Aumonier (1877–1928) first published in a London weekly dated July 31, 1926 and republished in The Living Age (US magazine) just outside the 30 days limit for simultaneous publication, on September 4, 1926 (that's 35 days!). UK pma. 70 is 1998, and the URAA date for the UK is 1 January 1996, meaning the US copyright was restored and won't expire until 2023. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Heresies[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Book by Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953), first published in London in 1938 ("Books Received" in The Guardian on 24 November 1938). There is no evidence of a US publication until 1939 (December). It is thus in copyright in the UK until 2024, and in the US until 2033. --Xover (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nomination. Ankry (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Ptolemy[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Book by Edwyn Robert Bevan (1870–1943), first published in the UK in 1927 and no evidence of US publication until 1968. Pma. 70 is 2013, so its US copyright was restored by the URAA, running until the end of 2022. --Xover (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Foye email of Sept 13 2013[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Issued by an official of the w:Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and is covered by neither {{PD-EdictGov}} nor {{PD-USGov}}, nor anything else as far as I can tell. If it were to be kept, a scan is available here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Pretty sure neither {{PD-EdictGov}} nor {{PD-USGov}} would apply to this state-level joint-venture pseudo-governement thingy. --Xover (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus 13 amendments and Thirteen amendments[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Part of a 1963 letter from the President of Cyprus to the prime ministers of Greece, Turkey and Britain. Not legislation, so not covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. As far as I can tell this is the original text and not a translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Cyprus is pma. 70 and Makarios died in 1977. Cyprus also does not appear to have any kind of PD-USGov type exemptions from copyright. --Xover (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I messed up, I just moved it from en.WP [10]. It is so old (since November 1963), so I thought it was ok plus it is a historical text. Makarios proposed it as a legislative test. What is pma btw? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinadon36: Don't worry about. Copyright is hard, and even those experienced with it sometimes get it wrong (I've made some real howlers just in the last couple of days myself). That's why we have this community venue to discuss such issues when they crop up: more eyes on it means better chance of getting it right.
In this case, the issue is that the copyright law of Cyprus says that every creative work (like this one) is protected by copyright, for the author, until 70 years after the death of the author (aka. post mortem auctoris in Latin, so "pma. 70" is a convenient shortcut). Since Makarios was the author, he and his heirs owns the copyright; and since he died in 1977 the copyright lasts until 1977 + 70 = 2047.
In any case, the net result of all this is, that the work in question is still in copyright and cannot be hosted on Wikisource under our policy. --Xover (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thanks! Cinadon36 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that the work may be under copyright in Cyprus until 2047, but it would be copyrighted in the USA until 1953 (which is 95 years after publication). Wikisource policy requires that works be freely licensed or in the public domain in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinadon36: Wikisource does not allow copyrighted material. However, Wikipedia does allow some copyrighted material under some circumstances. I suggest that you review w:Wikipedia:Non-free content and other relevant policies to see whether it may be permissible to keep this list of amendments at w:Thirteen Points where you got it from. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glory to Hong Kong[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

Text of the song was moved here from the enWP article. However, there is no evidence that the lyrics are released into the Public Domain. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Per nom. And per precedent of all the previously deleted propaganda from both sides of that dispute recently uploaded. --Xover (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Per nom, only the sheet music is released under CC-BY-SA-NC-4.0, apart from that is unknown. Glory be to thee, Hong Kong. -- Assanges (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Charter on Freedom of the Press[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. No evidence of compatible licensing or copyright exception found.

Sourced from this press release by the European Commission, but was actually created by these people. Does not appear to be any form of legislation, nor do the creators appear to be any kind of copyright-exempt organization. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. The EU are quoting it in the press release, but the legal authors are a private organisation. No special exemptions from copyright applies here that I can see. --Xover (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One could expect that there is the expectation that this is a public statement that is expected to be considered PD-release, though it is mute on the important components. @Davide Denti (OBC): you added the work, are you able to assist? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many issuers of public statements I've seen have been adverse to modification or commercial use, so expecting it to be considered PD-release seems very presumptive to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Expectation != Presumption which is why I pinged contributor. Without the evidence that it is PD, I will both expect and presume that we will delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nupedia Open Content License[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. No indication of compatible licensing found. Copyright owner is Bovis' successors in interest.

I can find no evidence that the content of this license document are themselves licensed in a manner consistent with our copyright policy. I suspect that, like the text of the GFDL, the text will need to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The Best plays of 1941-42 and the year book of the drama in America.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Not necessarily PD-70 as claimed at Commons, Did someone check for a renewal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for deletion at Commons; it's renewal R491846, and that's irrelevant for all those plays it's reprinting that probably have their own renewals in the year they were published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Act of State Independence of the Republic of Abkhazia[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as third-party translation of unknown provenance.

Translation of a 1999 declaration of independence, with no source, no translator given, and no license for the translation. Original is presumably PD-EdictGov. --Xover (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the source, though it does not indicate whether the UNPO translated it themselves or whether it was issued by Abkhazia already translated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Unless it is found out and supported by clear evidence that the translation was issued under a free licence, we have to assume that it was not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India States Reorganisation Commission Report Telangana Andhra[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

Ok, after wasting way too much time tracking down the original report and creating a DjVu with OCR text, it finally dawned on me…

This is the report from a commission set down by the central government of India, but is not actually produced by any organ of the government. The authors are the members of the commission—Fazal Ali, K. M. Panikkar and H. N. Kunzru—the last of whom died in 1978 (India is pma. 60; so until 2038). As an independent commission, this is not a "government work" under the copyright exemptions of the old Indian copyright act (and the current act doesn't have PD-USGov type exceptions). It is a "report [presented to] parliament], but these are not actually exempt from copyright: they have normal copyright but with an exemption from infringement for mere publication. Modifications are not permitted (i.e. -ND).

In the US, this is not covered by PD-EdictGov (it's a report by an independent commission, not a law, judicial or administrative decision, etc.), and so its copyright is 95 years from publication (so until 2050).

In addition to the text, this also affects the following scan images:

Incidentally, this text is also out of scope as an excerpt: the report is 273 pages long and we have a grand total of 10 of them (which was why I was looking to produce a full DjVu in the first place, sigh). --Xover (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, how frustrating, I commiserate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Stone Meditation[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
No OTRS followup to document appropriate licensing after a decade. Never say we're too hasty deleting copyvios! 😎

The uploader claims that the translation is licensed under GFDL, but did not respond to requests for substantiation on the work's talk page. There is no evidence of GFDL release on the translator's website. OTRS was not able to determine whether or not permission was granted via OTRS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Oh, and an excellent example of why age of wikipage is not a good determinant. This was added first in 2006, and the copyright issue was brought up in 2008. After 9 years of no response to an otherwise obvious copyvio, I wouldn't bat an eye if you'd speedied this instead of bringing it here. One can quibble on how long to allow an uploader for figuring out the OTRS stuff, but the limit is definitely somewhere short of a decade! --Xover (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Address by Mr. Ilham Aliyev, Head of the Parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the PACE on item "Europe's fight against economic and transnational organized crime" (Strasbourg, April 23-27, 2001)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Written by Aliyev when he was an ambassador to the Parliament of Europe; not covered (that I can tell) by any of our license tags. No license provided since 2008. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PACE would not seem to fall under any {{PD-EdictGov}} exemption, and would not in any case be determinative here. "Head of delegation" is a dubious role in terms of meriting any kind of PD-AzGov-type exemption, and the type of work at issue here (essentially a speech) does not obviously fit into the "official documents (laws, court decisions, other texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character) and official translations thereof;"-exemption in Article 7. I also don't see any case for {{PD-EdictGov}} to unilaterally apply for US copyright here. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rise, decline and renewals of Sramanic religious traditions within the Indic civilisation with particular reference to the evolution of Jain sramanic culture and its impact on the Indic civilisation[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} since December 2010. Uploader was prompted for an update in August 2015 with no response.Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Since Patil died in 2011, no OTRS permission is likely to be forthcoming now. --Xover (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quietly Night is falling...[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

No source or license provided in nearly ten years. I cannot identify cited translator. I suspect it's a user translation, but cannot confirm that the IP uploader is the same person as the cited translator. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of ASEAN.svg[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is copyright by ASEAN. It's used under Fair Use doctrine on enWP, and has been deleted multiple times on Commons (it keeps getting reuploaded by someone carrying a torch). --Xover (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Past discussions on Commons suggest it might be {{PD-ineligible}} in the USA due to simple geometry, despite being copyrighted in source country. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, the discussions suggest someone attempted to make that argument, but it was dismissed. And I agree: even if the rest of it was, that central design thingy does not qualify for PD-ineligible. --Xover (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translations by Manish Modi[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

Logassa, Mangala Sutra, and Namotthunam were translated by Manish Modi, the (still living) owner of the publishing house w:Hindi Granth Karyalay. The uploader, User:Anishshah19, tagged the translations as {{PD-release}}; but they have not substantiated this claim, nor have they responded to my query on the subject on their talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Fable[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
speedy deleted as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown translator. Original was first published in 1930 in Germany, and in copyright there until 1994 (assuming pma. 70; I can't find special provisions for posthumously published works). Any translation would therefore either be a violation of the original copyright, or it would have been made after 1994 and itself be in copyright for some significant period yet (until 2089 if US). It is also an excerpt of a short story ("Beim Bau der Chinesischen Mauer"). --Xover (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - copied from Wikipedia, which cites the origin as Michael Hofmann's 2017 translation in The Burrow. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strider: the Story of a Horse + illustrations[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

This text is labelled as being published in 1864, but that's the date of the Russian original. Our copy is (apparently; there is no source specified) the Maude translation which was, so far as I can determine (I may very well be wrong!), first published in the UK in one of the volumes of the OUP complete works edition in 21 volumes published between 1928 and 1937. Louise Maude died in 1939 and Aylmer Maude in 1938, so, the UK being pma. 70, this translation was still in copyright in the UK on the URAA date (1 January 1996), making it still in copyright in the US until some time between 2024 and 2032.


In addition, our text is decorated with four images—also unsourced—claimed to be "from 1950 USSR publication". Except I'm pretty sure they're actually taken from here (even the file name quirks are identical). In any case, the "1950 USSR publication" is actually this 1951 edition, which is illustrated by Georgy Savitsky (1887–1949). Meaning that regardless of the status of the translation itself, these illustrations from a completely different edition are in copyright in Russia until next year (1949+70), and since the URAA date (1 January 1996) it has been in copyright in the US and will remain so until 2046 (1951+95). --Xover (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, Russia was life+50 on the URAA date. Not that that matters for this...--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:OTTO WEININGER (THEODOR LESSING) english translation.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

(plus Index: and transcribed pages) Wikisource translation by Bottler45 of a chapter of a book first published in Germany in 1930. The author of the original is Theodor Lessing (1872–1933), meaning it was still in copyright in Germany on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and thus is still in copyright in the US until 2025. The issue has been raised with the uploader, but no contrary information has been provided. --Xover (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan China Notes Establishing Diplomatic Relations[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

Unknown translator. The original is extremely unlikely to be in English. Also no source and no date. And these are not actually edicts of government: they're draft press releases with no particular force of law (that is, if made by the US they would be PD-USGov, but not PD-EdictGov). IOW, even if by a Wikisource translator it would still be in copyright in the US. --Xover (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Comment: there was an office of the Beijing government that was translating Chinese works in English into the public, though those were usually noted from source. This one can probably go, at various levels. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to George Bush from Ariel Sharon announcing his disengagement plan[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio.

A work by the prime minister of Israel with no license ad no license for a long time. It also has no source. I don't see that this could qualify as a government edict, and I see no specfiic tag indicated at c:Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags#Israel that would indicate that we have or could generate a license to cover this work for its time of publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Sharon was PM of Israel in 2004, and the Israeli Copyright Act, 2007 defines the state as the copyright owner for works produced by employees and officers of the state. Such works are protected by copyright for 50 years from publication, with the only exceptions being documents which have actual force of law (the text of laws, judicial decisions, etc.). This letter is thus in copyright in Israel until 2054. In the US it does not obviously fall within the exemptions in PD-EdictGov, so its US copyright will not expire until after 2099. --Xover (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It will leave copyright in 2085 in the US. It would be nice to get a declaration from Israel that their "crown copyright" expires world-round, like the UK has offered, but that still wouldn't save this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaja Govindam[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied.

No source, no translator; tagged since 2011. --Xover (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Source is sanskritdocuments.org, translator is a "M. Giridhar, NA, PSA Easwaran", text is copyrighted and commercial use is explicitly forbidden. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USSR's President of the National Defence Commission radio speech - July 3, 1941[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copyvio. Work does not fall under the scope of {{PD-RU-exempt}}, which means it falls under Stalin's personal copyright. That means the work was in copyright in Russia on the URAA date (1 January 1996) and its US copyright was thus restored and runs to 1941 + 95 = 2036. The original creative work in the translation (the derivative work) seems to be {{PD-US-no-notice}}, so the translation will also fall into the public domain in the US when the original's US copyright expires.

Translation of a 1941 radio speech by Stalin (1878–1953), at the time direct ruler of the USSR, with no source and no license. The original can probably be presumed {{PD-RU-exempt}} (or the equivalent; but not {{PD-EdictGov}}), but not the translation which seems likely to be the one by James Von Geldern and thus in copyright until some time next century or so. --Xover (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am actually sceptical about whether {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies because the language of the exemption stresses that a document must be "official", which makes me think this is actually more a EdictGov-type exemption than a USGov-type exemption, but since I didn't have the energy to dig into the finer points of Russian copyright just now, I'll skip it in favour of the more straightforward issue with the translation. --Xover (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Apparently there was a pma. 25 rule in Russia until 1993, when the new law made it pma. 50 retroactively. Russia is currently pma. 70, but I can't find when that change happened or whether it was retroactive (it presumably was). In any case, at the time of Stalin's death, his published personal work was in copyright until 1979, entered the public domain in Russia until 1993, and was then restored to copyright until 2004 (and very likely extended by the subsequent law until 2024). Russia joined the Berne convention in 1995 so his works are protected by copyright in all signatory countries as well. The long and short of which is that the finer details of {{PD-RU-exempt}} is what determines whether this work was eligible for Russian copyright to begin with. --Xover (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that what we have to worry about is the copyright in Russia in 1996, since that determines whether the copyright was restored by the URAA. Later or earlier copyright durations are moot for US copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All the online sources of this translation that I can find state that it's from the Aug 1941 issue of Soviet Russia Today. According to w:File:Ward-Harry-F-1941.jpg, the October 1941 volume of that magazine was published in the USA without a copyright notice, so this translation is almost certain to also be {{PD-US-no-notice}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be visible on HathiTrust; unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be held by a library close to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

The United States of Lyncherdom[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Tagged {{Pd/1923|1910}}{{PD-posthumous|1923}} after undeletion.--Jusjih (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I can this undeleted since it would be considered a 1923 work which is now in the public domain? Previous discussion from 10 years ago is here. I tried bugging the closing/deleting admin, but he or she is no longer active on the project. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. We should really move it to a scan-backed version, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The scan of this edition is https://archive.org/details/completeworksofm20twaiBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US-specific notices in non-US copyright tags[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
ok to proceed with modification of tags —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up a few times some works that are hosted under a non-US copyright tag, like {{PD-INGov}} or {{PD-Israel}}. These tags indicate that a work is PD in the source country, but don't indicate whether a work is PD in the USA.

I would like to add a little notice on the end of all of these tags based on the one used at {{PD-Russia}}, saying something to the effect of:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. because it was in the public domain in (country) in 1996, and no copyright was registered in the U.S.A. (This is the combined effect of (country)'s joining the Berne Convention in (year), and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)

Or, in the case of foreign government edicts:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. 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."

That way, the copyright tags can indicate both the information about source country copyright, but also the crucial US copyright status that allows the text to be hosted here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only license that we require is the US license, the additional licenses are niceties, not requirements. If people wish to double license, then they should be wrapped in Template:license container begin and "... end". — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I wish to address is that works get uploaded with non-US tags but don't have a US tag added. I think that the non-US tags should either be able to function as US tags also, or have a warning saying that a US tag must also be provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not catching their absence during patrolling? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I'm finding quite a few that have been here for years by digging through various maintenance categories, which is why I'm bringing it up. Already there are discussions in progress on this page regarding works that have been uploaded under {{Legislation-CAGov}} and {{PD-INGov}} and {{PD-Israel}}, and I expect to find quite a few more. I just want to generalize our approach so that I don't need to make a new discussion every time I find another one.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support the thought to retrofit.--Jusjih (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a small change to {{PD-EdictGov}}[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above discussion regarding the German constitution, I propose modifying the template {{PD-EdictGov}} as follows:

Current:

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials."

Proposed:

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've gone ahead and done it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Plays of Roswitha[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
question answered

Could people assist to determine whether (external scan) is out of copyright in the United States? The translator died in 1960, so it's still protected in the UK, but I'm unsure whether the book was registered for copyright in the US, and whether or not there was a renewal. It seems to have been published only from London, and anything post 1922 is confusing for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The translator is Christabel Marshall, who published under the pen names of Christopher St John and Christopher Marie St John. I do not know which of these names the copyright might (or might not) have been registered under. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why it would be PD in the US. (It is PD in Canada, which is why the University of Toronto may have felt fine about uploading it.) There's basically just two rules for restoration; it had not to be PD in its source nation in 1996 (or later if the nation joined WTO or Berne later, or is Vietnam, but 1996 for most of Europe) and "has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country." So it wasn't PD in the UK in 1996, the translator lived in the UK and it was published in UK with no following publication in the US.
Short of finding it was printed in the US at the same time, we'll have to wait until next year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's useful, I would like to kickstart 2019 with a collection of books that are newly freed into the public domain in the US (i.e. works from 1923), and this would certainly be an option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: I would think that this would be best considered as a subpage to WS:RT or a rejig of those pages. And to that we should also consider how we would list works that we have deleted that could be undeleted as coming out of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: This would definitely be useful. We have no medieval plays at all, or any works by Hrosvitha (except for the one I found that was in PD). Hrosvitha is the earliest post-Roman playwright whose works survive, and the first female playwright (we know of) from anywhere in the world. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: To some extent, WS:RT could work, but I also want a big bang on 2019-01-01, and that's going to take more off-wiki work and more preparation than WS:RT is usually associated with. I've been working on transcription projects for close to 20 years, starting not too long after the US PD was basically frozen. This is a huge deal to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of Canadian term to 70 p.m.a[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
no action needed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it affects much on Wikisource, but apparently a new US-Canada trade pact could see Canadian copyright terms extended to 70 p.m.a for some works. (Most likely to be those still in copyright (as happened with the UK extension from 50 p.m.a to 70 p.m.a. ), or works published after whenever the trade deal is ratified in Canada.)

A quick scan based on what was tagged with {{PD-Canada}} indicated that there wouldn't be much on Wikisource that would need to be reviewed (given US non acceptance of the shorter term) apart from possibly works by Author:William Lyon Mackenzie King such as Letter requesting a copy of Adventures in Contentment. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright tag for Letter requesting a copy of Adventures in Contentment is correct (i.e. if the work was indeed published in the USA between 1923 and 1977 without copyright notice), the US copyright will remain the same for that as well. Since the US law will not be changing, there should be no change to what may be hosted here. I guess we'll find out more when the details are hashed out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely Canada will make the extension non-retroactive, meaning there would not be anything to delete even if we did use Canada's law here (rather just a freeze on new expirations). Since we use U.S. law only though, it's highly unlikely that anything is needed -- the URAA remains unaffected. If there are tweaks to the U.S. copyright law due to the new treaty, we'd have to see what those are, but aside from that there should be no changes here. PD-Canada is just a helpful-information tag; I suppose if they make the law retroactive we may have to remove some of those but that will not affect hosting ability. The main effect will probably be that Wikilivres/Bibliowiki becomes less useful as time goes on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Practice of the Love of Jesus Christ[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
replaced with free, scan-backed edition —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original work is obviously PD (extract of a translation published in 1887), but there is a note with an email address saying that it has been "Edited and language modernized by Br. Sean, a choir monk, 2008". The article was created by Emesee (talkcontribs), now blocked, who I assume is not Br. Sean. A quick comparison with the original suggests the editing is mostly things like changing "Thou" to "You" but it's hard to tell what exactly was changed without going through page by page. It may be possible to email and ask for permission, though frankly the page is a mess anyway and a scan-backed copy from the IA file without the editing would probably be preferable. —Nizolan (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After some Googling, the edition produced by Br. Sean also seems to have been previously hosted on IA and taken down (link). —Nizolan (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, edited version needs to be replaced with the 1887 published version —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on the scan of the original here so it can be re-created as a translations page once deleted. —Nizolan (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done : redirected. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Life-Of-Pingali-Suranarya.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
The discussion concluded that the work's US copyright was restored by the URAA and it should be deleted. A procedural followup to confirm the conclusion has been posted at WS:PD. --Xover (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Published in India in 1941. Author died in 1947. Accordingly, was not PD-India on URAA date. Therefore, copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after publication. Also pinging @Rajasekhar1961:, the uploader, for comment. Hrishikes (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author died in 1947, more than 60 years from now (2018). So I thought, it is in public domain in India. Is the copywright law say differently. Kindly clafiry. --Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but English Wikisource has to follow the somewhat inconvenient US rules. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajasekhar1961: It is indeed in the public domain in India at present. But it was not so on January 1, 1996, when most countries, including the USA and India, entered the Uruguay treaty of forming the World Trade Organisation. On that date, the work was copyrighted in India, so the U.S. gave cognisance to this copyright retrospectively from publication. Once copyright got thus recognised in the U.S., the term of copyright would be as per the U.S. law, i.e., 95 years from publication. English Wikisource, unlike the Indic ones, follows U.S. laws only. So current PD-India status has no value here; the status in 1996 determines the issue. Hrishikes (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we can work on the books published before 1923. Does that mean we have to remove it from English wikisource.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the issue we are discussing. Let's see what others say. Hrishikes (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this was not PD in India on the URAA date: according to w:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, books by authors who died after 1941 are 60 pma. There's no US renewal in the Stanford database so it could be PD in the US if published in the US within 30 days of publication in India. However I see no evidence of that, so Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done - exported to Wikilivres, and local copy deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Work by Communist Party of China[edit]

The follow