Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2022

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

Index:The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

File has been moved to enWS.

This was presumably added by someone in good faith, but further investigations show it can't be hosted in Commons, due to the artwork included, which is not out of copyright in the UK.

Namely the artwork by , Blair Rowlands Hughes-Stanton (22 February 1902 – 6 June 1981), William Patrick Roberts RA (5 June 1895 – 20 January 1980) and Henry Taylor Lamb (21 June 1883 – 8 October 1960) amongst others...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: The file has been migrated to enWS, so closing this discussion. Xover (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Castle by Kafka, Franz.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

The translation is by Edwin Muir who was Scottish and died in 1959, Hence the edition is not necessarily out of copyright in the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete It seems to me like a copyright fraud, the year 1922 in Page:The Castle by Kafka, Franz.djvu/2 is imo forged, judging by 1) the fact that the novel was first published in German in 1926 and 2) the illogical order of dates in the page. I found out that Martin Secker and Warburg published the translation of the novel in 1930 and then again with some additions in 1953. Our edition contains the additions, so I guess that somebody erased the year 1953 and replaced in with 1922 in the scan of the book. . --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Torrents Of Spring.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Additional material by David Garnett is not out of copyright in the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this 1933 UK edition has additional material. The 1987 US reprint (c:File:The Torrents of Spring - Ernest Hemingway (1987 reprint).pdf) may be a better option; I had earlier added it here, but I removed it after seeing this 1933 edition. Hrishikes (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Religion and the rise of capitalism.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Work was first published in the UK in 1926, and not published in the US within 30 days, so while its copyright has expired in the US its UK copyright will subsist until pma. 70 of the author: 1962 + 70 = 2032. The file has been copied locally and the original tagged for deletion on Commons.

To be hosted locally, Principal author is Richard Henry Tawney who was British and died in 1962, so this is not necessarily out of copyright in the UK. ( The edition is however a 1926 US one.). The original UK edition is also from 1926 (London: John Murray, 1926) . ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Glosas Emilianenses

The following discussion is closed:

Procedural close without determining copyright status. The text will be deleted as out of scope based on discussion at WS:PD#Glosas Emilianenses, and putting the resolution there due to the rationale and so it is findable in the archives.

I originally nominated this at WS:PD for reasons unrelated to this work's copyright:

As noted by @CalendulaAsteraceae: on the work's talk page: "This work is in Latin, with glosses in medieval Romance and Basque. As such, it should move to the Wikisource for the appropriate language—probably the multilingual Wikisource, or possibly the Spanish Wikisource if the book it's excerpted from is eligible for inclusion." The document is also not scan-backed.

However, in addition, there are also potential copyright issues as well. While (if indeed the original is from the 10th century) the pre-annotated source is free of copyrights worldwide, this particular annotated version is likely still in copyright. According to the header, it was published in Madrid in 1956, by a Ramón Menéndez Pidal who died in 1968. Spain is a country with Life + 70, so this wouldn't be PD there yet, and it certainly wouldn't be PD in the US either, so I don't know that any Wikisource could really host it, including us. So if we don't assume the annotations are enough to claim PD-simple, we can just forget about it being on mulWS or esWS as well as here. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I don’t see any annotations that could garner copyright. The written-out glosses are not original. However, this is certainly not in English, so it shouldn’t be here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Alta California Report of the Bear River Massacre

The following discussion is closed:

As none of the potentially copyrightable elements are currently present on enWS, only the presumably-unaltered reprinted text, there is currently no copyright issue to address. But I do note that the 1982 reprint has a potentially copyrighted cover image, so before that 1982 edition is uploaded (here or on Commons) that needs to be checked.

While the original articles were published in the 1860s, the source for this is a modern reprint published in 1982 [1]. What is the copyright status of such reprints? Languageseeker (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: For a reprint, you need to check whether it contains any copyrightable changes. For a textual work, if the text is supposed to be identical (i.e. a reprint rather than a new edition) barring things like spelling corrections (which are not copyrightable), it is fairly likely it has no new copyright. It needs to be checked case by case, but for any reprint of a public domain original the odds are good. The things that can mess it up are typically modern forewords, modern publisher's logos, added illustrations, and so forth. Xover (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

The source of this text appears to be [2] which gives a publication information of Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp. 667–766 making it possible a URAA restoration. Languageseeker (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete In addition to the URAA concern, it's not scan backed and if it turns out to be a reprint of an earlier version that is in the public domain we should just use that instead as the basis. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Not hostable on Wkisource due to new material (preface) and a compilation copyright.

The copyright for the Arthur Rackham illustrations for The Tempest is 1926. I procured a 1993 printing of it. There is a new to me copyright. "Preface and Compilation". I have uploaded that page File:The Tempest-Rackham-0006.jpg.

The images for sure are pd, but before I upload the scan, I am checking to see if the scan is pd, or maybe I need to separate the images from the text, or whatever....

The images were not presented like most of the other original publications (well, scans of) I have seen. Nothing like this: https://libraries.mit.edu/150books/2011/03/13/1926/ In my book, that title page has been repurposed as an end paper, for instance. And none of the plates have been surrounded by the frame.

So, my questions are:

  1. how much (if any) of this publication can be uploaded as is?
  2. is "compilation" the 1990s word for "layout"?
  3. Since the words and the images are PD now, can I make another layout based on how I think the original was?
  4. is there a question I should be asking but have not thought of yet.

Thanks for your time, thoughts and actual knowledge about this and other cpyrght things.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

My impression on reading of the colophon page is that they used the text from the 1926 edition, added a new preface, and may have selected new images as well, creating a new "compilation" as a result. Creating a reconstruction in the absence of the original is not a recommended approach. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: "Compilation" means literally that: they picked parts from different places and compiled it into a single whole. That arrangement could very well have a valid copyright even if all the underlying bits and pieces were in the public domain. If we allowed excerpts or annotations (our own custom editions, essentially) we could have picked out the individual pieces safely; but our policy requires reproducing the published edition, which is what is covered by a compilation copyright, so the combination makes this ineligible for hosting here. Xover (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Compendium Maleficarum

The following discussion is closed:

Based on currently available evidence it appears this work will not be hostable on enWS until the 1929 + 95 years copyright term expires.

I came across this after going through some English Wikipedia book entries (see here). The original deletion rationale is fallacious. I hope that the deleted copy has more bibliographic information, as I have had some trouble tracking down the original translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't want to undelete on the current basis, since all I'm seeing suggests a 1929 publication (both of which would tend to suggest copyright for a bit longer). And because it wouldn't help because the deleted pages contain no bibliographic data worth mentioning. The header lists author as Francesco Maria Guazzo but no date. The talk page says "Translation by Montague Summers (Orig. pub. 1929)" and gives pub. date as "1608". Other than that the top page contains nothing but a table of contents, that divides the work into three "books", the first of 29 chapters, the second of 20, and the third of 4. The second book has the descriptive text "Dealing with the various kinds of witchcraft, and certain other matters which should be known." and the third "Treating of the divine remedies for those who are bewitched, and of certain other matters." The first has no description.
In other words, I think the most promising path would be to track down a scan of the ca. 1929 publication that enWP lists as being edited by Montague Summers and translated by "E.A. Ashwin" (which a quick googling failed to identify further). If it was simultaneously published in the US and failed to observe the formalities (not an inconceivable state of affairs) it might well be hostable here (but most likely not on Commons). Xover (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
There's a 1929 scan here with a London publication mark: https://archive.org/details/compendium-maleficarum. The "A" in "EA Ashwin" appears to be "Allen", but the "E" is still stubborn. Summers died in 1948, no idea about Ashwin. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Xover: That copy looks like the limited-edition version of a book which also had a cheaper trade edition, which edition would have been published in both the U.S. and the U.K. Obviously, absent physical evidence of such, it cannot be undeleted. I withdraw this request in all but name, in case you or Inductiveload can track down more information. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Montague Summers: A Bibliography (second edition, 1983) says there was just one edition of Compendium Maleficarum, published in London in 1929, no US publications. (The addendum says there was a second London edition in 1970.) A few years wait for this to be PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Index:Man and His Changing Society- Volume 8- Mankind Throughout the Ages (IA manhischangingso00rugg).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Copyright violation- From Copyright of Catalog Entries- " © 15Sep38; A124293. Elizabeth Rugg (W); 2Jun66; R386747." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Index:Multilevel algorithms for nonlinear optimization.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

There was no support for this proposal.

Work is PD-USGov, specifically for NASA. The Commons discussion concluded as much. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussion is here: WS:CV#Index:Multilevel algorithms for nonlinear optimization.djvu.
And just as Commons doesn't much care about our copyright discussions, the outcome of their discussion of a given work is not determinative for us (much less the basis for an assertion that the work is PD-USGov). Absent actual evidence (contractual clauses) that a work-for-hire relationship obtained or other transfer of title occurred, I don't see any way we could host this. --Xover (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Index:Hamlet, Second Quarto Variant (British Library Shelfmark: C.34.k.2) (and scans)

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn / work is compatibly licensed.

Source site claims scanned material is Creative Commons Non-Commerical. Generally Commons however seems to ignore this for works that are clearly in the public domain, which a 17th centry Shakespeare edition would be? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. There is nothing in US law that permits someone to claim copyright over a work that was printed more than 95 years ago, or in EU law allowing someone to do the same for works whose author died more than 70 years ago. Copyright is based on the date of publication or the date the author died. Scanning a work to produce a faithful representation does not constitute an act of creativity nor produce anything original that the scanning person or institution could claim copyright over. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Why is this not just yet another case of some random organisation claiming a copyright that is not valid? What's different about this relative to that NLS work we discussed at length, and even had to get the NLS's legal director involved in, last year (or in `20, I don't recall offhand)? Scanning a flat piece of paper does not magically create any copyright under US law, EU law, or UK law; WMF Legal have explicitly said that such copyright claims are not valid; and both enWS and Commons have explicit policy and established precedent in accordance with this. So what is the rationale for bringing this scan here? Xover (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you confirming the position I thought applied. No further discussion is needed and the relevant index can be retained, although I would strongly suggest it's compiled into a Djvu at some point. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

File:BasilAsceticalWorks.djvu and Index:BasilAsceticalWorks.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Copyio -

"R677513. Saint Basil: ascetical works. By Sister M. Monica Wagner, C.S.C. (The Fathers of the church, vol. 9) NM: translation from Latin & Greek. © 24Oct50; A49168. Sister M. Monica Wagner, C.S.C. (A); 3Nov77; R677513." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Well if it needs to go then feel free to take it down. Bobdole2021 (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A Star is Born

The following discussion is closed:

Queried work appears to be in the public domain through through failure to renew original copyright.

The screenplay for the original version of A Star is Born (1937) was written by Dorothy Parker in collaboration with William A. Wellman, Robert Carson, and Alan Campbell. I have searched the film copyright renewal databases and cannot find any evidence of a renewal. Granted, the film has been remade three times. I do not know if the rights were transferred, whether this is possible, or whether that has any impact on the copyright status of the original film and its screenplay.

As far as I can tell, given the caveats above, this film and its screenplay may be in public domain, which would be huge. Can anyone find anything relevant or further? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of Alfred Nobel

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as translation copyvio

Apesrs to be a translation copied from the nobel prizes website Serprinss (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete for the translation. However, Alfred Nobel died in 1896, so even though it's apparently unpublished, the original Swedish version of his will should be in the PD in the United States because he died more than 70 years ago. The page does include a scan of the Swedish document. So perhaps it could be hosted at sv: and/or translated by us here in the Translation namespace. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Mind, Character and Personality (1977)

The following discussion is closed:

Evidence was presented to reinforce the previous Office action (thank you for doing that research!).

After the takedown and ensuing discussion, I came across a copy of this work (volume I of II, not that it matters). Note the title recto and verso. For some reason, only the spine noted the volume number; I scanned that also, in case it was necessary, although there is a note on the second image noting the volume. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I'm failing to follow. What's the purpose of this thread and the uploaded pages? We're not going to undelete a text that was deleted by Office action (without getting WMF Legal to sign off on it first), so I don't understand why the scans are relevant. Apologies if I'm being dense. Xover (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Xover: You misunderstand me. The files prove the legitimacy of the copyright claim; thus, the Office action should not be overturned. At the time of the WMF action, there was a complaint about the legitimacy of the copyright notice; so, I tracked down a copy of the original work to see if there was a notice. As you can see from the files here, there is a notice, and it is legitimate, so the Office action should be upheld. I sent this notice for informational purposes, not to try to start a new discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Ah, see, I knew I must be being dense here. Thank you!
    PS. Can I delete the two pages or do you want them around for anything? Xover (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

What is to Be Done? and Index:Lenin - What Is To Be Done - tr. Joe Fineberg (1929).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Discussion opened due to uncertainty, and no evidence was presented that contradicts the original asserted copyright state, so absent opposing votes (and in light of the proposer withdrawing) we default back tp the status quo. Note that no definitive evidence was present to positively identify copyright status, so if new doubts are raised anyone should feel free to open a new discussion about this work.

I originally looked at the British library etc. to see whether there was UK publication and couldn't find any but I just found [3] which lists a publication date of 1929 which is the same year. The question is: does it mean that this counts as URAA restored work for a few more years or not for US purposes and hence hosting on WS? The unsourced mainspace translation is a revised translation of the early 1929 text so it would count as a derivative work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The plot thickens: if you look at the DLI scan Internet Archive identifier: in.ernet.dli.2015.217942 it says reprinted from the Iskra period and printed in the USA. You can see one of the 1929 volumes here containg the work and not renewed: IA. So since this was edited by Trachtenberg in the USA and sayds printed in the USA assume it is a US publication for origin purposes but I can't find whether the UK version was published in 1929 or 1930 to be totally sure... MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Basically my thinking is that it does count as a US origin work since it appears to predate the UK publication with the US editor, I wanted to be careful as Fineberg was British- and then Russia-based and there was a fair amount of republication between Martin Lawrence and International Publishers. Anyways I believe that it is {{PD-US-no-renewal}} based most of the reviews I am seeing coming out in say 1930 in the UK. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think we have to dismiss all DLI scans as being untrustworthy. PGDP, Librivox and en.WS have all been bitten by altered dates in DLI scans, and PGDP refuses to accept them. If we know the work is PD, then we could use the scans, though I wouldn't prefer it, but I think they're untrustworthy for establishing PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I find 1929 publications in the libraries in the UK published by Martin Lawrence but they include ed. Alexander Trachtenberg (e.g. https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b1428201 ) so it is seems that a. it was published in the UK and in the US in 1929. b. the UK edition was edited by Trachtenberg (i.e. the founder of International Publishers) b. the CCE has a publication date of December 31, 1929 by international publishers with no ad interim copyright or reference to a foreign publication. Given Trachtenberg is the editor I suspect simultaneous publication. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 Keep I am withdrawing the nomination because I think I have seen enough to convince me that it was simultaneous per above even if I haven't been able to nail down the exact publication date in the UK to confirm. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Declaration of Montreal

The following discussion is closed:

Clarification of copyright status has been received through OTRS/VRT, and the source website has been updated (verified by multiple admins), so this is hosteable under a presumed public domain status. The legal status is technically slightly murky in some jurisdictions due to failure to use an established public domain dedication (like CC0), but for our purposes it will have to do.

Don't see any indication that this is PD or openly licensed. They do have a website wtih contact details, so maybe they would be open for making it PD or filing a VRT ticket. MSG17 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have emailed Joke Swiebel (named at http://www.declarationofmontreal.org/) asking if they'd consider a free license and if so advising a VRT process. The email given at the site (info@declarationofmontreal.org) is dead/bouncing emails. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Joke Swiebel has very kindly updated the source website http://www.declarationofmontreal.org with a public domain license. She has also emailed the VRT, so hopefully there'll be a VRT ticket number soon. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Awesome! Hope we get the ticket number soon. MSG17 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The ticket number is 2022012710006427. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If the website contains a (compatible) license statement then it is not necessary to also go through VRT. We need to make sure the license is actually compatible (which is why the CC licenses are really really nice; homebrew statements are often deficient in some aspect), and that it actually applies to the relevant content (cf. blanked statements in website footers etc.), and that the applicability of which license is documentable even 10+ years down the line. But having multiple admins check that the website says "public domain" and note so in this discussion is plenty in that regard.
PS. But do try to nudge people towards the CC licenses, and the CC-Zero public domain dedication rather than just saying "public domain". There are a lot more legal pitfalls in the latter, that the former does its best to address, than is obvious (for one thing, not all legal systems make it possible to give away copyright in this manner). Xover (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Xover the website license statement was added at the same time they contacted VRT, so they just did both things in parallel. And I did suggest CC0, FWIW, though perhaps I was not clear enough about it. Though I guess demonstrating to an MEP what a ridiculous mess copyright is can only be a good thing, maybe I should have made it as confusing as possible! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The Art of War (Giles)

The following discussion is closed:

There was no support for the position that this work might have an independent copyright (in addition to the expired original) based on the evidence presented.

This is a edition of The Art of War published in 2000 that substantially differs from the original 1910 edition. Therefore, is it still in the public domain or does a separate copyright apply to it. Languageseeker (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In what way does it differ substantially? Was it retranslated, selectively edited, condensed, sections removed, material added, annotated, or what? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Entire sections were removed describing the previous translations and technical challenges. It also appears to have been selectively edited. Languageseeker (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Removing sections is not copyrightable, as far as I am aware. Neither is minor changes made to the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sermons of the Curé of Ars

The following discussion is closed:

On the available evidence, the consensus was that this work is in the public domain through lack of a required renewal.

This work was published in 1960 and I'm guessing the translator, Una Morrissy, died sometime after 1960:

Sermons of the Curé of Ars —unsigned comment by Bobdole2021 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2022‎ (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Open Letter on Cosmology

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. The uploader's account is globally locked and has been indeffed on at least 5 projects for socking, inappropriate conduct, and copyvios (LTA). It is highly unlikely any permission email is forthcoming, and it wouldn't be trustworthy in any case.

A 2004 work added by a new contributor. The source appears to be from New Scientist, and the links give no indication that this is freely licensed, and I have no reason to think it would be. @Modanung: Do you think this is freely licensed? Please note that any texts submitted to Wikisource must be freely licensed per policy. See Wikisource:Copyright policy, and Help:Licensing compatibility. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, "open letter" implies public domain. I'll check with Lerner by mail. Modanung (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Modanung: Even if the work gets deleted during this discussion, it may be undeleted at any point if evidence ever makes it apparent that this is freely licensed. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Modanung: Whether or not that's the case, this does not indicate legal copyright status. There needs to be more than just an ambiguous usage of the word "open". In a case like this, it generally needs to be explicitly stated on the document itself that it is being released into the public domain or has a Creative Commons license that is acceptable per Help:Licensing compatibility. It needs to be confirmed or verified that the work was unambiguously and explicitly licensed this way by the copyright holder. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
My argument would be that the very concept of calling your writing an open letter is by definition its explicit dedication to the public domain. Modanung (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Can one pirate an open letter? Modanung (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Modanung: Pretty much everything released after 1989, and not by governments, is under automatic copyright, unless explicitly stated otherwise. For it to be considered in the public domain in 2004, the author would have had to make a statement like "This document is hereby released into the public domain." on the document, or use the CC0 license. In other words, an open letter, which Wikipedia says is "a letter that is intended to be read by a wide audience, or a letter intended for an individual, but that is nonetheless widely distributed intentionally" is still under copyright. Even if the document is anonymous or meant to be viewed by many for free, this doesn't mean anything about the copyright status. Furthermore, even where a copyright is never enforced and will probably never be enforced, it still must be respected on WMF projects. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
"An anti-copyright notice is a specific statement that is added to a work in order to encourage wide distribution. [...] However, "anti-copyright" statements typically do not take the form of either sophisticated public copyright licenses or a simple dedication to the public domain; instead, they usually just encourage wide distribution."
I'd say using the term open letter is an "anti-copyright notice". Modanung (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Modanung: I see no definition of "open letter" that includes specific dedication to the public domain. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The whole point is to encourage copying and forwarding to all who might be interested. I don't see how you could interpret that as anything else than a public domain dedication. Modanung (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't know actually what the intent is without a license. Does it require acknowledgement of the source or not? Can it be used in any content no matter the point-of-view or the commercial nature of the use? Can you freely translate it into other languages without their input and control or not? Anyways the contact info is here and then hopefully it should be possible to nail down exactly the terms they want to allow other people to use it. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The term open letter is an anti-copyright notice. Adding more words to the same effect would be redundant. Modanung (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Modanung: The article you linked on Wikipedia says "For example, if just free distribution is encouraged, modification or lack of attribution is still illegal, making the material ineligible for collaborative writing projects like English Wikipedia. In such a case anti-copyright is not a true denial of copyright, but just a modification of the protection it affords copyright holders." So even if we assume the open letter is by definition one that allows for free distribution, it doesn't imply anything about modification. Since the modification rights are not specified, this would therefore be disallowed on Wikisource as well as Wikipedia or any other WMF project. If I am to be completely generous in that it is sufficient as an anti-copyright notice in some respect, it's still not quite free enough to pass our copyright policy. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Hadn't read up to there. That's pretty specific. Is WikiSource "collaborative writing" though? The whole point is storing unmodified and properly attributted copies. Modanung (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, translations. Modanung (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Modanung I think the point being made is that, even if the work is presumed to be licensed freely, nothing else about licensing can be taken as a given. Importantly, this means that if the author does not wish to allow modification or the creation of derivative works, the work can't be hosted on WS. Without knowing the author's exact intent, nothing further should be assumed.
Also, note that copyright (the right to make copies) does not have to do with how widely a work is disseminated. An author could give every person in the world a copy of a book, but the legal right to produce more copies (or allow other people to make copies) would still remain solely with the author. Whether or not use of the term "open letter" necessarily permits copying of a work is another matter entirely. Shells-shells (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'll link to other sites while awaiting mister Lerner's reply. Modanung (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Schweizerpsalm

The following discussion is closed:

Text of unknown provenance with no plausible claim to compatible licensing.

The Swiss national anthem. 1. It is translated into several different languages on one page. Already this is a problem, because this is the English Wikisource, so therefore should not host translations linked side-by-side. 2. What is the source of the English translation of this? Is it community-translated? If so, should go in the Translation namespace. 3. If it's not community-translated, a simple Google Books search for "Thou, O loving Father, ever near." from before 1927 comes up with no hits. Is this an official English version of the Swiss national anthem, created by the Swiss government? Or was it translated on an otherwise public-domain source? 4. Also, what is the copyright status on national anthems to begin with? Do they count as PD-EdictGov or is there another way in which national anthems fall out of copyright? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: I read the original German anthem is from 1841 but that's in German... I don't see anything about an official English translation from the Swiss government. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a quasi-official one here: https://sgg-ssup.ch/en/social-cohesion/swiss-national-anthem/ MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • From the Wikipedia article: “In 2013, the Société suisse d’utilité publique organized a public competition and unofficial vote to change the lyrics of the national anthem.” The page is remarkably poorly made, unofficial, and different from the “Swiss Hymn” in question here. The different-language versions are the same as those on the Wikipedia article, which gives all give versions in a table; the English version alone has no source. They seem to originate in this Web-site, which gives no source, and is not likely the originator of the translation. Is there a source for the 1981 proclamation? Otherwise, I’m having difficulty finding the officiality. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

On War Against the Turk

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Of course the German original from the 16th century is in the public domain worldwide, unquestionably, but a modern translation of it may still be under copyright. The only source I found for this translation (when searching for "With this I have cleared my conscience") on Google at all was here. @ZeusAmmon1: Is there any evidence this specific translation is freely licensed? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PseudoSkull, it's a little bit complicated situation, the website doesn't have a © logo and refers to it taken from web archives(as far as I know not copyrighted there) but it's also referring to here, it's a public pdf. Pdf's itself has ©1997 but then I searched the guy who translated I found this website, according to this translator died 93 years ago. As far as I know, I can legally be able to share his translations but not as an e-book pdf. Which that makes me confused, should I remove it or keep it? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@ZeusAmmon1: After about 10 minutes of searching, I can't find a book with this translation in it very easily. I read that a translation of On War Against the Turk is in somewhere in Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia, with Volume 1 having been published in 1915, but it would take forever to search those manually. Here's volume 1:https://archive.org/details/worksofmartinlut01luth Volume 2: https://archive.org/details/worksofmartinlut02luth Can you point me to a scan, on HathiTrust, Google Books, or the Internet Archive, of a book containing a translation of "On War Against the Turk"? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
It's allegedly in Volume 5 (1931) MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Scan is here [[4]] MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Ooh, bad news, but it's under US copyright. That volume was published in 1931, and the volume's copyright was renewed, meaning that it will not be in the public domain until 2027. This translation, if that volume is in fact the original source, will therefore have to be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I looked through the list of published translations and couldn't find a translation. The introduction is in Luther's letters by Preserved Smith. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Production of Security.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

There is consensus that the publisher is sufficiently likely to have title to license, and that the license is a compatible one.

This is a translation.. I can't find evidence to support a CC license claim on the link Commons provides a source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The PDF itself however, DOES say it's CC on page 5, so I am thinking that's sufficient? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy Kept and nom withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: The Mises Institute are claiming a 2009 copyright (and hence right to relicense under CC BY) for a translation first published in 1977 by the Center for Libertarian Studies. On the face of it this does not hold up: absent explicit licensing or other factors, that 1977 copyright is the relevant one (the 2009 one, for which Mises can issue a CC BY license, is at best for layout and illustrations) and for that we have no license or transfer of title. Xover (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The Mises Institute claims to be the heir of the Center for Libertarian Studies: https://web.archive.org/web/20180209111837/https://mises.org/events/libertarian-scholars-conference "the Mises Institute, as heir to the Center for Libertarian Studies" and presumably could have acquired the 1977 copyright as part of that. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Could, certainly. Are you saying you find it likely they actually did? Xover (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that the two organizations involved many of the same people (e.g. Rothbard, Rockwell and Blumert) and it continued publication of the main journal The Journal of Libertarian Studies I would think they are the most likely owner of the copyrights given the CLS is defunct. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
E.g. they have addresses in the same building.. https://www.californiaexplore.com/company/01627635/the-ludwig-von-mises-institute-for-austrian-economics-inc, https://eintaxid.com/company/510200358-center-for-libertarian-studies-inc/ MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll defer to your better judgement then. :) Xover (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Letter 121 (Letter to Algeria)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

"Online source: https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/1291.html Printed source: Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Isidorus Hilberg, 3 v. (New York: Johnson, 1970, repr. CSEL, 1910-18), 3. 1-55, ep.121"

Added by the new user BenedictOfTheSacredHeart. The original Latin letter would be in the public domain worldwide because the author died over 100 years ago. However, translations are a little bit of a different matter, and modern translations even of public-domain source texts can still be copyrighted separately in the US. Is there any evidence that this translation is freely licensed? The printed source appears to be from a book from 1970, although I don't know much about it and can't find much from some simple Google searches. If the translation really is from 1970, it is very likely to be still under copyright today. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • PseudoSkull: The source listed seems to be the source for the Latin original; that Web-site lists “Amy Oh” as the translator, possibly for that original translation. I assume “repr. CSEL, 1910-18” means that it was originally published in 1910, which means that it is in the public domain; but, again, the translation’s source is indeterminate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    From the web source's about page:
    "Epistolae is a collection of letters to and from women in the Middle Ages, from the 4th to the 13th century. The letters, written in Latin, are linked to the names of the women involved, with English translations and, where available, biographical sketches of the women and some description of the subject matter or the historic context of the letter.
    The letters were originally collected and translated by Professor Joan Ferrante of Columbia University, mainly from printed sources. The Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (formerly the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning) has collaborated with Professor Ferrante to develop a free, online repository of the collection.
    Epistolae is meant to be a cooperative project. It designed to allow for future additions and translations of letters, as well as corrections to the texts or to the information offered. Some scholars and presses have already contributed letters and translations, and their contributions are gratefully acknowledged in the text. Users are invited to participate by sending material or inquiries to jmf2@columbia.edu. Contributions, fully acknowledged, will be put online after review for accuracy and style by members of the Epistolae Board."
    The website is the sole source of the available translation of Jerome's Letter 121. The website it does not include a copyright upon the translation as it was provided by an independent scholar Amy Oh to be presented publicly in a free online repository. The only copyright was upon the original printed source of the Latin collection of letters published in a 1910 version which the translator used. The 1970 reference does not refer to the translation. The English translation was first indexed by the internet archive in 2017.
    Is there any reason to assume copyright infringement for the submission of a scholar to a free public online repository? I would not have submitted the Jerome's Letter 121 if it had been copyrighted. BenedictOfTheSacredHeart (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    @BenedictOfTheSacredHeart: Unfortunately, a work is automatically copyrighted, unless the author explicitly releases it into public domain or under a free license, which the translator has not done. So we do not know, whether the translator allows his work to be published only in the Epistolae site or whether it can be freely shared, whether they allow further modifications of their work (which is requited by Wikimedia projects) and so on. See Wikisource:Copyright policy#'Free content' definition. However, it is possible to write to the above mentioned email and ask about the license of the translation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull The Latin source used may be seen here; it was published in 1918 according to the title page. Shells-shells (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ian Johnston: On Hašek’s The Good Soldier Švejk

The following discussion is closed:

Ambivalent licensing statement has been amended to resolve opener's concerns.

I am considering to add a lecture by Ian Johnston from http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/lectures/hasek.htm, but I am not sure about its copyright. The lead to the lecture says: The following lecture ... is in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged and the text is not edited. This lead seems to contradict itself: is it in the public domain or are some rights still reserved? Can it be added here? I am inclined to say it can because the author released it into the public domain first and only then stated some reservations, but once a work is in the public domain, it is simply in the public domain... May I ask for more opinions? Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Legally, I think a court might interpret the license as being something like CC BY-ND; he may not have used the right words, but the intent was clear. I don't think we should be trying to push these lines.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It is contradictory in another way: it may be used “in part,” which would necessitate editing out some other parts, but “provided … the text is not edited.” Can someone contact him, since he provides an e-mail address? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    I have written an email asking for a PD or CC BY-SA release. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    I received a positive answer and consequently the problematic part about forbidden editing was removed from the lead to the source text, so this issue has been resolved. Thanks everybody for their comments. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Some books of World English Bible

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

In 2012 User:Jeremiahkicha added a few books of the Bible (World English), but the text they supplied was in fact from the copyrighted Revised Standard Version, with one exception, which was from Douay-Rheims Bible (public domain, but already present at WS, so redundant). Imo, they are all eligible to be speedied, but I present them here in case somebody wanted to work on them (I have already replaced copyvio text in Psalm 151):

RSV copyvios:

Reduntant to Douay-Rheims:

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Schweizerpsalm

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied (by Jan) as previously deleted clear copyvio.

Translation of the Swiss anthem, added here by User:AFL Logos, who had copied it from English Wikipedia, where they do not give the source. The oldest publication of the English translation of the German version I found was the 1997 book German Songs and the same result was obtained in HathiTrust. I did not find the English translation of the French version in any printed book available in Google books or in HathiTrust. From this I assume that we cannot consider the text to be in Public Domain.—Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of being out of copyright in the US. Note that this same anthem also had a copyright discussion earlier this year. Also, I will repeat what I said on that discussion that this is not the place for user-generated side-by-side translation, because this is the English Wikisource, so only an English version should be included if it is to be. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry, I should have noticed that it had already been deleted once. I do not think it could be useful to bother community and repeat the process again, and so I am going to delete it based on the previous discussion. In case of disagreement I can renew it any time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Fun fact: I suspect that this page was recreated because our Wikisource deleted text was still linked to in the External links section at w:Swiss Psalm. I have just now deleted that link to avoid further potential recreations. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Another fun fact is that Wikipedia editors do not seem to mind having copyrighted texts in similar pages (this one is not the only one I saw there). Swiss Psalm has 37 watchers there! I have started a discussion at w:Talk:Swiss Psalm#Copyright of the English translation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Index:SIDS_Survival_Guide.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as clear copyvio by Jan.

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=File:SIDS_Survival_Guide.djvu&page=4

That's a clear copyright notice from 1994. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Delete 1994 copyright notice and the IA source has this work in copyright. GhostOrchid35 (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It is most probably the uploader’s mistake: the year 1956 appears in the front matter as well, but it is the first author’s birth year. I am going to speedy the work as clear copyvio. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

March of the Volunteers

The following discussion is closed:

Well, that required rather a lot more reading than expected…

This work has been discussed all over the projects: WP:CQ#Whether March of the Volunteers lyrics/sheet music are copyrighted, w:Talk:March of the Volunteers#Lyrics, w:Talk:March of the Volunteers#Copyright problem removed, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Appendix 1 (Revised version of National Anthem) of Macau Law 1 of 2019.pdf, and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March of the Volunteers.png.

The summary of all these discussions, which accords with enWS precedent, is that by virtue of having been included verbatim in a law (see s:zh:中华人民共和国国歌 (1978年)), this song's lyrics and sheet music are very likely in the public domain in China due to the official works exemption in Chinese law, and certainly public domain (ineligible for copyright) in the US due to the "edicts of government" doctrine.

Many thanks to TE(æ)A,ea. who has followed up several of these discussions.

Due to URAA, the lyrics were removed from a Wikipedia article about the song "March of the Volunteers". The US copyright of the song was restored in either 1996 (PRC) or 2002 (ROC) when the song's Chinese or Taiwanese copyright was still intact at that time. Its PRC or ROC copyright (author's lifetime + 50 years) expired in 2019, at least fifty years after the lyricist's death in 1968. However, the US copyright still lasts until 2030 or 2031. Since the lyrics were removed from Wikipedia, the Wikisource page of the song must be also deleted. Also, the 1978 version's US copyright was restored in 1996 and lasts until 2074, ninety-five years after first publication. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this is the case (IIRC, this has been previously considered, rightly or not, as {{PD-CN}} since it appears in legislation), this is not actually in such black-and-white terms implied by must be also deleted: you have neglected to mention that discussions are still open at least at w:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Whether_March_of_the_Volunteers_lyrics/sheet_music_are_copyrighted (punted from w:en:Talk:March_of_the_Volunteers#Copyright_problem_removed at your own request) and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March of the Volunteers.png, which you opened. While those decisions are not necessarily the same that might be arrived at here, it is, IMO, premature to start a third deletion process at a third wiki without at least reaching consensus at the first two, considering that both of the first two have generated enough disagreement that they're not closed out yet.
Orthogonally, it would also be good to figure out what the source is of the English translation (allegedly it is a Chinese government translation), since they appear to be cloned from Wikipedia. Or scan back from a primary source (assuming copyright allows) is better still. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you want me to withdraw right away? George Ho (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Index:ATSB RO-2018-004 - Collision of passenger train A42 with buffer stop.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Problematic images have been redacted from the file by TE(æ)A,ea..

Minor issue. Some of the images in this report are credited to external third parties, and thus are not subject to the same Australian Government license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The text/PDF can be modified so that these images are taken out, somehow or another. Not sure about the process for that though.  Keep with the copyrighted images removed from the PDF entirely. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone who has tooling to perform redactions like this on PDF files and is willing to handle such requests. It is also hard to identify which images are affected by this issue, since a lot of them are not clearly marked (like the photo on the cover), so it involves rather a lot of effort. Xover (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ShakespeareFan00, PseudoSkull, Xover: If you, or any of you, can identify which images to redact, I can redact them. For cases like the title, page, assuming the image on the title page needs redaction, I would just redact around the text, leaving what remains of the images behind the non-redacted text as de minimis inclusions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

{

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Index:Arthur Rackham (Hudson).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as being simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the US and UK, making it a US work for copyright purposes according to the Berne Convention, and failing to renew its copyright after 28 years.

According to :- [[5]] Hudson was an author working in the United Kingdom (he died in 2003).

The PDF seems to be a US reprint of a work previously published by the OUP William Heinemann Ltd around 1960.

I am not sure if this can be on Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: This is one of your's I think? Xover (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It doesn’t matter if the Queen wrote it, it’s still a U.S. work, with a U.S. printing, and U.S. copyright, which, I have repeatedly confirmed, has expired. Suspicions that the author is or may be a foreigner don’t save a work from the vagaries of U.S. copyright law. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: If it was first published in the UK, by an author living and working in the UK, what makes you think it is a US work for copyright purposes? Xover (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Xover: The only evidence of that is that the author was British: and the evidence that the work is a U.S. work is on the title and copyright pages: a U.S. publisher, a U.S. location, and a U.S. copyright notice. I haven’t added any information templates because the file didn’t scan correctly: it deleted everything after page 96. I wanted to wait until I could scan the rest of the book to move it to Wikimedia Commons and add the required template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
      A UK author, deeply intwined in the UK publishing industry, being in fact an editor for Oxford University Press no less, working in the UK their entire life, and writing a biography of a UK artist… Meanwhile, we know works are routinely published in multiple editions, and in particular between the US and UK, and even a cursory search would have turned up a 1960 Heinemann edition labelled "first edition". This is the sort of situation where careful research is needed is what I'm saying… Xover (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Please update File:Arthur Rackham (Hudson).pdf accordingly then. I've added a Book template. 88.97.96.89 07:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I did dome more ivestigations on this: -

The earliest Amazon finds is "William Heinemann Ltd" (1960), The first edition it lists for the given publisher is CHARLES SCRIBNERS SONS LTD (1960). Unhelpfully, it doesn't go into further detail.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's see… The first mention I find of the publication is in the 30 October 1960 issue of The Bridgeport Post (Bridgeport, Connecticut), who describe it as "…has been published by Charles Scribner's Sons". The first UK mention is in the 11 November 1960 issue of The Daily Telegraph (London), who review an edition published by Heinemann but do not specify when it was published. Based on marketing copy I believe the sales strategy was to hit the Christmas gift market (it's an expensive and high-quality edition), so it's likely a late year publication was deliberate. The early US date is just a notice, while the UK one is an actual review (which takes a lot longer from publication to hitting print than a mere two-line notice). It is from then followed by reviews throughout November in multiple US papers. Based on this I'd peg most likely publication date as late October for both the US and UK, and there is no particular reason to assume the UK edition was earlier than the US one; quite the contrary based on the evidence so far. In other words, the most likely scenario seems to be simultaneous publication (within 30 days) in the UK and US, making this a US work for US copyright (and Commons licensing policy) purposes. So lack of notice or lack of renewal would be likely paths to the public domain here. The US edition contains a notice, but I find no renewal at Stanford. So it seems likely this is then {{PD-US-no renewal}}. Xover (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
"HUDSON, DEREK;Arthur Rackham; his life and work.London, W. Heinemann. NM: text &compilation. © Derek Hudson;7Nov60; AF18120"
(See- https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=pyMhAQAAIAAJ&q=AF18120#v=snippet&q=AF18120&f=false) (Confusingly listed in the 1961 volume).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably okay for local hosting, but not necessarily for Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
What would be the problem for hosting on Commons? The registration still puts US publication within 30 days of UK publication, meaning both Berne and Commons policy treat it as a US work. In the US the copyright expired in 1988 due to lack of renewal. It's still clearly in copyright in the UK (until, what, 2073?), but, again, as far as the "country of origin" policy is concerned, this is a US work and the UK status is irrelevant. This is a pretty absurd situation, but for once it's one where the absurdity of international copyright falls in our favour: usually it's UK public domain works that are still protected in the US due to the difference in terms. Xover (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: What's the problem you see with hosting on Commons? Is it something I'm missing (as we know, that happens all too frequently)? Xover (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The concern I had was that this was originally a UK published work. I found Commons policy application can be a little inconsistent. If you think it can be hosted there, then I won't press the point, but be ready to be make it local if someone else objects to it being on Commons.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, application of this policy is hit and miss, but that's because it's a complicated issue and one most admins there rarely run into (it's somewhat unique to books). However, I'm as certain as one can be of what the policy actually is: the policy was based on what the Berne convention says, which is where the "simultaneous publication" (within 30 days) comes from, and is specifically intended to cover this case (I've checked with people who were involved and that happen to also be familiar with Wikisource and thus the unique issues for books). So if the worry is merely about application then I think we're safe to / should push it to Commons and deal with anything that comes up as and when it comes up.
PS. After some relevant PWB bugs were fixed, transferring files from Commons to enWS can be automated fairly well, so I wouldn't worry too much about needing to do that. You'll still need an enWS admin with bot skills to do the job, and I know we're not exactly swimming in those, but mostly we should be able to take care of such requests within a reasonable timeframe. Xover (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Young Winston’s wars; the original despatches of Winston S. Churchill, war correspondent, 1897-1900

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. This 1970 work has multiple copyrightable components (compilation, notes) and the copyright status of the original material is undetermined (though likely to be public domain due to expiry in the US).

As stated here, these letters of correspondence were seemingly first published in 1973, so they probably aren't public domain in the US. 70.124.147.243 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

1973 was not the first publication though. The book consists of articles that were published in newspapers in 1897-1900. Chapter 11, for example, was published here in The Morning Post. The book's introduction states that the newspaper text was followed faithfully. However, there may be a compilation copyright issue, as the editor states that he included only a selection of Churchill's complete body of work from this period. Toohool (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Aesop's Fables translated by V. S. Vernon-Jones

The following discussion is closed:

No local action needed: processes running are at Commons.

While wandering at commons I found commons:User_talk:DanielleJWiki#File:MU_KPB_051_Aesop's_Fables_-_Illustrated_by_Arthur_Rackham.pdf, a notice about the deletion of another version of Æsop's Fables (V. S. Vernon-Jones) VSVJ died in 1955, so at the commons, the work will be restored in 2026.

So one of these things here:

  1. The ignorance is bliss option where we do nothing and see what happens between now and 2026.
  2. Move the files here (assuming it is okay to do so).
  3. Delete the transcription here to be restored in 2026.
  4. Start an undelete request there.

Option 1 worked well enough for me for about 3 days. Sharing the bliss--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  • RaboKarbakian: The book was published in 1912, meaning that it is in the public domain in the U.S., and thus acceptable for use on English Wikisource. In addition, Æsop’s Fables (this copy) was published in the United States, meaning that it can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The other two deletions appear to have been in error, as well; they should be reviewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
TE(æ)A,ea. Ha! Good to know! I have requested it's undeletion (and the others) at commons. Done with #4 and back #1! Thank you. It's good to have something to point to for this kind of thing and I enjoy being the dumb one.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
TE(æ)A,ea. So, commons is seeing the situation differently: commons:User_talk:Túrelio#File:MU_KPB_051_Aesop's_Fables_-_Illustrated_by_Arthur_Rackham.pdf I am off to talk to the administrator that deleted two of the three (for sure Túrelio was the first choice due to decades of activity there....)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
TE(æ)A,ea. Hmm, the "how to" I read there said to talk to the admins who did the deleting.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition (1980)

The following discussion is closed:

No action needed.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235125013_A_Five-Stage_Model_of_the_Mental_Activities_Involved_in_Directed_Skill_Acquisition

Is this academic paper from 1980 in the public domain? It did not contain a copyright notice. But can an academic paper be considered a work published in 1980? Can we be sure that there was at least some level of public distribution involved? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • PseudoSkull: This isn’t an academic paper; this was published as a separate book, not as part of a larger journal or some such. The stamp on the front page is also an indication of this. This should be good, copyright-wise. (See “COMBAT”, which is a similar sort of work.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: I looked through it and unfortunately it does contain a few rather lengthy quotes from the 1960s and 1970s from studies that were published in England. Since those English studies are perpetually copyrighted still in the United States, I don't know that this study can be hosted on WS. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
If we just remove the quotes it might be keepable but not in its full form. Is there a template out there that can be used to represent when a lengthy quote from copyrighted material has been redacted? It might also be useful for a template like that to have a year stuck on it, to show when the template can likely be removed. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

First Lady Olena Zelenska addresses the officials of the member states of the Council of Europe

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted (as excerpt, not copyvio; can be recreated if a properly licensed version of the full work is found).

A work by the wife of Ukrainian president. I don't see what release to the public domain that this work may have. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It was probably taken from https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/persha-ledi-olena-zelenska-zvernulasya-do-uryadovciv-derzhav-74177 where it had been published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, so if we added the attribution as required, it could stay as for the copyright. However, it does not seem to be the full speech, it is probably only a selection of quotations from the speech, so I would probably not keep it here, unless we find the full speech under a free license instead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

America...You Kill Me

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This was added back in 2016 with a claim of {{PD-release}}. But I haven't been able to find any evidence of such a release, including on the author's web page (where the text is available, with a copyright notice). It's a good and important speech, but I don't think we can host it. JesseW (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Varnent: PseudoSkull (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Index:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom (and the file was deleted on Commons).

This is a third edition which was edited by Dr. Arthur Morley (1876-1962) , It's not necessarily out of copyright in the UK. (DR raised at Commons.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Undelete the above

Bible (Updated King James Version)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as incompatibly licensed (due to the homegrown license with a no-derivatives clause).

No source data appears on the page for the work itself, but where it was linked on Bible, the publication date is given as 2000. The license placed on the work claims PD outside the UK, but if this is indeed a new edition, that may be incorrect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Politics and the English Language

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. Can be undeleted in 2042.

This is listed as being in the PD because it was published in a British magazine and not renewed. I'm not sure if that would qualify it as PD-US-not renewed. Languageseeker (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Trotsky Protests Too Much

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probable copyvio. But this mainly on the absence of evidence that it was published in the US within 30 days, and since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this is inherently a subjective call about how much uncertainty to accept. In addition, the discussion was poorly attended (three participants including the closing admin) so the consensus to delete is weak. If new evidence comes to light, or there is reason to believe the community may have changed its mind, opening an undeletion request for this text to (re)assess that consensus would be reasonable.

Pamphlet written by Emma Goldman, added here in 2020. This pamphlet grew out of an article for Vanguard, the Anarchist monthly published in New York City. It appeared in the July issue, 1938, but as the space of the magazine is limited, only part of the manuscript could be used. The (expanded) pamphlet was first published in Glasgow in 1939 without a copyright notice. The pamphlet lists a US price, and several large US libraries hold a copy of it, but Goldman was no longer living in the US at this time.
Under a Commons-style precautionary principle this would not hold up. But we have not adopted a COM:PRP policy on enWS.
So… the paths to copyright are as follows: 1) if the abbreviated version published in Vanguard had a copyright notice, it is in copyright in the US; 2) if the full version was not actually published in the US, or not published within 30 days, then it is a UK work, covered by pma. 70, in copyright in the UK on the URAA date, and had its US pub. +95 copyright restored (possibly minus the bits previously published in the US). In all cases it will be in copyright in the US until 2034.
The paths to PD are: 1) it's reasonable to assume the Vanguard version did not have a copyright notice (it's an anarchist mag, and they normally didn't), or the copyright wasn't renewed (ditto); 2) the pamphlet listing a US price suggests it was intended for US publication, and the anarchist networks treated this as essentially propaganda, making this a US no-notice/no-renewal work; 3) Goldman was a US citizen and in some weird obscure bits of Berne that could conceivably make this a US work even if it would otherwise be considered a UK work, and even if she was living abroad (she was deported from the US in 1920, and after hopping around the world, she left Spain, stayed briefly in England, and ended up in Canada).
Personally, I would have preferred to just delete this under a de facto precautionary principle, but going by community sentiment in previous discussions I believe the community would prefer tagging it as {{PD-US-no notice}}. Hence I am proposing that resolution, and posting here to solicit community assessment of whether the balance of the evidence above is sufficient for that. Xover (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The price may just mean that it was intended for US distribution, not US publication. It seems to me that this 1939 version was clearly published in the UK and so it is under copyright in the US. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Jan Kameníček: The question is simultaneous publication (not printing, which looks British), and as selling or otherwise distributing a work constitutes publication, the U.S. pricing on the work indicate (in my mind publication). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: It does not only "look" British, there is clearly written that it was both printed and published at Glasgow, i.e. in the UK. Selling a book for dollars does not mean that it was published in the US (and not only distributed), while the information in the backmatter states British publication only.
    BTW, how can a place of publication be decided? While a place of printing can be decided by finding the printing works where a book was physically produced, a place of publication cannot be decided in such a way, as "publication" is a more abstract concept than "printing". Place of publication is often a city (country) where the publisher of the book has a headquarter or residence, but some publishers have several or even many, and not all of them are automatically places of publication of all the books by a particular publisher. So the best way how it can be determined is the publisher’s own statement on the place of publication. And in the publication discussed here the publisher gave only Glasgow as the place of publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Jan Kameníček: Your misunderstanding lies in “not only distributed.” The word “publication” means “distribution,” and a work is published where it is distributed. If a work was sold (i.e., distributed) in the U.S., then it was published there; and if it was published in the U.S., it must follow U.S. copyright law. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
      @TE(æ)A,ea.:This is a very extraordinary interpretation of the word "wikt:publication", which in fact means an act of publishing a text, not an act of distributing or selling it. For example, the textbook of English language Headway, published by Oxford University Press in Oxford, the UK, is frequently distributed in Czechia and sold for Czech crowns in Czech bookshops, as well as in many other countries, but this fact does not make Czechia and all the other countries its place of publication, it still remains to be in the UK. What is more, a place of publication is usually in some specific city. In your logic the place of publication would be not only Glasgow, but also Edinburgh, London, Birmingham and all the cities where the book was possibly distributed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Jan Kameníček: It’s not an interpretation; it’s the law. “‘Publication’ is the distribution of copies … of a work to the public by sale ….” This is the definition which matters. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
        @TE(æ)A,ea.:I see, interesting. So I admit that according to this law publication means sale (however it seems weird to me, see above), and it convinced me that the price in dollars indicates also publication in the US, thanks for explanation very much. Now we need some evidence that it happened within 30 days after its Glasgow release. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
        @Jan.Kamenicek: It's just two different "publication" concepts. You're (I believe) talking about the bibliographic sense of publication, which is tied to the responsible publisher and where their offices are. This is a highly notional concept, in that no copy of the work need ever exist in the location of the publisher in order for it to be published there. Similarly, for publishers with offices around the world, a work may notionally be published in multiple places: Oxford, Mumbai, New York, etc. (for Oxford University Press, for example). But the legal term "publication", in the context of copyright, is about offering for sale to the public, and thus pretty concrete: anywhere you either have physical copies of the work, or offer to ship such physical copies, is a place you have "published" it for copyright purposes (adapt mutatis mutandis for e-books). Same word, different meanings in different technical jargons and contexts.
        But, yes, I agree with you: in order to have been copyright-wise published in the US it must have been offered for sale somewhere in the US within 30 days of it copyright-wise being published in the UK. Proving that is going to take quite a lot of research and some relatively hard evidence.
        PS. printing a price in dollars is an indication, not real hard evidence. Any number of scenarios could explain why that would appear for a work never published (in either sense) in the US; for example the straightforward one that they planned to but were prevent for some reason (death, bankruptcy, arrest, the usual suspects). It's a reasonable thing to take into account, but how much to weigh it as evidence is a more nuanced question. Xover (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Xover: Again, we are not precautionary, so I don’t think we need the strongest evidence to support our assertion. The newspapers of the time would be unlikely to indicate the publication of a communist pamphlet, so this is some of the best evidence available. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

On the death of Comrade Kobayashi

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as Chinese copyright had expired before the URAA date. But note that the work is a Wikisource translation sourced to zhWS's Chinese-language translation of a Japanese original, and hosted here without explicitly specifying a source, all very much in violation of our policy on translations. It is therefore not unlikely that it will get proposed for deletion on those grounds at some point in the future (@Interaccoonale: take note).

Original published in 1933, so it should still be protected in the US. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

China is life+50; works of Chinese authors who died in 1936 left copyright in 1986 and thus wouldn't have been restored by the URAA, leaving them out of copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that this work is tagged as Pd/1996 on Chinese Wikisource. Shells-shells (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for that I know nothing about the America copyright. But a lot of works by Lu Xun published after 1927 can be found in Chinese Wikisource. Interaccoonale (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Interaccoonale: When and where was this work first published? Xover (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
According to Beijing Lu Xun Museum, published in 无产阶级文学 in 1933. Interaccoonale (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Interaccoonale: Hmm. So 无产阶级文学 is a journal, newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical publication? And the text at On the death of Comrade Kobayashi is either an article or an open letter or similar? As opposed to a personal letter to some recipient, I mean. Xover (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I do think so. It means Proletarian Literature. Interaccoonale (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Then the situation would seem to be as Prosfilaes has it above: it was published in China in 1933, giving Lu Xun a pma. 50 term of copyright in China. That copyright expired at the end of 1936 + 50 = 1986. The original publication failed to observe US formalities (one assumes) and would thus not have been protected in the US. When the URAA rolled around (1. January 1996) its Chinese copyright had already expired, so the URAA did not restore any US copyright. In other words, it is in the public domain in both jurisdictions, and {{PD-1996}} applies. Xover (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Permanent Revolution

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Essay by Leon Trotsky that was "translated into English by John G. Wright and published by New Park Publications in 1931", making the translation a copyvio until 2027. Xover (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Collected Poems of Rupert Brooke: With a Memoir

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Anything published more than 95 years ago anywhere in the world is in the public domain in the US. There are some edge-case exceptions for unpublished material etc., but as a rule of thumb if it's a book and it was published before 1927 (current year - 95 years) its US copyright has expired. And the copyright policy on English Wikisource only requires works to be in the public domain in the US. The "US and source country" requirement is a local policy on Commons and only affects content actually hosted on Commons.

And in specfic :-

which are not by Brooke, but by Edward Howard Marsh (1872–1953). These portions of the work are not necessarily out of copyright in the UK for another 2 years, and the edition we are using was certainly published in the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is American Wikisource, not British Wikisource; U.K. copyright is irrelevant where (as here) the work was published before 1927. As this work was published in 1918, it is in the public domain in the U.S. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Anything published more than 95 years ago anywhere in the world is in the public domain in the US. There are some edge-case exceptions for unpublished material etc., but as a rule of thumb if it's a book and it was published before 1927 (current year - 95 years) its US copyright has expired. And the copyright policy on English Wikisource only requires works to be in the public domain in the US. The "US and source country" requirement is a local policy on Commons and only affects content actually hosted on Commons. Xover (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Integration of hydrodynamical equations by the grid method

The following discussion is closed:

All post 1927 texts deleted. The two 1927 works I left, since it's just two months until they expire in any case.

1952 work by Soviet author, PD-Russia is only applicable to authors who died prior to 1952. The translator is not credited, and the content is unsourced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Landau died in 1968 so would be copyrighted by pma + 50 on the URAA date. There are other post-1926 works by him as well Author:Lev Landau. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No Pasaran

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

1936 speech by Dolores Ibárruri (1895–1989), broadcast live on Spanish radio. The original has been published in several places (I haven't tracked down original publication, but it will have been in Spain shortly after the speech itself), but the English translation here has no obvious source. All the online copies I find can be traced back to here. There is also an annotation before the speech itself that is not present in the Spanish transcription at esWS. In any case, Spain is pma. 70 and Ibárruri died in 1989, so it will be in copyright in Spain until 2060, and in the US until after 1936 + 95 = 2031. The translation is certainly later, so its copyright will be even longer. Xover (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Elements of Mathematical Physics

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

1970 work by Yakov Zeldovich (1914-1987). I fail to see how this would be in the public domain. Translator is not credited or attributed.

Chapters are :-

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Russian edition is https://lccn.loc.gov/73356549 and it's title is "Ėlementy matematicheskoĭ fiziki. Sreda iz nevzaimodeĭstvui︠u︡shchikh chastit︠s︡." At Hathi, it is https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006710674 is is only available in "search only" mode, meaning they believe it is under copyright. The same applies to https://www.google.com/books/edition/%C4%96lementy_matematichesko%C4%AD_fiziki/j3kuAAAAIAAJ at Google.
The author is https://lccn.loc.gov/n81042481 and his name in Russian is "I︠A︡kov Borisovich Zelʹdovich". The records for the Russian edition also show "Anatoliĭ Dmitrievich Myshkis" as a second contributor... he is https://lccn.loc.gov/n84802167.
An exhaustive search of the LoC catalog, and Worldcat, against both authors and the translated and untranslated versions of the title, shows no indication that any other edition of this work was ever published. An example of a different work, by the same authors, that was translated is https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000091755.... no record exists for a similar translation of "Ėlementy matematicheskoĭ fiziki." If a translation was published in the US, and registered for copyright, the LoC would have retained the deposit copy, and it would be in the catalog.
Since the contributors died in 1987 and 2009, respectively, and Russia is 50 years PMA, the source work is still copyrighted in Russia until 2059, and in the United States until 2069, regardless of if a US copy was published "in accordance with the formalities".
As an apparently unauthorized translation of a copyrighted work, this is both "in itself" a copyright violation (or the copyright in the original) and copyrighted itself, by whomever the translator was.
 Delete seems the only answer. I don't see any possible path for this to be PD outside of some wild theory that Myshkis authorized it's release and publication here as PD after over a decade in the grave (and didn't contact OTRS, lol). Jarnsax (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, actually, the "path" would be for User:Sunlitsky to track down the legal heirs to the copyright in the original, and have them contact OTRS, but this seems unlikely. Jarnsax (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon's addresses during the Italian Campaign and Napoleon's addresses during the Second Italian Campaign

The following discussion is closed:

Redirected to fully validated scan-backed version, and license tags added.

No license, no source. Napoleon's creative output is obviously well out of any copyright it might have had, but this is clearly from a modern source somewhere and in unattributed translation into English. Xover (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

My homeland, my homeland, my homeland,

The following discussion is closed:

Cleaned up per nom.

Not so much a copyright discussion as a cleanup proposal:

The arabic original is long out of copyright. I find no evidence of authorship or publication for the English translation, but as it has existed on the SIS website through several iterations (e.g. it used to be at sis.gov.eg/En/Story.aspx?sid=7) I am personally comfortable with just assuming it is an official translation made by someone employed or instructed by the Egyptian government. I would prefer finding a public domain published book or similar from which we could scan-back and contextualise it, but since I don't think that's very likely I'll settle for cleanup (but consider the challenge posted if you're inclined). Xover (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Holy Faith of the Romanists

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, as {{PD-US-no renewal}}, per nom.

The Holy Faith of the Romanists (mistitled, should be The Holy Faith of Romanists) by Joseph McCabe (1867–1955) was first published by E. Haldeman-Julius in 1941 in Girard, Kansas as one of the Little Blue Books. I've been unable to find a scan to verify, but from what catalogue info I find it appears to have been published with a copyright notice; and all the Little Blue Books published in that part of the series (this is #16; I checked #14 and #17) contained a copyright notice (for Haldeman-Julius, not McCabe).
However, I have failed to find any renewal for this work, although both E. Haldeman-Julius and his son (who took over the press) have filed many renewals for works in this series. I am therefore proposing that we call this {{PD-US-not renewed}}. A more thorough search would be needed to say for sure, but none of the obvious search terms found any renewals, so I think that would be a reasonable assumption. Xover (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Book is https://www.worldcat.org/title/36433208 and indeed shows "Haldeman-Julius Publications, Girard, Kan., ©1942" (not 1941). Looking through the National Union Catalog, dude wrote a lot of books, and see other publications in the "Little Blue Books" are shown, but not this one. It's also not held by the Library of Congress.
Looking at the USCO VCC told me that this publisher mostly registered things in Group 2 (booklets and pamphlets), not Group 1. Checking the printed indexes of both Group 1, and Group 2, for 1941, 1942, and 1943 (just to be sure) reveals only one other work by this author, "Golden Ages of History", a 1941 London publication with an 'ad int' registration.
So, I can't find the registration, either. If it had been submitted for registration, then it would (presumably) be in the Library of Congress catalog, and they would have kept copy 1 on deposit. Given the lack of finding any of this, I strongly suspect that, for some unknown reason, it was never registered, whether it was actually printed with a notice or not. Jarnsax (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
TE(æ)A,ea. Given I'm the guy who flipped through several hundred cards from this publisher at the VCC website looking for the damn registration (not only is the UI beta, but the physical card catalog it was scanned from is notorious for misfilings, that's why the USCO can't even guess how long a search will take) and didn't find it, as well as the CCE, I'm certainly not going to complain. A notice isn't definitive evidence for a US publication... a registration is, and I hunted the crap out of it. :) Usually things are easy to find, especially using the NUC, which tells you the registration number and date for works the LoC held (so, copyright deposits). I'm personally 'morally convinced' the registration was defective, in some way unknowable to us... since copies would have to be printed (with notice) in order to be copyrighted (by "publishing" copy 1 through deposit with the USCO) the existence of 'a' copy with notice can't be conclusive. It's not like there are enough copies of it floating around in libraries to indicate wide distribution. Jarnsax (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

G.I. America organization seeking troop support

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Advert from an issue of The Signal, a base magazine for Fort Gordon, for November 23, 2007. The closest I've been able to track the source is this webarchive, but the PDFs don't seem to have been archived. The editorial content of the magazine is produced by the base's Public Affairs Office, and can probably be assumed to be mostly {{PD-USGov}} (modulo third-party content they have used "by permission" or similar).
However, this particular advert was placed by GI America, a private volunteer organization, and as such is not covered by {{PD-USGov}}. Xover (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Xover: The main body of the text (everything before the paragraph beginning with “Let Navy Hospital Corpsman Joshua Chiarini know”) appears to be PD-USGov, having been created at an earlier point by Navy/DoD. Sources, formerly on the Internet, are now lacking, but I don’t particularly doubt this one. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo, Paris, France letter to Nickolas Muray, New York, N.Y., 1939 Feb. 16

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

1939 letter from Frida Kahlo (1907–1954) to Nickolas Muray, never published, except to the degree you consider an archive making their collection digitally available in about 2011. As unpublished in 2003, but with a known author, its copyright term is pma. 70 and expires after 1954 + 70 = 2024. Can be undeleted in 2025 as {{PD-old-70}} (well, or a new template that actually addresses the US pma. 70 terms, since we're starting to actually see those now). Xover (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Re: copyright status as to publication, this letter was found among Mr. Muray’s paper, which were (presumably) legitimately acquired by this library; but as this is Kahlo’s, the work is still “unpublished” until her heirs consent to its publication. (Although, since it was added after 2003, that’s not really relevant.) I agree as to your p.m.a. work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Federal Charter of 1291

The following discussion is closed:

Converted into redirect to scan-backed translation.

Swiss federal charter of way-before-copyright, originally in German. Translation is by Lexilogos, who state only © Lexilogos 2002-2021. Xover (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A New Philosophy of Experience

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-US-no renewal}}.

1932 article by Moritz Schlick that was apparently seminal in its field. First published in Publications in Philosophy (published by College of the Pacific) in 1932. No license tag, and I can find no evidence of compatible licensing. Xover (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Publications in Philosophy" is https://lccn.loc.gov/32019482, and both https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006107836 and https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009470537. Given the note describing them as "lectures delivered...1931/1932-1933/1934" and the given publication date for "this" of 1932, I searched the "Part I - Group 2" indexes for 1931 and 1932, which showed no evidence that Schlick registered this as either a "contribution to a periodical" or as a "lecture".
The volumes of "Publications of Philosophy" were registered one at a time, yearly. The registration for Volume 1 is A 52916, dated July 1 1932. It is number 7357 of Part 1, Group 1, for 1932, if anyone else wants to look at it. So, not a 'periodical', but a series of volumes published and registered on an annual basis (I've seen the registration for volume 2 the next year, as well).
I checked for the number in Stanford's renewal database, and did not find it (not conclusive), so it was time to turn to the books (sigh). The renewal should have been filed in 1960, but searching the title index for both volumes of 1960 doesn't show an entry for "Publications in Philosophy". Unfortunately, the name of the renewal party might be weird, the registration was "Stockton Calif. College of the Pacific. Philosophy club." but the College changed it's name to "University of the Pacific" around that time. I'm wary of calling it 'not renewed' since Hathi disagrees, and I haven't personally 'exhaustively' searched the 1959-1961 span, but it probably was not and entered the PD in 1960. Jarnsax (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jarnsax: HathiTrust's idea of copyright is outright crap. They take really bad bibliographic data from their participating institution's databases, and then apply very coarse heuristic rules ("anything published after 1870 is in copyright"). I would not factor their listing into any copyright assessment. But given a not-quite-exhaustive search, and ignoring HathiTrust's status, are you comfortable calling this {{PD-US-not renewed}} or would you want to see a more thorough search (higher degree of confidence) first? Xover (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Xover I'm comfortable with it, yes. For me to have missed a renewal would require the name change to have caused it to be listed under some really weird registrant name, and for the registration number in the renewal to also have been fatfingered by Stanford (don't trust that database as anything other than an index, they tell you not to, it was keyed by minimum-wage college students and not proofread). I did actually skim the registrant indexes for those years, and nothing stuck out... the odds at this point are quite low that a renewal is actually out there, I just can't quite call it a certainty. As a publication of a college club, though, it's probable that no member at the time the registration was due knew the books even existed. Honestly, I more expected to find a registration for the lecture itself, and my search for that was exhaustive (easily, since not many lectures were copyrighted). Jarnsax (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
HathiTrust apply very coarse heuristic rules to people outside the US. Inside the US, they're fairly precise, including having done non-renewal searches for many works. The Stanford data was not keyed by minimum-wage college students; it was scanned in and proofread (two or three times) at Distributed Proofreaders, and it's just the data at https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11800 stuck into a database. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Führer Directive 32

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

I'm not quite sure where to start digging on this one. Any takers?
This is not one of Hitler's private copyrights (like Mein Kampf and such), so we can ignore the whole alien property custodian / US publishing rights / return to Germany rigmarole that's so hard to untangle. The German original will be either {{PD-DEGov}} in Germany and/or {{PD-EdictGov}} in the US, and the distinction is probably academic. However, who translated this, where was the translation published, and when? It's not at all unlikely that it was USGov translation originally, but it could also have been any number of private individuals or organisations; and at this point in history it's probably impossible for us to pin down first publication.
Personally, I would prefer to just delete the distasteful thing (I am profoundly uncomfortable with hosting Nazi materials without extremely good contextualisation and sourcing: we know far-right extremists use these materials in propaganda and for legitimising their goals and methods), but assuming support for that does not suddenly materialise… How do we determine actual copyright status of the translation to a reasonable degree of certainty? And what, precise, licensing tag do we put on it?
PS. If anyone knows of a good compatibly-licensed scholarly monograph or journal article that includes this text and properly contextualises it (preferably making it as boring as possible, to reduce its modern propaganda value), I'd be happy to help with index generation, proofreading, etc. to replace this unsourced cut&paste job. It's the uncritical hosting of selective excerpts of extremist materials I am opposed to, not high-quality properly contextualised historical documents. Xover (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Xover: A search finds Blitzkrieg to Defeat: Hitler’s War Directives, 1939–1945 (1964, Trevor-Roper ed.) to be one of the more original sources. This would still be copyrighted, but I believe he goes back to an earlier source. I have requested this book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Delete The work is on IA and it matches the text. I didn't see any indication of an earlier original source for that particular directive in a note or something and it claims copyright of the translations in 1964. It mentions an early German source, published in Germany. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Foundational Document of the Katipunan

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as incompatibly licensed.

1896 manifesto, of sorts, for a Phillipine secret society of the late 19th century, the original of which is probably PD no matter the details. But the translator is given as Jim Richardson, who is also the operator of the website given as a source and which gives its copyright as Copyright (c) Jim Richardson, 2005-2021. Jim Richardson asserts his moral right to be known as the author of the studies and notes posted on this website. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute material from the website with due acknowledgement. That is, it's a typical academic non-license license that has an implicit no derivatives property (because it fails to explicitly permit modifications), and hence is incompatible with enWS. Xover (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have seen a number of licenses which state that a work is in the “public domain” so long as you reproduce it in full, without cutting up parts: which is obviously not a public domain release. I think that by having a copyright notice but allowing reproduction and distribution is equivalent to a CC BY license—I don’t think we can imply a ND restriction from his failure to state that derivates can be made, just as we cannot presume a NC restriction from his failure to specifically allow commercial redistribution. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    -ND follows from copyright law. And this is why you should never use such home-brewed permissions statements instead of an actual license like the Creative Commons licenses. -NC is somewhat different in that copyright doesn't explicitly distinguish between commercial and non-commercial "distribution", but one can certainly infer such a limitation by the fact that copyright is primarily an economic right (with some moral rights tacked on). Xover (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Forged from the Love of Liberty

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. But as noted in the nom, there is a non-zero chance that this text has been directly incorporated into a law and falls under {{PD-EdictGov}}, so if such is found there is no bar to re-adding this.

See w:Forged from the Love of Liberty for some info. The national anthem of w:Trinidad and Tobago. Has been present here since 2005 without a license.
Previous discussions regarding national anthems suggest a surprising number of them have been directly incorporated (music and lyrics) into law, making them {{PD-EdictGov}}. Alternately, this was apparently a contest submission (with a hefty cash price!), and it would seem likely that the terms of the contest specified copyright assignment. If that's the case it would possibly fall under the Trinidad and Tobago-equivalent to {{PD-USGov}} (but not certainly, because it is a lot more limited than the US version).
It is also possible that none of those obtain and this is simply a copyvio (the composer died in 2000, so 2070 in pma. 70 countries; and conceivably 1962 + 95 = 2057 in the US). But I think our save rate for national anthems is nearly perfect, so hopefully this one won't mar our average. Xover (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Fatima Jinnah's Eid ul Fitr Message (1952)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Open letter by Fatima Jinnah (1893–1967) published in a Karachi newspaper on 24 June 1952. Pakistan is a pma. 50 country, so its Pakistani copyright expired in 2002. Pakistan's URAA date is 1 January 1996, so its US copyright was then restored to 1952 + 95 = 2047. Xover (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is No Vice

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio

Speech by Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention (it's his acceptance speech after winning the Republican nomination for POTUS). No indication of compatible licensing anywhere. Xover (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Erotica Romana

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio due to its uncertain and dubious provenance. But multiple public domain translations do exist and can be added.

No author (it is possibly legitimately an anonymous text though), no date, no source; and no indication of copyright status. Our text is probably copied from Gutenberg, but I have been unable to find a published source for it. Xover (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  • There seem to have been many shortened translations of the Elegies, such as this more comprehensive one (at p. 100, with images) and this translation, both public domain but without the specific lines found in PG’s copy. This record seems the most likely, if the claim of public domain is to be believed. I can’t find any sources on-line with the PG text which predate 2009. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert's 2006 Speech to the US Congress

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

2006 speech by Ehud Olmert (1945–), then Prime Minister of Israel. In Israel, government works are copyrighted for creation + 50 years, and only a strict force-of-law exception exists (i.e. no PD-USGov equivalent). In the US this would then be pma. 70 (or possibly pub. + 95). Xover (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Come Home America

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Speech by George McGovern accepting the Democratic nomination for POTUS at the 1972 DNC. Xover (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Butcher Report

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Report prepared by G.W. Butcher, a retired civil engineer, into the cause of the collapse of the Te Rata Bridge on 22 March 1994 at the request of the New Zealand Army. There was quite a kerfuffle about this report, and at one point it was leaked (illegally) on the Internet, finally ending up in the NZ High Court before the Army was forced to release it. However, that doesn't change the fact that Butcher owns the copyright. Xover (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Index:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted as per nom (reasoning is as in COM:UDR#File:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf).

Index:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf was deleted here due to WS:CV#Index:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf. It was also deleted on Commons due to COM:DR#File:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf. It was subsequently undeleted at Commons due to COM:UDR#File:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf, and TE(æ)A,ea. has now requested undeletion here too.

Note that while the issues are mostly identical on Commons and enWS, the deletion and undeletion processes are entirely independent: its deletion or undeletion on Commons has no bearing on our processess. You may wish to look at the arguments made on Commons since the requester has not made any arguments here. Xover (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Briefly About Disagreements in the Party

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. While the term of protection for the original expired in 2004 in Russia, the copyright in the translation is still current.

Translation is unsourced. Where does this translation come from? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the Marxists Internet Archive link gives MIA the credit for the translation, saying "Public Domain : Marxists Internet Archive (2008). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source." How should we represent this on WS? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
But it also mentions the 1954 (which I think is a reprint of the 1946 translation) by Foreign Language Press. It is possible that it is a reprint of an earlier translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that Stalin's works were under copyright in 1996 (because of the Russian copyright law of 1993, which established a retroactive copyright term of 50 years p.m.a.), so, although they may or may not have lapsed in Russia, they are still under copyright in the United States. Translations of his works would have another layer of copyright to be peeled. Shells-shells (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Shells-shells You may know this, but it's probably worth saying it in detail. Any translation is a 'derivative work'. If the 'original work' is still under copyright, then the translation can't enter the public domain (even if the translator disclaims any copyright in it) until the original does. The translator is only layering "their contributions" on top, and the underlying copyright applies to "the work itself" (the "original expression of human creativity".... the ideas, and how they are stated) not the actual "published text" as given in Russian (a publication is, technically, also a derived work, as a physical "thing", created under license, that fixates the original into a "published" work, instead of an "unpublished" one).
A translator's copyright only applies to their "creative contribution", which is only how they chose to state the work in translation, and their creation of a translation doesn't affect the original copyright. A translator's copyright can't prevent another translator from translating the same work into the same language, and publishing it in the same place (though a subsisting copyright in the original of course can).
So, a translation can only possibly create a copyright that "expires" after the copyright in the underlying work (even if the country in which is was published has a shorter term, and so the translation "itself's" term expires, it's still a derivative work of copyrighted material, and a republication of the translation would still need a license from the original author), and as a derivative work the translation can't enter the PD (or really be meaningfully disavowed) until that original copyright expires.
TLDR; we don't need to worry about copyrights in translations if the original is still copyrighted.
The only way that can really be "wrong" is if local law actually says otherwise, since the above is based on 'fundamental principles' about derivative works. An example would be typographic copyright in the UK, which is a totally different animal and creates a "new" copyright in editions (fixations) themselves. Those copyrights can expire before any copyright in the "underlying work" does, but that still doesn't place that "underlying work" into the PD (which matters, since typographic copyrights only have a 25 year term, much shorter than "normal" ones). Jarnsax (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Note that many of Stalin's original Russian copyrights should have expired in the US because they were published over 95 years ago. The Russia original here was printed in 1905, so any URAA restored copyright should have expired in the US in 2001, even if they were restored in 1996, no? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I was planning of uploading a works by Stalin in English translation from 1925 of a speech from 1924. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Errors_of_Trotskyism/yxpYAAAAMAAJ)? Is that still copyrighted in the US even thought is was published before 1927? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman I had flipped from here straight to the source page, and looked at what "they" said about it, and probably missed the text at the top of the (wiped) page here. I also hadn't noticed the footnote in the title there.
That apparently caused me to miss catching that this actually had the date of it's "original" publication, in 1905, so I didn't go there. Just as 'evidence', lol, that I am aware of the rules, I did comment in the thread below that pre-1927 stuff would definitely change things.
You are completely correct, in that actually "being published" before 1927, anywhere in the world, puts a work into the US public domain, period, regardless of if it is still copyrighted at home. The 1925 book is definitely ok, any pre-1927 publication is. This is (to be pedantic) because the US doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term. We don't let anything stay copyrighted past 95 years from publication, no matter what. Mexico (at 100 years pma) is top of the list of countries we piss off with this.
Even if we can dismiss the original work, though, with the (ridiculous) history of copyrighted at home in 1905, PD at home in 1979 (25 year pma), re-copyrighted at home in 1993, finally copyrighted in the US in 1996, PD in the US in 2001, and then finally PD at home again in 2004... we still aren't done...
The problem we still face with the translation is we have no idea who translated it (the name of the publication house isn't sufficient, we need the people, since Russia is pma). It was translated in Russia, so 50 pma (now), and those translators themselves created a copyright (probably as a work for hire), and were still alive when they did so (lol). Even if they all died in 1954 (or even 1946) the translation would still have been copyrighted in Russia on the URAA date, which was less than 50 years after that (barely, for 1946).
We need to somehow identify the people who translated it and kill them all off before 31 December 1945. I don't have a time machine, unfortunately. :) Jarnsax (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
If what I said about missing off Mexico was vague.... because the US doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term, we don't get reciprocal treatment (they don't apply it to us, either). That means while Mickey Mouse will enter the US PD in 2024, he won't be PD in Mexico until 2067 (since Disney died in 1966). Since all of their works enter the PD in the US many years, possibly decades, before they do at home, this upsets them. Jarnsax (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh I agree these political translations are a complete mess since they often took a bunch of previous translations and published those in the collected work so tracking down the original publication is a nightmare (and then sorting out whether they are a UK or US publication if looking for nonrenewal). And then a bunch of Marxists both then and now were not particularly fussy about copyright and copyright acknowledgements. My general thought would be to delete anything back to these 1950s USSR / PRC editions for the translation reasons you highlighted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
That's why 95 years after publication or 120 since creation is so much easier than pma, even if everyone else likes it. And yeah, the renewal thing actually made sense back then (it's when the "first publication" license ran out) but now it's a huge pain in the butt. Jarnsax (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Even if we "guess" that this was simultaneously published in the US within 30 days (some obscure kind of diplomatic thing letting it get past despite ignoring the "formalities") somehow, and let it escape to the US rules that way, we'd have to ignore it not being renewed to be consistent with ignoring the formalities, and since it was probably a work for hire, "corporate authorship" leaves us at 95/120, so...there's no there, there, for another couple of decades, either way. Jarnsax (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman Are you sure the 1946 publication was a translation? Based on what scanty evidence exists online, it seems that the 1946 edition was in the original Russian (and Georgian?), and the 1954 edition was a new translation of that edition. If the edition of 1946 is an English translation, and if that translation qualifies as an anonymous or pseudonymous work under the copyright law of 1993 (and if I have correctly understood the relevant legislation), it seems there is a slim possibility that it fell into the public domain in Russia on 1 January 1996, was not renewed by the URAA, and can be hosted here. I don't think this is likely. Shells-shells (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Good one. You've actually motivated me to hit up WIPOlex. :)
From the official translation of "LAW NO. 5351-I OF JULY 9, 1993 ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS (AS AMENDED BY LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 110-FZ OF JULY 19, 1995)"[7]
  • We have from Title II, Article 9(3): "Where a published work is anonymous or pseudonymous (unless the author's pseudonym leaves his identity in no doubt), the publisher named on the work shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to represent the author in accordance with this Law and, in that capacity, shall be empowered to defend and exercise the author's rights."
  • From Article 10(1): "The copyright in a work that is the product of the joint creative work of two or more persons (work of joint authorship) shall belong jointly to the coauthors, regardless of whether it constitutes an indivisible whole or is composed of parts, each with a relevance of its own."
  • From Article 12(1): "Translators and other authors of derived works shall enjoy copyright in translations, adaptations, arrangements or any other transformations made by them.
    The translator or other author of a derived work shall enjoy copyright in the work created by him, subject to the rights of the author of the work that he has translated, adapted, arranged or otherwise transformed."
  • And finally, Article 27:
    1. Copyright shall have effect throughout the lifetime of the author and for 50 years after his death, except as provided in this Article.
    3. The copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work shall have effect for 50 years following the date of the lawful disclosure thereof.
    If, in the course of that period, the author of the anonymous or pseudonymous work reveals his identity, or if that identity is no longer in doubt, the provisions of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be applicable.
    4.The copyright in a work of joint authorship shall have effect until the death of the last surviving coauthor and for 50 years thereafter.
I think that's all the relevant bits. There definitely was a joint copyright in the english translation, and it's definitely p.m.a of the last author unless it was anonymous or pseudonymous... if it is, it would be ridiculous to try to figure out if any random Russian ever "revealed his identity", lol.
The "Preface to Volume One"[8] says "Only a small part of J. V. Stalin’s works included in Volume 1 were published in Russian. Most of them were published in Georgian newspapers and pamphlets. The majority of these appear in Russian for the first time."
That implies that the book MIA transcribed was a direct translation of a previous Russian edition....and tells it that that edition (this is from vol 1) was mostly translated from Georgian. Even in the "Preface to this Edition", it's obviously a direct translation from Russian, and doesn't say anything about "this" English version. The "Author's Preface to Volume One", which is actually by Stalin, is dated 1946.[9] He doesn't seem to have been writing in English, and it's certainly possible the translations to Russian were actually his.
It really looks like MIA transcribed all the frontmatter, and would have if there was an "English edition" preface...nothing in what is there acknowledges translators, and neither does the Library of Congress (so they aren't on the title page).
Seems like a legit way to get there, to me, I was actually expecting to find a preface by the "english" translators, if nothing else full of propoganda, lol, but seems anonymous.
So, now we're down to trying to find an earlier English "lawful disclosure", I guess.... it's possible the 1946 edition was published in multiple languages, and this was just a later printing. I think we can probably assume they would have translated from Georgian, not from Russian, though.... Jarnsax (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 Delete This has a URAA-restored copyright, as I explained in the next section about "From the Editors". Jarnsax (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 Delete Whatever the copyright status of the underlying work, this specific translation was apparently first published in 1954 and was almost certainly under copyright in Russia in 1996. If evidence for a hypothetical 1946 English-language edition can be provided then there might be a slim chance at PD status, but the bibliographic information available does not inspire much hope. Shells-shells (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Well said. Jarnsax (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

From the Editors

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio

Why would this translation be PD? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull Stalin died in 1953, and so the source text entered the PD (in Russia) in 2004. As stated at the source page (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1901/09/x01.htm) it was translated in 2008, by someone named "Salil Sen" for the Marxist Internet Archive, and they pretty clearly state the translation is released to the public domain at the top of the page. From a glance, it looks like the same applies to all of Stalin's works on their website. Jarnsax (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Disregard that, I misread "transcription" for "translation". Jarnsax (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 Delete 1954 publication is described at https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/collected/index.htm, is https://lccn.loc.gov/54023357 and shows only a Moscow publication. Since the US did not have bilateral relations with the USSR until May 27, 1973, this (or any earlier translation, or indeed Stalin's original version in Russian) was not copyrighted in the US due to "lack of national eligibility". Since not even Stalin had been dead for 50 years in 1996, much less any translators, this would have been definitely still copyrighted in the Russia on the URAA date, and has a URAA-restored copyright in the US for another 30 years or so. Jarnsax (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Unless we can find an edition of this English translation that dates from before 1927, which is doubtful. Jarnsax (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
In the above thread, we might be getting there, by a very convoluted path.. Jarnsax (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

UK cable on Tiananmen Square Massacre

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

1989 telegram from a British diplomat Alan Ewan Donald (1931–2018) to his government about the Tiananmen Square massacre. No plausible claim of compatible licensing, neither here or on Commons. This is (declassified) public record, but not public domain. @Einstein95: courtesy ping. Xover (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: I agree. It was leaked and I was under the assumption that it was fine, and later forgot about it. Definitely in favour of deletion, at least until June 2039 (due to being published before 1 August 1989, to my understanding of the PDF linked from {{PD-UKGov}}. -ei (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Treasure of Tartary

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as no-notice.

Mistitling of "The Treasures of Tartary", by Robert E. Howard (1906–1936), first published in Thrilling Adventures, January 1935. Copyright was probably assigned to the magazine, and later bought up by Glenn Lord with the other Howard copyrights (now owned by a Swedish game company). But it's an open question whether the magazine contained a copyright notice, and whether any such copyright was ever renewed (and if so by whom, and were they a valid claimant). There's a decent chance this is {{PD-US-no renewal}}, but someone needs to do the research to prove that since it's published after the pub. +95 cutoff. Xover (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Poem of Labid (Lyall)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as PD-old, per the very excellent research conducted by the participants of this discussion.

Ancient arabian poem by Labīd (c. 505 – c. 661), translated into English by Charles James Lyall (1845–1920). I've been unable to track down the actual source for this, but as Lyall died in 1920, and his major collection was published in 1885 in London, I am comfortable calling this {{PD-old}} if I can get some community support for that. No matter when it was published, Lyall's assumed pma. 70 copyright has expired in the UK. If it was published any time before 1927 any pub. +95 US term has expired. Xover (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It was first published in “The Mo‘allaqah of Lebîd, with the life of the poet as given in the Kitâb-el-Aghânî” (pp. 82–83), in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, volume 46, part 1, no. 1. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Scan, published 1877: https://archive.org/details/dli.calcutta.00039/page/81/mode/2up —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Not necessary in this case, but since Lyall died in 1920, his pma. 70 copyright would have expired in 1991, meaning that all of his works published before 1989 also qualify for {{PD-1996}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Old New Land

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

German original published in 1902, written by Theodor Herzl (1860–1904). No translator specified, and no date for the translation. Xover (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael Maier- Epigram verse to Atalanta Fugiens

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Our translation is PD-old from MS. Sloane 3645.

English translation of the Latin-original Atalanta Fugiens with no indication of compatible licensing for the translation. Xover (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

British Library MS. Sloane 3645 (linked above) is surely {{PD-US-unpublished}} or something. The site linked as a source (https://www.alchemywebsite.com/atalanta.html) makes reference to another English translation, Mellon MS. 48 at Yale, which is available here. The Shells-shells (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Are we certain our text is the anonymous translation from MS. Sloane 3645, and not a modern one by Clay Holden, Hereward Tilton, or Peter Branwin? Branwin, in particular, is asserted to be working on a new complete translation from the Latin original. Xover (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The site describes it as a transcription (and Holden, Tilton, and Branwin as transcribers, not translators) from the manuscript, which it is. Compare:

My transcription from the manuscript:

Three Golden Appels from the Hesperian grove,
A present Worthy of the Queen of Love,
Gaue wise Hippomenes Eternal Fame,
And Atalanta's cruel Speed Orecame.
In Vaine he follows till with Radient Light,
One Rowling Apple Captiuates her Sight.
And by its glittering charms retards her flight
She Soon Out runns him but fresh rays of Gold,
Her Longing Eyes & Slackned Footsteps Hold,
Till [with?] disdain She all his Art defies,
And Swifter then an Eastern Tempest flyes,
Then his despair throws his last Hope away,
For she must Yeild whom Loue & Gold betray.

The current text on Wikisource:

Three Golden Apples from the Hesperian grove.
A present Worthy of the Queen of Love.
Gave wise Hippomenes Eternal Fame.
And Atalanta’s cruel Speed O’ercame.
In Vain he follows ’till with Radiant Light,
One Rolling Apple captivates her Sight.
And by its glittering charms retards her flight.
She Soon Outruns him but fresh rays of Gold,
Her Longing Eyes & Slackened Footsteps Hold,
Till with disdain She all his Art defies,
And Swifter then an Eastern Tempest flies.
Then his despair throws his last Hope away,
For he must Yield whom Love & Gold betray.

The above text can be found at page 56 in the scanned version, with a hand-written number 52 in the top right. It looks like the transcribers have only modernized the spellings; if this work is kept the text should be transcribed literatim and not fiddled with as they have done. It would be nice to have a higher quality scan, though, as the microfilming is pretty awful. Shells-shells (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@Xover I think there may have been a slight misunderstanding. To clarify: Sloane MS 3654 and Mellon MS 48 are both written in English. The site used as a source is just a transcription from the former. Shells-shells (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Shells-shells: No, I got it. The site just talked about a new translation from the original, so I wasn't sure whether our text was a transcription of (a fragment of) MS. Sloane 3645 or a new translation. Thanks for checking, and, PS., your palaeography is impressive. :) Xover (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Translation:Charter of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A document by a private organisation (no country or NGO has recognized the Taliban's claim on Afghanistan), covered by either pma. 50 or pub + 50 copyright in Afghanistan and pma. 70 in the US (or whatever we're at for modern US copyrights). Xover (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is PD-EdictGov per Georgia v. PRO. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I'll grant you that the General Assembly of Georgia has an abundance of religious extremists with strongly illiberal tendencies that enact repressive (and regressive) laws, but don't you think equating them to the Taliban is taking it a bit far? Xover (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, didn’t you read the briefs? Carl Malamud’s the terrorist, not Georgia. But anyway, this document (and the following one) qualifies under Georgia’s general “explanatory and procedural materials” rule. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
      Malamud is certainly apt to engender terror in certain quarters, yes. :)
      But in any case, the Georgia General Assembly is mostly recognized as a competent (and I use that word in the strictly legal sense) legislative assembly. The Grand Muppet of the Taliban, not so much. Not to mention it's a draft, and one they claim not to have written (so even if they were recognised by any relevant entities in any relevant time frame it would not really matter). Xover (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
      • It was, at least, as a draft or otherwise, introduced legitimately, even if the government which now seeks to promulgate it wholly is illegitimate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
        It seems to me that for a work to fall under {{PD-EdictGov}} it must have the force of law. In this case, not only is this text an evidently unratified draft document, the only body that could possibly claim it as a governing document (viz. the Taliban) has apparently disavowed it. Even setting aside the question of whether the Taliban counts as a "government" for the purposes of copyright, this work doesn't seem to be an "edict" at all. If it were ratified and adopted then it would have a better chance of meeting that standard. Shells-shells (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
        Not quite. Georgia v. PRO expanded (reframed?) the test such that a work need not have actual force of law if its author for copyright purposes would be a competent legislative assembly. So iff the Grand Poobah of the Taliban were recognized as competent to legislate for Afghanistan, and iff this document was authored by the Grand Poobah, then it would fall under EdictGov. But they are not a recognized legislative assembly and in any case claim not to have written the document, so it ipso facto cannot apply. Some works by the executive (vs. legislative) branch fall under EdictGov due to interpreting or exhibiting practice under something that has force of law (and is thus necessary to understand the law; it is de facto law), but mostly executive branch works are covered by separate government works exceptions, that in the US are mostly based on theories of "the taxpayer already paid for this" or "openeness in goverment" etc. Judicial branch stuff is almost entirely EdictGov because they by definition make case law (but, note, this does not apply to the parties, just the court). Xover (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
        You're quite right; I even read 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium, yet somehow failed to parse "any 'work that [a] judge or legislator produces in the course of his [or her] judicial or legislative duties is not copyrightable,' regardless of whether it 'carries the force of law.'" I think that defeats my objection.
        With that set aside: What does it take for a body to be a "legislative assembly" under copyright? I don't know if the standard of "international recognition" is necessarily apt; all that matters is that a legislator is "empowered to speak with the force of law". Whether this means force de jure or force de facto I don't know. I also don't know if it's quite relevant that the Taliban has disavowed its authorship: it seems that the only important factor is whether a work is in fact produced by an official act, not whether it is adopted or even recognized by that government. If a government creates a legislative work, surely no amount of denial could erase the fact that it was actually created by the government and therefore uncopyrightable.
        Now, disregarding all the above: Is there sufficient evidence to suggest that this document was in fact created by a government official in the course of their official duties? It's alleged to be, but surely it just as easily might have been drafted by a private citizen acting in no governmental capacity. Shells-shells (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
        At a minimum, it requires recognition by the national entity under whose jurisdiction the servers for enWP operate (i.e. the US). But more commonly, in order for a national legislative assembly of any kind to be competent it needs to be recognized by a majority of countries in the world, and usually also by NGOs like the UN. You could fill tomes about the finer points of the issue, but in essence it is the same kind of collective fantasy as fiat currency: if everyone agrees this piece of paper is worth "one hundred dollars" then it is a functioning currency.
        Disavowment is relevant in the sense that—iff the Taliban were recognized as the competent legislative assembly of Afghanistan—if the text was not actually authored by them, or authored before they were recognized, or was authored by a splinter fraction, or… then it would not be authored by the legislative assembly and would not be an edict of government. Whether and how much to trust the Taliban's claims regarding this issue is of course an open question. Note, however, that this draft was written well before the Taliban took control of the country and so before one could make any kind of plausible argument that they represent some kind of de facto legislative assembly (a contradiction in terms, btw).
        Incidentally, take care that you don't confuse edicts of government ({{PD-EdictGov}}) with government works ({{PD-USGov}} and its international friends). The two are sometimes overlapping, but are entirely orthogonal issues. Government works are regulated in most national copyright acts, but some of these impose copyright rather than exempt it (Crown Copyright, say), and even in the US it applies only to the federal government. Edicts of government is a specifically US doctrine and applies to US recognition of foreign copyrights, and it applies regardless of national or subnational levels. If you think of government works as "executive branch" and edicts of government as "legislative branch" you'll have a decent mental model. Both have application across government and branches of government, but their core is rooted there. Hence why I use "legislative assembly" rather than "government" when discussing edicts. In particular, Afghan copyright law does not have a government works exemption analogous to PD-USGov: government works are treated the same as any other work (pma. 50 / pub. +50). Xover (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Translation:Constitution of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1998 draft)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

A document by a private organisation (no country or NGO has recognized the Taliban's claim on Afghanistan), covered by either pma. 50 or pub + 50 copyright in Afghanistan and pma. 70 in the US (or whatever we're at for modern US copyrights). Like the above it is also a Google Translate translation of dubious provenance and could equally be deleted on those grounds. Xover (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Japanese Military's "Comfort Women" System

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn / kept. The text, while in poor shape, is a Congressional Research Service report and presumed PD-USGov.

Seems to be copied from the book by Larry Niksch, Good Press, 2021. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Found a scan of the memorandum http://japanfocus.org/data/CRS%20Comfort%20Women%203%20Apr%2007.pdf Reboot01 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I see, thanks. So, I withdraw this nomination, although the page has other issues too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Fae uploaded a lot of CRS reports at Commons as part of mirroring scans from IA, Is this one amongst those?ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music lyrical passages

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as clear copyright violation. Since the uploader refused to redact the copyrighted parts, the whole text, including the compatibly licensed parts, have been deleted. Once redacted, a request for undeleting the compatibly licensed parts can be opened separately.

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Aren't "APPENDIX A TO OPINION OF THE COURT" and "APPENDIX B TO OPINION OF THE COURT" copyrighted content (or at the very least, fair use, which Wikisource doesn't allow), that should be replaced with Template:Text removed? PseudoSkull (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake… @TE(æ)A,ea.: this is clear copyvio, so you have about fifteen seconds to redact the two copyrighted appendices before I have to speedy the whole thing, Index:, File:, and all. Why in the world have you not responded in the two+ weeks since PseudoSkull pinged you here? And why would you upload this to begin with, knowing full well it is a violation of our licensing policy? Xover (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clearly PD-USGov, as are the appendixes as they are discussed directly in the opinion. The file’s at Commons, where I will oppose any such similar attempt. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    Fine, if that's the way you want it. I have speedied the whole text. Do not recreate it without first redacting the copyrighted parts. If you want the Index or the Page: pages that do not contain any copyrighted material you can request an undeletion of those parts separately. Xover (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My homeland, my homeland, my homeland

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. The original Arabic is probably PD due to expiry, but the translation, while presumably an official one by the SIS, is covered by copyright. There is a chance the lyrics have been included verbatim in their enabling legislation (possibly “القرار اجلمهوري رقم 149” of 1979, which is roughly “Resolution/Proclamation of the Republic no. 149” of 1979) and as such would qualify as {{PD-EdictGov}}, and, crucially, would qualify the English lyrics for the "and official translations" exemption for such works. This has not been possible to determine with any significant probability, but if such is found to be the case in future it would be a good reason to reassess this issue.

The national anthem of Egypt needs further research to determine whether it complies with our copyright policy.

  • National anthems are not in the public domain in the USA automatically; they must have their copyright expire or be released into the public domain explicitly. This is true even if the work is in the public domain in the source country (as is the case with this work). A national anthem is not an edict of government as per {{PD-EdictGov}} unless the government publishes it in the form of an edict.
  • Independent of the copyright status of the national anthem per se, this is also an unidentified translation which may be copyrighted. Note: if it is an original translation from Wikipedia, precedent suggests that we treat it as an original Wikisource translation.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl w:Copyright of official texts (it mentions such things... Russia copyrights doesn't copyright "state symbols and signs") unfortunately doesn't say anything about Egypt... so, actual research, yeah, and probably a community judgement call, since the people who 'wrote that' apparently didn't find it either, lol.
It's always a good idea to look at USCO Circular 38A on "International Copyright Relations of the US"... it tells you all the "national eligibility" dates. Egypt · Berne (Paris) June 7, 1977; Phonograms Apr. 23, 1978; WTO June 30, 1995
So if it's "pre-1977" we are going to have to possibly care about the URAA.... "lack of national eligibility" might apply. Hopefully, we won't need to go there.
What I can actually "find about it" on WIPOlex.. the 2014 Constitution of Egypt says (in Article 68)... "Information, data, statistics and official documents are the property of the People and the disclosure thereof from their various sources is a right guaranteed by the State for all citizens."
That text is their "government edicts principle", apparently. I haven't located (buried in all the stuff about e-signatures and "establishment of the Plant Variety Protection Office") a copy of their actual 'copyright law' that's translated. The above just vaguely tells us "what they think about such stuff," and I can poke around more if needed, but that's a basis for discussion.
What you said about "publishes it in the form of an edict" is completely correct, but just saying that thing is the anthem doesn't suffice unless it was actually published as an edict.... such things actually get into an "open question of law", since the Court has never "answered the question": see The Indigo Book: An Open and Compatible Implementation of A Uniform System of Citation (formerly Baby Blue's Manual of Legal Citation) over there for discussion of such "inclusion" into edicts and the legal argument about copyright nullification. That whole thing is essentially another instance of "deliberately provoking someone to sue over allegedly bogus assertions of copyright". We don't want to go there.
We can, of course, ignore their copyright claim if it's actually on "an edict of government".... US law says so (this is 104(c)), but Jimbo asked us to play nice about that way back. Jarnsax (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think you and I are on the same page, and I appreciate the extra info —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
YW. It's my experience that factbombing usually helps, even if you do end up sometimes repeating "stuff" some people know.....all this international copyright stuff is really obscure even if you do know where to find it. It reduces the guessing if someone actually points at the relevant "stuff" as much as possible. :)
It helps a lot when looking a copyright laws on WIPO that quite a few countries basically copied the same law, even the sections are often in the same order. Jarnsax (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks like @Xover: recently posted this same work here lol, but hadn't yet updated the page itself hence my confusion. To summarize: the original Arabic is unambiguously PD due to its age, and the translation is from the official Egyptian State Information Service website. However! The SIS website is not an edict of government, and there is no PD release on the website for content published there (on the contrary, it says "All Rights Reserved"). For this reason, I believe that this is a copyrighted translation owned by the Egyptian government and therefore copyvio  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
After looking at the SIS website, I completely agree, there's nothing there to indicate the "copyright claim" doesn't apply to it as well, and trying to claim they "can't" apply it to this based on ^above stuff^ is really sketchy. It's not like we are going to read Arabic court rulings in the original to try to 'prove' otherwise, or at least I'm not, lol.
If they had meant to exclude "national symbols" like this from copyright, they probably would have said so in the constitution. Other countries do, Egypt has been part of the "international copyright regime" for a long time, and they rewrote it fairly recently. Jarnsax (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Heh. And here I was thinking you were just too polite to mention that I'd just recently posted this here but failed to address this aspect of it. :)
Thanks for following up in any case. We have previously found, to my great surprise, that national anthems tend to have been included verbatim (with the sheet music, no less) in the establishing legislation, and thus fall under edict of government (and thus also official translations of such). However, this is obviously not proof that that is the case for every national anthem, or this national anthem specifically; and so I should definitely have considered that issue when I posted this previously. Too focussed on the "clean stuff up", I guess. Mea culpa. Xover (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I find that "national anthems tend to have been included verbatim" varies widely by country. Some countries have done this (O Canada is one such). However, I have found that many countries merely specify that "The national anthem is X" in the legislation, and the text of the anthem appears elsewhere. Even when it is included in the legislation, that does not necessarily make it PD (compare the issue of Green Eggs and Ham being included in the public record after being read in the US Senate in 2013). Then you also have countries like Australia, where the government actively asserts copyright over the official lyrics and does not permit commercial use of them without explicit permission. All of which are considerations that must be taken into account when hosting such works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I have, at least, confirmed that it is the official anthem, and not just considered as such; but I cannot find the text of the enacting law. The law is “القرار اجلمهوري رقم 149” of 1979, which is roughly “Resolution/Proclamation of the Republic no. 149” of 1979. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'll go see if WIPOlex has it, if nothing else I can try a machine translation if they do. Jarnsax (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea. I didn't find that, specifically, but from "LAW NO. 82 OF 2002 ON THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS":[10]
    Article 138 defines...
    (7) National folklore: Any expression which consists of distinctive elements reflecting the traditional popular heritage, which originated or developed in Egypt, including in particular:
    (a) Oral expressions such as folk tales, poetry and charades, and other folklore;
    (b) Musical expressions such as popular songs accompanied by music;
    (c) Motion expressions, such as popular dances, plays, artistic forms and rituals;
    (d). Tangible expressions such as:
    -- Products of popular plastic art, particularly drawings with lines and colors, engravings, sculpture, ceramics, pottery, woodwork and any inlaid designs, mosaics, metal or jewelry, hand-woven bags, needlework, textiles, carpets and clothes;
    -- Musical instruments;
    -- Architectural forms.
    Article 140 is a long list of specific things that are "valid subject matter", and does not include "national folklore".
    From Article 141:
    In addition, protection shall not cover the following:
    (1) Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence.
    And then Article 142:
    National folklore shall be considered part of the public domain of the people. The competent ministry shall exercise the author’s economic and moral rights and shall protect and support such folklore.
    I think the end result of this is that the SIS is the "competent ministry", and effectively "owns" the public domain's copyright in stuff like this... "exercising economic rights" basically is copyright; unless it was actually (this old question again) if it was an edict, like you suspect (and I really don't doubt it was). They seem to be kinda making the claim sideways, sigh. Jarnsax (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    This is definitely a "judgement call" IMO... the whole "Jimbo asked us to play nice" thing comes in. I suspect they would object strenuously to derivative works. Jarnsax (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    In case I wasn't clear, it's my opinion at this point that this doesn't have an "enforcable" copyright in the US. Jarnsax (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    If we determine that this translation is ineligible for copyright in Egypt as an official translation of national folklore, we would still need to determine whether this applies in the USA also (per URAA and all that). And per our usual precedent, if we cannot determine that this translation is definitely in the public domain, then we cannot host it. (Note: we COULD host a different translation that does not have these issues, for example a user translation) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl If Egypt doesn't claim a copyright in it (or, didn't on the URAA date) then it can't have a restored copyright, the actual rule from the URAA "is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection". I think if it "expired" if never technically "copyrighted" is a pretty fine line to draw. Jarnsax (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    I suspect their intent was to create something like the perpetual copyright in Peter Pan (see w:Perpetual_copyright#United_Kingdom) to protect it without actually "calling" it a copyright. Jarnsax (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    Unless ofc they published in the US 'back then', and didn't comply with the formalities. That probably gets into "unknowable". Jarnsax (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    But "shall be considered part of the public domain" is pretty explicit language. Jarnsax (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Jarnsax: What makes you equate the national anthem and national folklore? Those things are separately regulated in every copyright act I've had the misfortune to trawl through; naturally enough because most anthems are relatively modern, and national folklore is several centuries, at least, old. It's Mórrígan and the Tuatha Dé Danann, leprechauns, djinni, Haephestus, Hephaestus, Cerberus, gorgons, Scandinavian nisse, nixies, and Draugr. It's Coyote, the Ka Mate, old folk songs, fairytales, mythical heroes, tartan patterns, heraldry, ankhs, and so forth.
    To the degree national symbols (flags, heraldic arms, or national anthems) are explicitly regulated, they are, in my experience, separately regulated as such, and often to restrict their use, not expand it.
    On the current evidence I see no other path to PD than the original having been included verbatim in the establishing legislation, in which case the translation would fall under the exceptions in Art. 141 (1) at home and under EdictGov in the US. Xover (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Xover It's not really anything firm, more just my impression that it's probably what they 'meant'. I meanly brought it up as something possibly relevant I found when searching.
    If it is covered by the description "national folklore", then it's PD but covered by the exact kind of "unenforceable claim" by a foreign government that we're asked to respect, so meh. Jarnsax (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A Valentine to my Family

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Consensus is that the speech qualifies as {{PD-USGov}} based on being made by a sitting Senator on the floor of the Senate. Participants also commented that the speech has been printed in the Congressional Record, but as it is firmly established that a public record is not the same as public domain this argument was not accorded weight. The failure to address the question of the scope of a Senator's duties (a requirement for PD-USGov) and a relatively low number of participants in the discussion also means this consensus is weak and should not be considered as precedent for future discussions.

A 2007 "speech" (statement?) by Larry Craig (1945–), then a sitting Senator, in the Senate, but apparently entirely unrelated to his official duties as a Senator. Has been without a license tag (or a listed source) for 14 years. Xover (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

On Righteousness

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Original text by Epiphanes with unknown translation licence. The source is http://gnosis.org/library/ephip.htm according to the contributor, but there is no license either. I found it also at https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/epiphanes.html where they claim it copyrighted, but that might not mean that they also did not copy it from elsewhere too. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

See also User talk:Des Vallee#On Righteousness. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The translation appears identical to the one published as "Epiphanes Concerning Righteousness" in Gnosticism (1961) edited by Robert M. Grant. The preface notes that:
the translations from Greek and Latin documents were made by the editor (except for the Corpus Hermeticum I, IV, and VII, originally prepared by F. C. Grant, and XIII, prepared by W. R. Schoedel).
- ei (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Index:Engines and men- the history of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. A survey of organisation of railways and railway locomotive men (IA enginesmenhistor00rayniala).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. First published in the UK, in or before 1921, by an author that died in 1944. The UK copyright expired in 2015 (pma. 70) and its US copyright in 2017 (pub. +95).

Likely, PD-US (as it's published in 1921), However this edition seems to have been published in the UK, and ASLEF is a UK trade union. I can't at present find out the authors lifetime. 1921 is perhaps old enough to consider as potentially PD-UK as well, but it's getting close to the limits of what can be reasonably assumed for that. At the very least I think this should be locally hosted rather than on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  • This is PD-USGov; for foreign copyright concerns, go to Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    You mean PD-US? As I said it should be locally hosted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    He died in August 1944 in Hastings so it should be PD in the UK as well as PMA + 70. No reason to not host on commons. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    @MarkLSteadman: In general, it would be very helpful if you could indicate the source for your determination of biographical details like this (or bibliographic details for that matter), preferably with a link or similar if practical but at leat some indication of where the information came from. That's both to document veracity, to allow for assessment of the reliability of the source, and, most importantly, to allow for easy lookup of details when in future an Author page is needed or some such. Not that the fact itself isn't really helpful on its own; it's just that rest would be even more so if you already have it handy. :) Xover (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@Xover: I mentioned the source on the Author Talk page. It's in the British Newspaper Archive so I can't find a direct link. I found it in an obituary published on 19 August, 1944 in The Hastings and St Leonards Observer. It mentions him as the author of this specific work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: Thanks! Xover (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Index:Performance comparison of enhanced steam condensers. (IA performancecompa00bour).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

File deleted at Commons, and no obvious argument that it can be hosted locally.

This was an Index created for a file imported as part of a bulk effort by Fae, Unfortuantely it has a clear (C) message in the file, and the license is likely wrong at Commons (Nominated the file for deletion there.)

I'd also note the following Index page recently created for review:-

Amongst others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

De Indis De Jure Belli

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope due to a preponderance of non-English text. Text has been transwikied to mul:De Indis De Jure Belli.

Which edition do we have?

There is a scan of 1917 edition at IA (which I noted). (It also doesn't seem to have a notice, which is promising for a US published edition.)

Nys died in 1920, Scott in 1943 and Bate (the translator) around 1921 based on a very quick search.

Can someone do some checking as it would be nice to have a known scan to back this up? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: We have this 1964 reprint https://archive.org/details/deindisetdeivreb0000vito. A comparison of the preface and introduction shows no changes. - ei (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't find any data on John Pawly Bate in a quick search. From where comes the death date? Do we know his nationality?
From my very limited look at this, it looks like this text was originally edited (and probably translated) in Belgian by Ernest Nys (1851–1920), and presumably also first published in Belgium at some point prior to Nys' death. It was then edited by James Brown Scott (1866–1943) with a translation of both the original text and Nys' introduction by John Pawly Bate (????–????), and published in the US. Since we have a 1917 edition we know it was first published more than 95 years ago. It should therefore be PD-old in the US (and so fine for hosting on enWS). Since Nys died in 1920 his Belgian copyright should have expired in 1990. Iff Bate also died in 1921 then any pma. 70 copyright he may have held will have expired in 1991. And if Bate is an American then the translation was never under pma. 70 copyright (just pub. +95 like the work as a whole).
In other words, we need details on Bate to be certain. But even without those details it seems reasonable to make some assumptions that place this work fully in the public domain. Xover (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Bate%2C%20John%20Pawley%2C%201857-1921 says 1921.
https://prabook.com/web/john.bate/743615 Gives a birth date of 1857. Free BMD has a John P. BAte who died in 1921 - https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=145457024:7567&d=bmd_1653949805 on a search with the birth year of 1857
I think we can say it's unlikely it's still in copyright. The next question is as to hosting location, This appears to be a multi-lingual work.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, awesome. That's good enough for me, and based on previous discussions here I'd be much surprised if anyone else objected.
That being said, you're right: this work has large swathes of non-English text, including the entire original introduction in French and swathes of Latin elsewhere in the work. It seems Multilingual Wikisource would be the appropriate place for it. If nobody objects soon(ish) I'll request a transwiki import over there. Xover (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Imported to mul:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Letter to Akhenaten, King of Egypt

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is one of the Amarna letters: specifically, number 41. There was a scholarly translation of the letters made by William Moran in 1992, which is, of course, copyrighted. This translation actually originated here, a thesis paper (in Spanish) which is not compatibly licensed. The only public domain translation of the letters, to my knowledge, is Knudtzon’s 1917 German edition. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hyakunin Isshū

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

A reader has noted at Talk:Hyakunin Isshū that it is not the MacCauley 1917 translation as stated in the work's page, but a reworked version copied from https://jti.lib.virginia.edu/japanese/hyakunin/hyakua.html . Having checked it I must say they are right. E g. the original lines

Haru sugite / Natsu ki ni kerashi / Shirotae no / Koromo hosu cho / Ama no Kaguyama

were translated by MacCauley as

Spring, it seems, has passed / And the summer come again; / For the silk white robes, / So 'tis said, are spread to dry / On the "Mount of Heaven's Perfume.

while both our text and the text in the linked page go like this:

The spring has passed / And the summer come again; / For the silk-white robes, / So they say, are spread to dry / On the "Mount of Heaven's Perfume".

So, our text is just a second-hand transcription of a revised translation. For details how the translation was revised see https://jti.lib.virginia.edu/japanese/hyakunin/english.html . Thus, our text does not seem to be released into public domain, and so is most probably copyrighted. -Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  • There is a scan of the original available here (starting at 903); I think it would be useful to back it to a scan. I don’t think that the modifications are particularly original, but in any case it is much more valuable to have the original copy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    The modifications are substantial, as they often change the meaning. Compare e. g. Spring, it seems, has passed… with The spring has passed… . --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Index:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. As noted elsewhere: 

ASTOUNDING STORIES.  © Conde Nast
  Publications, Inc. (PCW)
  v.16, no.
…
    6, Feb36.  © 15Jan36; B287485.
      6Feb63; R309944.

This should be a speedy, but is listed here to make sure that the file and all pages are also deleted. As listed here and on the talk page, this issue was renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the pages have been deleted without waiting.
Many researchers believe that all Lovecraft's fiction is out of copyright. See for example - https://www.aetherial.net/lovecraft/index.html -- Beardo (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Beardo I made a discussion specific to A Mountain of Madness below. If the community decides that it is out in the Public Domain, I’ll see if I can get a redacted file made and the pages will come back. Otherwise, they’ll have to be hidden in the vault until they fall into the public domain. In either case, your work is not lost.Languageseeker (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The file was deleted at Commons c:file:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf with the statement that it was 1936 published and there was a renewal. We can resurrect the file at Commons and move it over here and continue the conversation, or we can delete the worked pages. The following pages would need to be fed into special:massdelete

  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/12
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/13
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/14
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/15
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/16
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/169
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/17
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/18
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/19
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/20
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/21
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/22
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/23
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/24
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/25
  • Page:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf/26
  • Index:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf

— billinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment there is discussion at Index talk:Astounding Stories 1936-02.pdf that should be moved here. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

At the Mountains of Madness

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. On available evidence we must assume that the publisher owned the copyright, and that the copyright was renewed with the issue.

Per the above discussion, it seems that the issues of Astounding Stories had their copyright renewed. Does this mean that At the Mountains of Madness is still under copyright? Languageseeker (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an assertion made that since April 1926 at the latest, Lovecraft had reserved all second printing rights to stories published in Weird Tales, but I have been unable to find the basis for this claim. Iff it is accurate, there is a chance that the same held true for At the Mountains of Madness when Schwartz submitted it to Astounding Stories, which in turn would mean that the issue renewal didn't affect it. However, as Lovecraft received $315 … the most he had ever received for a story for it, and it had been first rejected by Weird Tales, it seems somewhat unlikely that he'd ask for and get a special deal there. In either case, absent actual evidence of such a special deal existing between Lovecraft/Schwartz and Tremaine/Astounding Stories that would be mere speculation. Based on the available information I don't think there's any chance we could keep it. Xover (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Two books from Gutenberg

The following discussion is closed:

Both works appear compatibly licensed and are eligible to be hosted. The details of transcribing them can be discussed elsewhere.

Hi, I would like to see here 2 books from Gutenberg: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, by Edward J. Ruppelt and The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age, by D. H. Menzel and L. G. Boyd. Can you confirm that they are in the public domain? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: Both books were published before 1964 and their copyright seems not to be renewed so they should really be in the public domain in the US. Unfortunately, English Wikisource does not accept texts from Gutenberg anymore, see Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Second-hand transcriptions. However, scans of both books are available from HathiTrust here and here, and the first one also from archive.org here, so they can be uploaded to Commons and proofread with the proofreading extension. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The book on IA is not freely accessible, but I will upload them from Hathitrust. After that, can I use the Gutenberg text to speed up the proofread process? Yann (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann do you have a good way to get the HT books, or would you like me to download and construct the books? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I use Hathi Download Helper, and it works quite well. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Note that both Inductiveload and myself have tooling to generate DjVu from scan images, including OCR (which is often the hard part). Please don't hesitate to ask for help with that if you need it, or use the Wikisource:Scan Lab since we both sometimes have pretty poor availability. Xover (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Does match-and-split work with PDF files, or DjVu is needed? Yann (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Match&Split only works with DjVu (PDFs simply do not have the facility for structured text layers that DjVu does, and consequently have no tools for semi-automatically manipulating them). You may also want to keep in mind that we really recommend against using Gutenberg texts as a starting point (vs. simply starting from OCR) since they tend to introduce a lot of subtle errors (punctuation in particular can be tricky to spot) and they have a somewhat cavalier approach to different editions of a work. The approach is up to you of course, but in my experience, in order to achieve the same quality result, it is easier to start with OCR. No rule without exceptions, of course, and there are some really pathological scans for which the OCR is a nightmare to correct, not to mention personal preference and what one finds easiest to do. I just wanted to mention it. Xover (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, I started one: Index:Ruppelt - The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.djvu. However, I am now confused. TE(æ)A,ea. above said that I can do a match-and-split, and you said it is better not. So? This is important because if match-and-split is not useful, I don’t need to create DjVu files, so it is much less works. Yann (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: As I see it, match-and-split can be done, but should be checked with human eyes anyway, as Gutenberg often contains various unchecked typos (or it should be tagged as "not proofread", leaving the checking for somebody else). For many people it is easier to start anew with OCR. However, even if you decided not to do match-and-split, it can still be easier to work with .djvu if the scans already contain an OCR layer, because Wikimedia environment reads OCR layers much much better from djvu files than from pdf files for some reason. If you are going to get completely new OCR using Wikisource tools, than it imo does not matter very much whether the file is djvu or pdf, but these tools are not faultless and the result often has to be checked very carefully. Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
To try to be clearer: 1) Match & Split will work in a purely technical sense; 2) there is no policy that prevents you from doing this; 3) but we also do not recommend using this approach because experience shows it tends to leave subtle errors in the result. But it's just advice, and any number of factors can affect how you choose to approach it for a given text. Xover (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User:XavierV/Redefining Human Rights-Based Development : The Wresinski Approach to Partnership With the Poorest/Introduction/Part I

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as incomplete, abandoned, non-scan backed, user-space draft of questionable copyright status.

The concern is that this is a post 1987 UN document. If it can be considered under the appropriate PD-UN license then this can be resolved quickly (And ideally it should be scan-backed if possible). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Undelete On Righteousness

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus to undelete. The deleted text is a translation into English of an ancient non-English text, for which no translator is specified and for which no compatibly licensed original source for the the translation is evident. As the translation has a separate copyright to the original, the authorship and (first) publication details of the translated text must be known in order to verify compatible licensing sufficiently to undelete the text.

The copyright is for the notes only, not the translations, which were published separately, as can be seen here. Are the translations copyrighted? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Translations are derivative works to be separately copyrighted without affecting how their sources are copyrighted. Thus undeleting a translation requires proper licensing of both originals and translations.--Jusjih (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple unsourced national constitutions

The following discussion is closed:

All checked, some kept, some fixed / migrated to a known translation, some deleted.

The following national constitutions lack a source and a license:

As constitutions, the originals of these are definitely {{PD-EdictGov}}, but the translations are so only if they are official translations authored by the same legislative assembly as the originals. They could also be the relevant country's equivalent to {{PD-USGov}} if they are made by some other part of that country's government. Otherwise, it starts to get iffy. If the translations are by a non-government entity they are subject to the normal rules for books (pma. 70, URAA, pub. +95 etc.).

These are very likely to be similar cases, so I'm listing them together, but each will need separate research. Please mark each entry in the list with a {{done}} if you find its status (either way), and comment below with what you found. Xover (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Added Armenian National Constitution. --Xover (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Xover: I do not see any copyright problem with the Armenian National Constitution, as it is scanbacked by a 1901 publication. However, imo it should not be a separate page, it should be a subpage of Armenia, travels and studies. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: That's because I just scan-backed it to that scan. :)
And it should indeed be a sub-page, but the scan hasn't been sufficiently proofread to be transcluded yet so I'm leaving that for future improvement. --Xover (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I see :-D --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that some of these may be copied from WIPOlex (the general reference for such translations), and if so may be copyrighted. Their terms of use are at https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/info/terms-of-use.html. While their translations are most definitely "official", they are not "made" PD by being published there. National copyright laws often specifically address "official" translations, and make them PD, but otherwise such a translation is copyrighted even though a "government work," since it's not the actual edict. Jarnsax (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: FWIW, I've seen third-party translations hosted on WIPOLex "by permission". I don't think we can make any assumptions about copyright status of a text merely by virtue of having been hosted on WIPOLex. We can assume that WIPO have not made the text up and have made reasonable efforts to make sure the document is authentic etc., but they specifically disclaim accuracy etc. and we have no guarantee the translations are by the government of the original issuing jurisdiction. Xover (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Xover Right. I just meant it's a place to check as the possible source, but being there doesn't mean it's PD.... it just might help you track it down. Jarnsax (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Constitution of Lebanon seems to be the ICL edition, and no compatible licensing is evident. --Xover (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • And Constitution of Liberland is some right-wing private nonsense and not an actual constitution at all. --Xover (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Constitution of Madagascar looks to be another ICL translation. --Xover (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2017) is, modulo a lot of cut&paste/transcription errors, an official translation by the Council of State of Thailand, and thus {{PD-TH-exempt}}. Now also scan-backed, but the text has a lot of errors so it needs proper proofreading. --Xover (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (1988) is an unofficial translation of unknown provenance cut&pasted from Georgetown's PDBA, and includes amendments up to ca. 1996 but the exact amendments are not specified. --Xover (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway (2007) has been identified as to edition, but no source has been found. However, the Storting irregularly publishes English-language translations and is doing a really crap job of keeping historical documents around (they've also provided a legal monopoly on access to laws to a commercial entity ala. LexisNexis that charges a "Pro" subscription for access to old versions of laws). In other words, it seems most likely that our text is actually a cut&paste from one such translation that's been subsequently taken down. --Xover (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Constitution of Tunisia, 1959 has no evident source online. It is also not the 1959 edition, but rather the amended edition as of 2008. Tunisia does not publish English-language translations so this is not an official translation. WipoLex has a version, but it is not this version, and in any case they do not give their source either. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro seems to be this] text, published by the Serbian government. The charter was originally made, essentially, either by Yugoslavia or by Serbia and Montenegro in union (I didn't bother unravelling that issue). In either case, since Yugoslav government works are now owned jointly by the successor states, the relevant laws are those of Serbia and Montenegro; and these both exempt government works including translations. We should thus be safe to tag it with {{PD-SerbiaGov}}. --Xover (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Constitution of the German Empire, both source of translation and translation licence unknown. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    The text we had was of unknown provenance, but I found a translation in British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 61 (1877). pp. 58–76 that is (expired) Crown Copyright and have migrated to that text instead. --Xover (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Constitution of Uzbekistan was hard to pin down, so I replaced with an official translation tagged with the newly created {{PD-Uzbekistan-exempt}}. I also moved it to a dab'ed name since it was the 2003 amended version, not the originally enacted one. --Xover (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Constitutional Declaration of Libya (1969) was, as best I can determine, another ICL text. And in cleaning up after that I found that Constitution of the United Kingdom of Libya (1951) and Constitutional Declaration of Libya (2011) also lacked source and license. *sigh* --Xover (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Constitution of Argentina was hard to pin down, but 1) the Argentine government does not appear to publish anything in English translations and 2) Argentine copyright law contains no exceptions for government works etc. so even an "official translation" would be a copyvio. We'll need to find some third party translation with explicit licensing (good luck!) that is compatible. --Xover (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Iran Constitution of 1906 is actually "Appendix A" from The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909 (1910) by Edward G. Browne (1862–1926), who apparently (re)translated all of it himself. The appendix contains
    • The Farmán of August 5, 1906
    • The Electoral Law of September 9, 1906
    • The Fundamental Laws of December 30, 1906
    • The Supplementary Fundamental Laws of October 7, 1907
    • The New Electoral Law of July 1, 1909
    that are distinct laws / decrees that together make up the de facto constitution of this political entity. In any case, the copyright is EdictGov + PD-old. --Xover (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Constitution of Peru was unidentifiable, but the edition was (claimed to be) the 1993 version, so absent a plausible freely-licensed translation source it must be presumed a copyvio. --Xover (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Constitution of the United Kingdom of Libya (1951) was translated by the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, an NGO, and hence in copyright. --Xover (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Red Riding-hood (Carroll)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio: unpublished until 2002 and thus protected until the later of pma. 70 and 2047 (i.e. until 2048).

The page claims in its copyright tag that the poem was published before 1927. But since this was a private poem I very much doubt this. Notably in Lewis Carroll, photographer by Helmut Gernsheim the poem is known to have existed, but declared as lost.

The talk page gives a publication from 2002 as source, which would protect the poem until 2048 if I'm not mistaken. 132.230.196.181 18:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

According to this source, the poem is said to have been written for the Photographic Society's fifth annual exhibition in January 1858. It seems to me that this would be sufficient to be considered "publication", assuming it actually was used in the exhibition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
According to the Lewis Carroll Handbook (p. 269): "The verses on Agnes Grace Weld as 'Little Red Riding-Hood' ... do not seem to have survived. Mr. Gernsheim tells me that they were not printed in the Photographic Exhibition Catalogue, nor are they in any of the albums in his own collection." 132.230.196.176 18:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not they were exhibited at the 1858 expo is immaterial: public display is not publication for copyright purposes (there must be intent to distribute or transfer ownership of copies). Unless an actual prior publication is identified this poem was unpublished until 2002, and as such is in copyright until expiry of the greater of Carrol's pma. 70 and 2047 (i.e. until 2048). Xover (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Fire Sermon

The following discussion is closed:

Kept (and migrated to scan). The work is old enough that it can reasonably be presumed that all pma. copyrights have expired (and in any case it was published more than 95 years ago).

There is no translator given and I failed to find the text anywhere, including Google books or HathiTrust. Under precautionary principle it should not be considered in public domain, until proved otherwise. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Jan Kameníček: This translation is from Buddhism in Translations by Henry Clarke Warren, pp. 351–353. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. So it is obviously not a copyvio. However, now it turned out to be just a chapter extracted from a published book of translated texts… --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    • The sermon itself is a stand-alone work, which (in this case) was extracted from a larger collected work. It should not be deleted for that reason (and that’s a proposed deletions question, anyway). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: Since I don't expect there will be consensus to delete this text (as I would otherwise have been mildly inclined to), I have instead uploaded and minimally set up Index:Buddhism in Translations (1896).djvu, and migrated the text to the scan at Buddhism in Translations/Chapter 4. At least when scan-backed and hosted in its published context we might avoid (or more easily deal with) drive-by "corrections" from Christian to Buddhist terminology, and someone with an interest might conceivably Proofread the rest of it. Good enough for me anyway. You?
    On the copyright, the editor cribbed translations from all over, so there's no way to tell who the actual translators of any given bit of it are. However, Commons uses 120 years since publication as the cutoff for when you can simply assume that all the authors died more than 70 years ago. I've been applying the same rule of thumb here when the issues has cropped up. Since this work was published in 1896 it should be PD enough for our purposes. Xover (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Xover: Great, I am OK with this. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Kaihsu/Oxford City Council Byelaws with respect to Ear Piercing and Electrolysis

The following discussion is closed:

There was a weak consensus in favour of deleting this page on quality-related grounds, with some undecided copyright questions applicable. The consensus was weak so there is no bar to requesting its undeletion.

I've matched this to https://www.oxford.gov.uk/downloads/file/313/ear_piercing_and_electrolysis_byelaws which has a copyright notice on the site of - "Copyright © 2022 Oxford City Council"

Being local government byelaws can we reasonably apply Open Government License, or PD-Edict ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can't have the transcript of The Lion King in your userspace just because it's in your userspace. But  Keep, because these are edicts of a government, so are not eligible for copyright in the United States. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Delete long abandoned work, of poor quality, not required, let us not even venture into the copyright discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Delete I am not at all sure we can assume edicts for a local city council in the UK (though one can certainly reasonably make an argument for it). Nor does OGL obviously apply. But, ultimately, I land on delete per Billinghurst's !vote above: it's an old long-abandoned text of poor quality sitting as a userspace draft, so let's not expend too much effort on the copyright situation, clean out the cruft, and deal with the details if and when it becomes relevant. --Xover (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Modifying LibriVox recordings is permitted in terms of copyright, but there appears to be a general consensus against removing their introductory (audio) blurb for other reasons. In any case, there is no copyright issue here so any further discussion should be taken to WS:S.

My question is about removing the verbal copyright information from a sound file and in particular, the legal and ethical standards when the file is in the public domain. I could put the question mark between every three or four words in that "question". So, "about?"

There was a project running within my view where all of the images that had a visual copyright (pixel embedded) had it removed from the surface. Those "removals" were usually artful. Sometimes not. I felt like it was a little abusive to the uploader, but maybe it was helpful also.

I recently learned how to un-assemble pdf, some pdf, that is. I have been doing that with gay abandon whenever I have time to proof the product. I don't feel bad. This is probably where dragons are.

All three of these are the same, and yet, I hesitate to remove the vocal artists opening number. I have heard some truly wonderful librivox recordings. It is a beheading.

That this is a great opportunity to learn how to delete what are all basically the same words from a batch of sound files (a software that I assume has been written and re-written) is not really a part of this ethical and legal problem. A race, maybe: Dead Languages vs KittieKats.

Maybe flac versioning wikified: Index:Aesop-Jones-062.flac.

It would be much easier if it were unethical or illegal, due to its PD status.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would we remove the header information from a Librivox file?--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I just uploaded Aesops Fables. 284 of them. Most are about the same length as the Librivox introduction. A little more, I exaggerate, but not by that much. To play them in a row means hearing that same spiel, spoken differently with subtle information changes, 284 times. All information that I have embedded into the files' metadata, btw, with some oddities that should be fixed. One spelling error fixed, one species change. They have been re-enumerated in a way that should play in my ogg enabled mp3 player in the same sequence as in the book. Beyond that, I make no promises. The librivox opening, in these files probably accounts for one third of the total file size and play time. And also, annoying. Maybe it shouldn't be annoying, but.
And not the "header" but the spoken librivox information and the name of the book which are in the sounds on the file....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

And, about the metadata. I think I can "make" a tag. LOCATION is pretty much unused. I put the wikidata for the "literary work" under "PUBLISHER" which is wrong and should be fixed. I just don't know what to use. If I can make one, should I call it "WIKIDATA"?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian, @Prosfilaes: I don't know that there is much value to us re-hosting LibriVox recordings, but be that as it may… Can we be a little more concrete about what it is we're talking about removing here? Removing the Google Books scan copyright page is a good thing, but that's a foreign insertion in a mechanical reproduction of an original work. LibriVox files are in themselves original works, derivative of the original but not merely mechanically reproducing them (i.e. they are a performance of the original work), so the insertion of extra material is both justified and materially different from the Google Books case.
My gut feeling is that the removal is not justified, and, in fact, would be against Commons policy, but I'd like a little more information about what we're talking about before tying myself to a firm position. Xover (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Xover: Each librivox file starts with the same words. A few words about Librivox including the website (iirc). Then, the title. After this then the text that is that portion of the book. So, a book with 8 chapters, one chapter per file, when listening, you will hear that same blurb 8 times. But 284 fables! Edited, or told to start at a certain point, the metadata with the readers name and the original file information will still be there and will scroll in a player configured to scroll things like that. The repetitive words would be gone.
The words at the beginnings of the file are like a watermark to me. Hand-made and unique to the one file, but a watermark nonetheless. They didn't like decorative website information embedded into the pixels of photographs. To me, it is the same.
The solution to this might be in audio bookmarks, Perhaps {{listen}} could be altered to start the file at a different location than 0:00....--15:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
There are two versions of the LibriVox introduction to a recording, depending on the type of recording being done (solo vs group). If it's a group recording, then each section begins with (using the one I'll record in the next day or so):

"Section # of The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org." [Optional: "Read by your name."] "The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Section Title."

If it's a solo recording, then the first section begins as above and each following section begins with (another example I'm working on):

"Section # of The Man in the Panther's Skin, by Shota Rustaveli, translated by Marjory Wardrop. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain." [Optional: "Read by your name."] "Section Title."

If we're [Commons or enWS] directly hosting a LibriVox recording instead of pointing to its location on LibriVox or Internet Archive, then we should leave this introductory spoken text in the recording. Otherwise we are claiming that we have supplied the recording. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Following this criterion almost everything at commons would have to be removed. My Hathi hosted scan is transcluded here without any mention of the organizations that scanned the work or of HathiTrust itself the providing host of the transcluded work. A degree of PD would need to be established, oh, wait, Creative Commons did this and if the file is licensed so that it cannot be altered (whichever license this is), it is not allowed to be hosted on Commons. So, it just "feels bad" but it is not anything different than what has been done to other formats. Really, the most elegant (and lazy) solution is to have the playback start where the text does and leave the files as they are. (btw, ia takes the librivox.org out of the metadata, and puts their own link in, but that is done at home, pretty much.)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Convention

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect to source publication in context (with a technical deletion along the way to update Wikidata).

(Not a copyright violation because it was released in 1910) but what is the status of an international copyright treaty? Is it {{PD-EdictGov}} or something else?

Also where did this English translation come from? Wikipedia lists the languages this was originally released in as "Spanish, English, Portuguese and French". PseudoSkull (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Typically I would use the edict of Gov tag, as that is how we have been treating those works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

{{PD-Russia}} and Rehabilitation

The following discussion is closed:

The need for such a template appears limited. Further discussion is better had at WS:S.

I saw that we have a license for Russian authors ({{PD-Russia}}) and it mentions the rehabilitation date but how do indicate that is the case for affected authors? For example, Author:Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was rehabilitated in February 1988. Should we have a PD-nonRussia for such authors? MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: Uhm. You indicate it by putting {{PD-Russia}} on the page? What am I missing? Xover (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It actually should be nonRussia since the works aren't in the PD in Russia or it should have some way to indicate the rehabilitation year. I'm looking for something that makes clear that it isn't PD in Russia until Jan 1. 2059 MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, right, I see. D'oh!
But our concern is US copyright status, so perhaps just {{PD/US|1938}}? Hmm. No. That says non-US status is a pma. term, but here we have a post rehabilitation term. And for works published less than 95 years ago the distinction will be critical. What does Commons do for these? Xover (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
When I looked at [11]] I couldn't find anything beyond similar footnoting to what we have here in their PD Russia tags, possibly because such works are not commons eligible as non PD in the source country. Ru wikisource has an option in their author tag to specify the rehabilitation date. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@CalendulaAsteraceae: Hmm. Maybe a second parameter for {{PD-Russia}} that modifies the text, when in Author:, such that it reflects a term relative to the rehabilitation date rather than the deathyear? Xover (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Xover I'll take a look at what's a good way to do this. (After I fix the thing where all the country-specific URAA license tags are handled with a giant switch statement inside a single function, that was a terrible idea and I have no idea why I did it.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
{{PD-Russia}} now has the following parameters for copyright-relevant information:
  • deathyear: integer
  • pubyear: integer
  • rehabyear: integer
  • posthumous: boolean
  • anon: boolean
  • gpw: boolean
—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman, @Xover: {{PD-Russia}} claims that a work is in the public domain in Russia and that the work is in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in Russia in 1996. In the case of Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, both statements are false, because he was rehabilitated in 1988, extending his copyright term through 2058 in Russia.
For a PD-nonRussia template to be useful, we would need to find an author who met all of the following criteria:
  • had works published posthumously less than 95 years ago, meaning we can't use {{PD-US}}
  • died before 1926 (or 1922 if they fought in the Great Patriotic War, 1941–1945)
  • was rehabilitated after 1 January 1996, meaning their works are not currently PD in Russia but were on the URAA date
If we have any such authors, I'm happy to make an appropriate template, although I will note that {{PD-1996}} is appropriate if lacking in detail. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Undelete Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music and relevant page:s

The following discussion is closed:

Way too much text has been written below for any attempt at summarising the discussion. The bottom line, though, is that the underlying file contains copyrighted material that the uploader refused to redact and which cannot be hosed on enWS. There were some nuances and compromises that could have beneficially been explored, but due to the uploader's flat-out refusal to listen and opposition to any compromise on their position that has not been possible. A redacted version of the file has now been uploaded in parallel by another contributor, and as much as possible of the original proofread text and revision history migrated to that new file, which is now used to back the text at Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. The uploader is currently engaged in a POINTy attempt to get the redacted file deleted at Commons, but we can easily host the file locally on enWS if for some reason that should be needed. So... this discussion is closed as "no consensus to undelete" / mooted by the redacted file; and if ever the issue is brought up again it is to be hoped that the discussion can be had somewhat more dispassionately and constructively.

According to past lectures, regardless of the validity of the discussion, new “undelete” discussions are required; thus what is, in my eyes, a duplicate. The above, together with the index (which I saved) and the pages, was deleted, by Xover, without discussion, on speedy-deletion grounds, while a full discussion was ongoing. The file is available here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: You are free to raise this discussion in any venue you choose, but do not recreate Index:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf while the backing file still contains copyrighted material. You had the option to redact the file, or to engage in discussion about the issue, but instead you chose to simply refuse, thereby leaving me no options but to employ the blunt instrument of the admin tools. Please let's try to avoid needing those any further in this process. Xover (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Xover: I’m tempted to recreate the article-space page (for ease of reference), but I won’t because of history problems. The Index: helps with getting to the File:, but that’s besides the point. It’s only your claim that it contains copyrighted material; and you gave me no chance to respond to said claim. I have challenged your speedy deletion request at Commons, by the way, and will respond (if I’m allowed to) at a deletion discussion there. Your grandiose sense of self-importance about admin tools and whatnot belies your true actions—deciding the “discussion” which I had not responded to, and had not been given a chance to respond to. I have seen abuses like this on Commons, but had hoped that enWS admins were better, and you especially—but it seems I was mistaken. There is no independent problem in creating the index, anyways, because the pages have been deleted and the file still remains. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It's only Xover's claim that it contains copyrighted material? It seems quite obvious that it does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Prosfilaes: It’s “only his claim” for several reasons. First, the user who opened the discussion is an administrator; if the case was so clear, why didn’t the first administrator just delete it. Second, he deleted the files after commenting negatively about the issue and refusing to allow me to respond to the initial allegation. I do not believe that the work is a copyright violation—I uploaded the PDF, created the index, and proofread the text, after all, and I didn’t find a problem. The main problem is not whether his snap judgment will eventually be considered correct, but that he acted without allowing for discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
You were pinged to the above discussion on 24 October, by the contributor that raised the concern, but chose not to respond in any way in the intervening nearly three weeks. And when I today saw what it contained I pinged you and gave you a second chance to correct the issue. So by all means keep venting at me, but you were given every opportunity to argue your case. Xover (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • You know, it’s hard to lie about timing when the times are publicly available. You gave me all of thirty minutes to respond and, when by chance I was able to respond in that time, you deleted the pages and ignored my comment anyway. If you are somehow implying that missing one message means that I’m not allowed to participate, that reflects more on yourself than me. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    I gave you plenty of time to respond in that I did not act (and would not have acted) until I was certain that you had seen it and had the opportunity to respond. That you chose to respond (however quickly) by refusing to either redact the copyvios, or at least make some kind of plausible argument for why I might be mistaken, is on you. Let me put it this way: you were given two opportunities and three weeks more than a new contributor posting the same would have gotten before it was speedily deleted. If you have a good argument to make about the licensing I suggest you make it. It's up to you, of course, but I don't think venting about me is going to convince anyone to your position on the licensing issue. Xover (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    • This is exactly why I brought this complaint: you unilaterally decided, without the benefit of any discussion—entirely of your own accord—the merits of my PD claim, without bothering to wait for community consensus. It is not my fault that you chose to ignore the long-standing practice of consensus development in copyright discussions, and I find it bizarre that you continue to pin the blame on me for your rash and unprincipled actions. I also don’t see how I was given any advantage over a new contributor, when my statement was entirely ignored and an administrator decided—again, without the benefit of the usual procedure and discussion—the merits of the case. I may as well have been logged out, for as much as my words were heeded. I would have liked to make a good argument about the licensing, but, apparently, your opinion is all that matters. Again, (and also, to an extent, in response to your comment below,) the file has not been deleted at Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
      Listen, I get that you're pissed at me. Perfectly understandable under the circumstances, and no hard feelings about that. But the fact of the matter is that had this been added by a new user and spotted while patrolling recent changes it would have been speedied immediately (by any admin), and the uploader mildly or sternly chided (depending on whether it looked wilful or an honest mistake). A new user persisting in uploading such material after being warned not to would be likely to end up blocked. The copyright discussion had been open for nearly three weeks with no opposes, and as such could have been closed as delete as an ordinary copyright discussion. But then I gave you an extra opportunity—because you are a well-established, prolific, competent, and well-respected member of our community—and yet you did not elect to present this "good argument", or ask for more time to put together a "good argument", or indicate your willingness to redact the infringing parts of the file, nor even to temporarily replace the problematic Page: pages with {{text removed}}. This could have been handled collaboratively and surgically, rather than by the blunt instrument of wholesale deletion. So while I am sure you are too frustrated with me and what you see as my poor handling of this right now, I would urge you to consider also how you yourself could have handled this differently. Xover (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
For context for those without access to deleted revisions: The previous discussion to which TE(æ)A,ea. is referring is WS:CV#Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music lyrical passages. I can't link the file here as it is a copyvio, but the text is the opinion of the court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music which in two appendices contain the lyrics for Roy Orbison's (1936–1988) "Oh, Pretty Woman" (1964), and a 1989 parody of it titled "Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew. The text is available online from all the usual suspects (Cornell, Findlaw, etc.) where it is hosted under fair use exemptions. Xover (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I would vote for it to be undeleted, but only on the condition that the lyrical passages are removed, at least from our transcription, if not also (somehow) from the PDF that Commons hosts. Those two songs are very clearly and unambiguously still under copyright, including their lyrics. And we don't allow fair use (if there is even a possibility of applying that doctrine to a hosting of these court cases). But TEA, you already know all of this, so hopefully will come to agree with what is being proposed so that the text may be undeleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously, as the person proposing the undeletion, and as the person who did all the work, I believe that it should be undeleted. That a court case—a Supreme Court case on copyright law, no less—could be doubted as PD-USGov is bizarre. A denial of this would necessitate the review of, at least, 64,947 works on enWS and 720,167 files on Commons. The file, uploaded at Wikimedia Commons, is available at c:File:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf. It is not currently subject to a deletion discussion, on copyright grounds or otherwise. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The fact that it's PD-USGov is not what's under dispute; it's that there is content that is derived from copyrighted works contained within the work, which (insofar as we've been able to catch) does not apply to others of the 64K PD-USGov works here. Yes we should carefully review modern works for copyrighted material before submitting them in full to this site. The full lyrics to "Pretty Woman" is not PD-USGov—in fact it's not PD at all in any way—so what's being said is that that single portion of the text should be removed from view on a freely licensed site like Wikisource which does not allow fair use. The text was deleted in full because I guess the deleting admin found it more worth their time to just delete the whole thing than to clean up and add {{Text removed}} to every page in question. It's better to have content containing copyrighted material deleted in full (for now), than for it to linger around for years and for us to get a DMCA for it later. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. It is the uploader's responsibility to make sure what they add is compatibly licensed, and even were I inclined to spend my limited wikitime on cleaning up this mess made by someone who really should know better, I in any case do not have the tools for conveniently manipulating PDF files (and there are overwriting considerations on Commons to further complicate matters). As soon as the file is redacted we can undelete the Index:, the non-infringing Page: pages, and the mainspace page as these are unambiguously public domain. In the meanwhile I have added the deletion request on Commons that should have been opened when the copyvio speedy tag was removed yesterday. Xover (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I have responded to the deletion request on Commons, and will keep my comments regarding the copyright status of this work there (and keep my objections to your actions here, for that matter). Your complaints about timing are misleading, &c. &c., but that is now besides the point. I wish for this discussion to be kept open, whether or not there is any comment here, until the discussion on Commons closes; and I will acquiesce in the result of that discussion here. Thus, if the file is kept on Commons, I would like all of the pages you deleted to be restored; and if the file is deleted, I will voluntarily close the discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    There's no particular reason this discussion needs to be closed within any particular time frame, excepting of course the need to eventually clean out open threads. But a discussion on Commons is irrelevant, except as reference, for enWS. Even if Commons should end up keeping it for some reason, the infringing parts won't be undeleted here without a local consensus to do so. Xover (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I would have called your lack of respect for community consensus surprising, but I have already done so in the course of this discussion. Separately, I also request that, should the file be deleted on Commons, the various links which I added to the Campbell page (in the article space) deleted here be removed, as it is against practice to link to works which are still copyrighted—but of course, such a request will only take effect after the conclusion of the Commons discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, It seems to me that the pages under a copyright can be deleted while keeping the rest of the work. What's the issue with that? And that independently to the result of the deletion discussion on Commons. Yann (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: As Index:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf was just recreated claiming authority from the close of the Commons discussion I have create-protected it until this discussion is closed.
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: You're an experienced enough contributor across Wikimedia projects that you should know that Commons' discussions have no direct bearing on Wikisource community discussions. They are relevant reference, but Wikisource consensus and policy is created on Wikisource. You've previously been cautioned against recreating that index and I am now repeating and emphasising that warning. This discussion is where you can make your case; and since the Commons discussion is now closed this discussion is also likely to be closed soon. --Xover (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Xover: Please stop; this is the second time you have acted without (and now against) consensus. I bound myself to the results of a community discussion; why can you not? Prosfilaes, PseudoSkull: To other users–administrators involved in this discussion, you have the ability to undelete the index page, which is clearly in line with community consensus re: the copyright status of the file (the court opinion) at issue. Please do so posthaste, without considering that one such has again deleted the file, not without consensus as before, but now against consensus. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
      @TE(æ)A,ea.: You are making very serious accusations here. I get that you're frustrated, but you've had near three months now to get a grip on yourself and it is getting rather tiring.
      You requested an extension on closing this discussion until the discussion on Commons was closed. This you got, but you were at the time warned that the outcome of the discussion on Commons had no bearing on the discussion here, much like a discussion here has no bearing on a discussion on Commons (or on enWP, or...). This should come as no surprise to any long-established contributor, and claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Xover (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The public domain pages can be undeleted. The file on Commons is kept. Yann (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
    The new pages in Page: appeared to be from the public domain parts of the opinion so they have not been deleted. The remaining original pages that are in the public domain, and the Index:, can certainly also be undeleted just as soon as we have a redacted file to link them to. The problem is that the uploader has flatly refused to do so in the three months this has been open. Xover (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    What's the issue with using the current file? WS doesn't have to display the copyrighted content, even if it is included in that file. Otherwise, an edited file could be uploaded locally, overwriting the file on Commons, but I don't see the point. Yann (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    Proofread Page displays the associated page from the source file in the Page: namespace, so even if we preemptively filled those Page: pages with a "redacted" notice and fully protected them we'd still be displaying the copyrighted content. Moving the existing Index: and Page: pages over to a new file is no problem; but we need a clean (redacted of the copyrighted material) file to back the transcription. Xover (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    So what? It is not like we are publishing classified content not available elsewhere. This is available in several places on the Internet, so it doesn't really matter if it is displayed here. We are not publishing it, and that is what matters. Yann (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    For copyright purposes it doesn't matter if we're deep-linking it, putting it in an iframe, or the software fetches it directly from SWIFT storage (which it does): we're still hosting it and making it available for others (i.e. distributing it). Xover (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    And for copyright purposes, it's perfectly fine for us to do so. We have an good fair use argument for keeping it in main space, and keeping it in page space for technical reasons (e.g. the difficulty of redacting the file) further strengthens our claim. I don't think any restrictions on fair use at Wikisource by the WMF were meant to stop us from using works from the Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Xover: In general response to your various comments here: The whole work is in the public domain, as I have said, and as the discussion on Commons determines, whether or not you agree in its outcome. As to your actions, I speak only the truth; you acted without consensus in deleting the pages after I had already created them, and you have now acted against consensus in create-blocking the index page (but not deleting the created pages, for whatever reason). My “extension” request was merely perfunctory; as a discussion, which is a duplicate of this discussion in terms of arguments, had been opened on a much larger forum, I stopped responding to comments here and continued my arguments in the Commons deletion discussion. This is because more editors will see a file deletion discussion on Commons than an undeletion request on English Wikisource; and more editors create a stronger consensus. The main reason for the “extension” is keeping the discussion within one thread, for the purposes of archiving. When I moved to Commons, I promised not to push further argumentation (about copyright etc.) here, as that would be duplicitous. You have had the opportunity to raise your concerns, which motivated your initial deletion here, in the deletion discussion on Commons; but you have been proven wrong. You now use your status as an administrator to frustrate my attempts to add material here which is emphatically within scope, solely based on your belief that the outcome of the Commons discussion was incorrect. You claim some reference to “policy,” but of course both follow U.S. copyright law, so there is difference in policy on that account. In fact, in determining whether holding some work violates copyright law, we are more lenient than Commons, as we do not have a precautionary principle. As to your argument with Yann regarding republication, it is of course true that I seek to republish a Supreme Court opinion; and it is also true, in light of the now-closed file deletion discussion, that I can do so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    The whole work is not in the public domain. Did you even read the Commons discussion? You were literally the only person arguing the whole work was in the public domain; King of Hearts and Clindberg specifically mentioned that it would basically be fair use. You cited a case that said "we think it best at this juncture to address only the statutory fair use issue—which may provide a full defense to some, if not all, of the SDO’s infringement claims in this case—and leave for another day the question of whether the Constitution permits copyright to persist in works incorporated by reference into law." I'm getting a bit frustrated in feeling that you're not listening to what others are saying, even the cites you're trying to justify your case with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was stunned to find that this rather important Supreme Court case on fair use was missing from this project, of all places, and was even more surprised when my addition of the content excluding the appendices (i.e., only the public domain text of the court's actual decision) was speedily nominated for deletion. Such a reaction is clearly not within the intent of this project. BD2412 T 22:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
    @BD2412: You're right: nobody has ever made an argument that any part of the opinion except the two appendices are problematic, and in fact redacting the two problematic appendices was the very first suggestion made to the uploader to resolve this. There is absolutely no support in any community discussion or policy for deleting or preventing the creation of a redacted version of the opinion. And any argument related to the copyright status should be made in this discussion, not by proxy in a different forum.
    PS. The (proofread) non-copyright pages are available for cut&paste in Special:PrefixIndex/Page:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf/. Xover (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 Comment An undeletion conversation is what it says it is undelete where the request is to undelete a work. An undelete conversation is not a pause deletion conversation, as we are meant to speedy delete clear CV works (per WS:Deletion policy), and may hesitate where we need to clearly have a conversation, especially for long held works. The policy is clear Copyright violation: Content which is a clear and proven copyright violation, or content previously deleted as a copyright violation, or author pages for authors whose works are all copyrighted.

With regard to copyright works that have been appended/included in US government work, we already have our decision made here years ago that we can reproduce the US-Gov component and we redact/delete the copyright work. I don't see that Xover's actions are outside of that decision, or outside of the requirement to remove clearly copyrighted works. I see that clear instruction was made on how to comply to have the work retained, so I am not seeing validity to the complaint. The approbrium seems misplaced.. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT there is an agreement that the copyrighted content can't be hosted here. So I don't understand the refusal to undelete the index and the public domain parts. Yann (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Ummmmm,Yann you do remember that Index: pages are contingent on a file, and that the request is to undelete this index itself, and I do not see that there has been a modified approach by the proposer. I also do not see that there is an appropriate file uploaded at Commons without the copyright material, so how do you expect admins to move here? On the original proposal, it should just be closed with "declined, contains copyright material. The scope has been left there for the proposer, or another individual, to present an alternate plan. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It was determined that the whole file is acceptable on Commons, even if some minor parts are under a copyright. I really don't see the issue with using that file for displaying the public domain part on Wikisource, as suggested by Carl L. and others. Yann (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There Goes Old Georgetown

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. May be restored with proof of licensing.

Fight song for Georgetown University athletics teams. Info at w:There Goes Old Georgetown (from where this was cut&pasted in 2009). It is apparently an amalgamation (derivative work) of three earlier songs, one of which has an unknown author and is dated 1930. As such it would still be in copyright until 2026. Xover (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Georgetown University being a U.S. institution, and the songs being published at or around the school, U.S. copyright law likely applies. In such a case, there is a presumption against copyright if there is no license given; and as there is no precautionary principle here, this work should not be deleted without an affirmative indication (such as a notice) which may show a firmer claim to copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    The absence of a c:COM:PRP here does not mean we can assume absence of copyright, it just means we don't have a hard default of delete in the face of imperfect or incomplete evidence (which would make my life a heck of a lot simpler). In the complete absence of information about authorship and first publication we're still going to have to assume copyright, and then inch our way towards concluding public domain if sufficient evidence of that probability amasses. Xover (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Xover: For a normal work, I would tend to assume copyright first. However, these are all songs made for the university, and were likely published around that time in small college publications. Thus, I find it unlikely that any copyright subsists. If there was any copyright, it would likely be enforced against Georgetown, and would be listed. For the above reasons, I believe it would be unwise to be precautious. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Stalin's speech on the radio on 3 July 1941

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted with unclear copyright licensing of original Russian and the translation

Unlicensed, from 1941. It doesn't seem to be an edict of a government, and the translator is not mentioned. What is the copyright status of Soviet speeches post-1926? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I remember an interesting discussion on the {{PD-EdictGov}} at US Supreme Court determination re copyright and government edicts in which I understood that all works of those who are authored to issue laws in the their country, are subject of PD-EdictGov automatically. Unfortunately, the discussion did not have any effect on our template, and so I am not sure if I understood it right. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jan Kameníček TBH, that news article didn't do a very good job of discussing the case... from the syllabus, "the Court cited a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court holding that the preparation of the annotations under Georgia law constitute an act of “legislative authority.”". Also, "First, Section 101 of the Copyright Act, which lists “annotations” among the kinds of works eligible for copyright protection, refers only to annotations that represent an original work of authorship, which the annotations cannot be when legislators are the authors. Second, the fact that the Copyright Act excludes from copyright protection works by federal officials but does not mention state officials does not lead to the negative inference that state officials must be eligible to be authors."
So, works are not PD "just because" the author was a legislator.... the work has to have been made in the course of their duties, as part of the "process" of developing laws and exercising legislative authority. A legislator who is acting "as a legislator", writing not just law but the "legislative history" (committee reports, crap like that), is acting as an agent of the people, part of the "sovereign authority" and is not an eligible author under the Copyright Act. Jarnsax (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that, in the particular case the works at issue were not actually created by individual legislators, they were "works for hire" created for, and edited by, the Georgia Legislature itself. Jarnsax (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull The US didn't have bilateral copyright relations with the Soviet Union until they acceded to the Universal Copyright Convention on May 27, 1973. Any and all Russian works from before that date were ineligible for copyright protection in the US, unless they had an author who was a "national or domiciliary" of some other country that did have bilateral relations. Since Russian is 50 years p.m.a., any work by an author who died on or after after January 1, 1946 was still copyrighted in Russia on the URAA date, and would have (assuming something else doesn't get in the way) a URAA-restored copyright. Given the detail that this is actually a speech, I'll just quote Circular 38B: "Although sound recordings fixed before 1972 were not then protected by federal copyright, those sound recordings will receive the remainder of the term they would have received had they been protected by such copyright when published. For example, a sound recording published in 1925 will be protected until 2020." Obviously, they need to update the thing with a more modern example, but still.... this has a URAA-restored copyright.  Delete Jarnsax (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • For the original, keep (I haven’t yet verified the status of the translation). Re: Jarnsax: “Under the government edicts doctrine, [executive officials] … may not be considered the ‘authors’ of the works they produce in the course of their official duties as [executive officials].” Especially given the content and context of this speech, I would definitely consider to have been written in Stalin’s official capacity. There is, incidentally, a court case currently ongoing about this exact topic: Carroll v. Trump, which considers whether statements made by Trump, while President, though at informal press gaggles and in personal interviews, were made in his official capacity as President; they (the Second Circuit) consider the matter sufficiently doubtful to certify the question to the D.C. Court of Appeals. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea. I'm really really dubious about applying the government edicts doctrine to this speech, since it would actually contradict the URAA, but I will look at that case. The real point of me talking about Georgia, though was that the points of the case there were sufficiently different ("works for hire", written by a private company, and edited by the Legislature) that the claimed copyright would have accrued to the legislature itself, as a corporate body. Totally different situation, entirely. They actually wrote about how legislators, when acting to write legislation, can't be eligible authors to get rid of one of the bad arguments that had been made, pointing out that the process of writing and editing the annotations was actually itself written out in state law, so they were obviously acting "as legislators" when editing it as members of a legislative committee, a 'body corporate'. TLDR, the Georgia decision really has nothing to do with this, it was about something else entirely. Jarnsax (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Jarnsax: Re: URAA, if the work was GovEdict-covered, then it wasn’t copyrightable in the first place, and thus there was never any copyright which the URAA could restore. Unfortunately, Carroll doesn’t answer the question; it just mentions it (with different phrasing, of course), and leaves resolution for several years down the road. The Georgia case expanded the domain of the government edicts doctrine, and it is for that reason that I mention it. The copyright claim rejected by the Supreme Court in Georgia was more broad than you describe, as it also states that legislators, not merely legislatures, could not claim such copyright. The principles expounded in Georgia apply, even if the facts of the cases are different. Quoting from Georgia: “Under the government edicts doctrine, judges—and, we now confirm, legislators—may not be considered the ‘authors’ of the works they produce in the course of their official duties as judges and legislators.” If this speech was given by Stalin “in the course of [his] official dut[y] as” leader of the Soviet Union, then it seems clear to me that it would be ineligible for copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The term "restored work" is kind of a misnomer, in that it only "restored" copyright to works that had actually been copyrighted in the US, and then became PD due to non-renewal. The URAA also vested a "new" US copyright in works that were from countries that were originally "ineligible", but became "eligible" before the URAA date... which is what happened here. That's the actual law, in [17 U.S. Code § 104A]. It also says "A restored work vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work"... so to call this PD, you need to establish that the "government edicts doctrine" was the law in 1940's Soviet Russia. I promise you, I'm not the person who is going to be digging through WIPOlex to prove or disprove that point.
The "government edicts doctrine" is only written down in case law... it's "based on common law", and subject to judicial interpretation, that's why it's called a doctrine. Actual copyright, however, only exists where the law actually says it does, in federal law, which only explicitly denies it to "works of the US Government". It actually remains silent about states, it doesn't explicitly say they get copyright. Extending that doctrine to cover works that US law, in the URAA, explicitly grants copyright protection to, without any 'exception', is quite the stretch, IMO, in order to get a 'keep'. It requires you to ignore statute law in favor of common law. Georgia didn't expand anything, many state governments has been claiming copyright over their laws, for many years, and scholars had written about how such claims were bs, for just as many. Georgia just beat down a bunch of incorrect arguments, that had also been widely repeated, and restated what the common law "had always been" on a point where statute law remains silent.
The common law 'principle' behind the government edicts doctrine goes all the way back to the Roman Empire, and is based on that it is immoral to hold a man responsible to obeying a law if he doesn't know what it is, people have to be able to freely copy it. It only applies to things that "have the force of law"... and the annotations, and stuff created "while writing law", the legislative history used in writing the annotations, is explicitly intended to be used by state judges when interpreting the.... it's the "official copy". That entire doctrine has absolutely nothing do do with "works of the US Government" that don't have the force of law, they are denied copyright in federal law, explicitly. State governments, can claim copyright in stuff (like, say, a directory of offices) that doesn't have the force of law, because federal law doesn't explicitly deny it to them.
Again, nothing to do with a speech given in 1940's Soviet Russia, and "maybe a court might agree with me" isn't the best argument. Jarnsax (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Jarnsax: As the Supreme Court explained in Georgia, “when Congress ‘adopt[s] the language used in [an] earlier act,’ we presume that Congress ‘adopted also the construction given by this Court to such language, and made it a part of the enactment.’” This also includes the government-edicts restriction, which applied regardless of country of origin. For example, in Singapore, governmental edicts are copyrighted for decades after enactment; and yet, because of the government edicts doctrine, they can be hosted here. This applies to works which were made before and after the URAA date. This is because, in the case of government edicts, there is no copyright to restore. Similarly, the URAA cannot be interpreted to grant terms of copyright to British works which meet “sweat of the brow” creativity levels but which do not meet U.S. creativity levels. Your interpretation of “restored” copyright also misses the mark. A “restored” copyright is a separate, new copyright which applies to certain works which were already in the public domain in the United States, although I don’t believe that that distinction is determinative here. Again, all of the provisions of section 104A can only apply if the work in question is indepently copyrightable in the United States, because if it is not, then there is no way copyright could have attached to it if it was published in the U.S. (which is what the URAA was created to do). Re: “[a]ctual copyright,” see my earlier quotation. Your interpretation would ignore Supreme Court precedent in favor of an interpretation of a statute; remember that how the Supreme Court interprets statutes is more important than what either of us claim the statute says. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea. To specifically reply to what you said about "when Congress adopt[s] the language used in [an] earlier act".... the rest is... "A century of cases have rooted the government edicts doctrine in the word “author,” and Congress has repeatedly reused that term without abrogating the doctrine. The term now carries this settled meaning, and “critics of our ruling can take their objections across the street, [where] Congress can correct any mistake it sees.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 456 (2015).[3]" As they said right before that, "But we are particularly reluctant to disrupt precedents interpreting language that Congress has since reenacted." They are talking about "authorship", and explaining why the State was incorrect in claiming that "legislators" could be "authors" under the Copyright Act when acting as legislators.
Looking at the previous paragraph, "That doctrine does not apply to non-lawmaking officials".
And the paragraph before that, "The whole point of the government edicts doctrine is that judges and legislators cannot serve as authors when they produce works in their official capacity."
The "government edicts doctrine" is common law, not statute law.... it is not in 17 USC. The court was dismissing the claim that 17 USC's definition of "authors" included legislators, on grounds that the Court had previously ruled that the definition did not include them, and when Congress revised the Copyright Act they never changed the definition, so the Court isn't going to listen to Georgia's novel theory that Congress "meant" to override that ruling, and just forgot or something. Jarnsax (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Jarnsax: My comment in response to that particular was to rebut your URAA claim re: a Soviet government edicts doctrine. If Congress has incorporated a history of “author” such that it didn’t apply to the most recent Copyright Act, that definition holds for the URAA, which means that Soviet works of a judicial or legislative nature, of the broad sort to be subject to the URAA, do not receive renewed copyrights because they are edicts of government. We differ on the next point, which is whether this doctrine has an analogous executive component, and thus whether this speech constitutes etc. etc. as we have argued earlier. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    You misunderstand. 17 USC does not have a definition of "author", it just defines certain things that are works of "authorship", and thus eligible. What the Court was talking about was that after previous rulings, when the Court had ruled that legislators and judges were not "authors" when acting "in their official capacity" to create law, per the edict doctrine, Congress didn't add a definition of "author" that included them, so it was nonsense to expect the Court to change their mind now, over a hundred years later, and call them authors in the absence of a new definition that included them. Jarnsax (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    The URAA addresses it in 104A(b), where it says "A restored work vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work." It also defines a restored work as "an original work of authorship that" and then gives the restoration conditions.
    With no definition of "author" in the statute, you end up with the common law definition (i.e. what the Court said all the way back to the 19th century, and what Georgia again said, that "legislators and judges" are not authors of the laws they write. Jarnsax (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Jarnsax: Yes, indeed, I agree with you; and, again, the URAA cannot vest the copyright of a restored work to some one ineligible for authorship. It is my claim that Stalin, acting in his executive capacity, could not have been an “author” for the purposes of U.S. copyright law and jurisprudence, and, thus, there can be no copyright in this speech, as it is a “government edict” under the formulation of that doctrine given by the Supreme Court in Georgia. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
      You said: "Stalin, acting in his executive capacity, could not have been an “author” for the purposes of U.S. copyright law"
      In Georgia, the Court repeatedly said "legislators and judges" cannot be authors. The case was not about claims of authorship by judges, but they included them for completeness. They did not, ever, say "legislators, judges, and executive officials". If that was what they meant, they would have said so, and they did not restrict their statements to "just" the legislators that the arguments for authorship had been made about.
      If the "government edicts" doctrine included works by executive officials, there would be no need for the definition to specifically state that works by US government officials are not eligible. The law could have just remained silent, as it does about judges and legislators in the definition of "US government works."
      The discussion of government edicts in the Compendium is the same.... it actually has a paragraph each about how the doctrine applies to lawyers and judges, yet omits mentioning the executive at all.
      That the government edicts doctrine extends to executive officials, yet both the Compendium and the Supreme Court neglect to ever mention them, while discussing at length the logic of who it applies to and why.... just, no. Jarnsax (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Jarnsax: Georgia discussed judges (the basis of the doctrine) and legislators (because that was the issue at hand). They didn’t discuss executive officials because that was not the issue at hand. The law about PD-USGov is entirely separate, both from PD-EdictGov and my comments about executive officials. Before Georgia, the Compendium did not have a paragraph about legislators, because they didn’t have a Supreme Court opinion to point to; and yet, the doctrine still applied. The same is true as to executive officials. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
        What this tells me is that you realize that, by trying to extend 'government edicts' to the executive, that you are going beyond case law, and "stretching" really far. Please find me anything other than some random lawyer's essay that successfully attempts to apply the doctrine to the executive.
        From Georgia... "The Court began by reviewing the three 19th-century cases in which we articulated the government edicts doctrine. See Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888); Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888). The Court understood those cases to establish a “rule” based on an interpretation of the statutory term “author” that “works created by courts in the performance of their official duties did not belong to the judges” but instead fell “in the public domain.” 906 F. 3d, at 1239. In the Court’s view, that rule “derive[s] from first principles about the nature of law in our democracy.” Ibid. In a democracy, the Court reasoned, “the People” are “the constructive authors” of the law, and judges and legislators are merely “draftsmen . . . exercising delegated authority.”"
        That is a citing cases well over a hundred years old, and using them to talk about judges and legislators (and not the executive), from the "base principles". Judges and legislators draft laws with the "delegated authority" of the people, which is why they can't be authors. The executive doesn't draft laws, or anything with the "force of law", other than the limited case of "admin law", which only happens in cases where Congress has delegated rulemaking authority to some executive official. You need to create a whole new chain of argument to apply this to someone who doesn't draft laws.
        Georgia specifically states that the government edicts doctrine "does not apply, however, to works created by government officials (or private parties) who lack the authority to make or interpret the law". "Make" and "interpret", not "execute". Even when the executive writes "admin law", they are executing the law that Congress passed telling them to do so. Jarnsax (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Jarnsax: You seem to have not read the cases cited. The three precedents cited in Georgia, which form the basis of the “government edicts” doctrine, were specific to judges; the Supreme Court, in Georgia, reasoned that the same logic which those cases applied to judges applies equally to legislators; and it is my claim that the same can be understood to apply to the executive, who certainly has no authority of his own beyond what is delegated to him by the constitution and laws promulgated by the people etc. This is not an application to anyone who could in some way be connected to legislative expenditures or executive work, but to specifically the chief executive. The Georgia Court used the “base principles” referenced from the earlier cases (which applied to judges) and applied them to legislators, because it was necessary, in the case at hand, to determine whether that applied to legislators. It cannot be said that something is not the case, only because there has not yet been a court case determining the point. The references to “making” and “interpreting” the law are, of course, references to the legislative and judicial provinces, respectively; there was no occassion to reference the executive province, as it was not present in the case at hand. That does not, however, make the logic inapplicable in this case. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
          Yes, it does, because your logic is wrong. Legislators write laws, and so do judges (case law). "Executive officials" do not, and I've already quoted you where the Compendium explicitly says that works of officers of a foreign government can be registered, even if prepared while acting within their duties, in the section about government edicts. If your argument was correct, that statement would be wrong. Jarnsax (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
          You revealed a gross misunderstanding here, when bringing up Carroll v. Trump, which has absolutely nothing, at all, whatsoever to do with the government edicts doctrine, which does not exist with regard to the US federal government. The common law doctrine is nullified, with regard to the US government, by Congress 'addressing the subject' in statute law, with the "US government works" rule. It has not existed in that context, as a 'thing', since Congress wrote the 'rule' into copyright law. Whatever arguments are made there about 'edicts' by Trump, as part of the case, by either lawyers, armchair lawyers, or you, are egregiously unfounded. Such a case about the federal government can only be about if the subject was or was not a "US government work". Not that it's relevant here... in fact my point is it's not, and your misconceptions are showing. You're also not listening, so I'm done. An admin surely has enough from us here, even if they want to leave it open. Jarnsax (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
          • Jarnsax: Works of officers of foreign governments can be registered, in the same manner as works of officers of state governments (and the federal government but for the restriction against such copyright). There is a difference between petty officers and chief officers, who speak with the power to execute law (in the same manner as judges interpret and legislators promulgate). My reference to Carroll was a reference to that case’s discussion of what constitutes a work of President Trump in his role as President, which is quite close at hand. That Carroll does not, and could not, relate to copyright law, is obvious; and I did not claim that that case related directly, in that manner. You have completely missed my point in bringing up Carroll; and I do not appreciate your attacks ad hominem in that regard. “Such a case about the federal government can only be about if the subject was or was not a 'US government work'.” This is exactly on point, however; whether this work (a speech) is considered a Soviet governmental work, in the context of considering Stalin as an executive subject to the government-edicts doctrine, is entirely relevant and germane to this discussion. Unfortunately for your desire to close this discussion for, if my claim were true, this work would be in the public domain owing to that judicial exception. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
            Saying that you have a misunderstanding or misconception, or that you are not listening, is not an ad hominem. It's not attacking you as a person, it's saying you are wrong and not listening. Jarnsax (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
          Even worse, looking at the 2nd Circuit's decision in Carroll, five days ago, it's a w:Westfall Act case. It has nothing, at all, whatsoever to do with copyright, not even in the remotest sense. Please stop pinging me back here, this is way past the point of just being off-topic arguing, and you are not listening. Jarnsax (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
          • I have responded to your contentions re: Carroll below, and will not repeat them here. A discussion of your attacks ad hominem is also not relevant to this discussion, so I will not belabor that point. On the topic of listening, you have refused to understand my reference to Carroll, and continue to “prove” that it is not related to a question different to the question for which I introduced it as a reference. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
TE(æ)A,ea. If you won't believe me, maybe you'll believe the USCO. From the Copyright Compendium, actually quoting Georgia directly, "any “work that [a] judge or legislator produces in the course of his [or her] judicial or legislative duties is not copyrightable,” regardless of whether it “carries the force of law.”" To continue, "The government edicts doctrine “applies to whatever work legislators perform in their capacity as legislators. That of course includes final legislation, but it also includes explanatory and procedural materials legislators create in the discharge of their legislative duties.” Stalin was not performing a "legislative duty", or a "judicial one", the only things discussed by Georgia, when giving this speech... he was neither a judge nor a legislator, and it did not have the force of law.
Later, the USCO says, "Other than works of the United States Government, a work that does not constitute a government edict may be registered, even if it was prepared by an officer or employee of a state, local, territorial, or foreign government while acting within the course of his or her official duties." Are we done?
My interpretation does not ignore a precedent that is specifically about "government edicts", and only government edicts. Like I was said repeatedly, and like the USCO says, this was not a government edict. It was not written by a judge or legislator, and it did not have the force of law. Jarnsax (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Jarnsax: I do not claim that Stalin was a judge or legislator; he was the executive, and the government edicts doctrine applies in the same manner as to the executive as to the judicial etc. The Compendium mentions J/L in quoting the Supreme Court, but of course the same logic applies to E. This is not some ancillary material prepared by a lesser governmental worker, which would be a USGov (which has no Soviet equivalent), but the work (very directly connected) of the chief executive. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    I just add that the difference between legislature and executive was not so distinct in the Soviet Union as it is in the West. Stalin issued many decrees with the force of law during his rule. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jan Kameníček That's a valid point, though just reading this, it wasn't any kind of 'decree'. A similar thing can happen here in the US, when the President is given the authority by Congress under something like the War Powers Act, or when an executive agency has been delegated "rulemaking authority"... that's when admin law comes from, but nobody cares (in terms of copyright) because of the "US government work" rule, which, being statute law, nullifies the common law doctrine when it comes to the US government. I suspect quite strongly that Stalin had such similar, delegated powers, and we all know he had an immense amount of personal influence, from controlling the Communist Party. Either way, I don't think it matters here.... just read it, it's not an edict, other than "Go fight for Mother Russia!" If some similar work appeared to actually have been intended to have legal force, like a number or named decree, I'd be far more willing to agree that "government edict" might apply. Otherwise, I think it falls into a 'class' that the Compendium specifically says "may be registered", as I quoted above. Jarnsax (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
For example, w:Order No. 227, issued while him "while acting as the People's Commissar of Defense", and applied only to the Red Army, was IMHO clearly a government edict. Jarnsax (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
In the United States, there is one office, President, who holds three 'roles'. He is the w:head of state (ceremonial head). w:head of government (executive and administrative head), and w:commander-in-chief (of the military).
Under the Soviet Constitution of the time, these roles were differently defined.... the head of government was one 'office', Stalin held it, as w:Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union, and then as w:Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, from 6 May 1941 until 5 March 1953. As the 'executive and administrative', this role didn't let him issue 'edicts', just like the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can't.
He was also commander-in-chief, as w:People's Commissar of Defense of the Soviet Union starting 19 July 1941, then as w:Minister of Defence (Soviet Union), until 3 March 1947. He held the rank of w:Marshal of the Soviet Union starting in 1943, and it's this that let him issue w:Order No. 227, a military order. I call that one an edict, with the death threats and all.
He also held the "legally non-governmental" role, which is what gave him actual power, of w:General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1952. None of these roles was judicial or legislative.
The speech itself doesn't fit w:Edict of government#Definition, and down at the end of the section about public policy, from the USCO, "such material as the laws and governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to the public and made known as widely as possible"... that's not what this speech is, it's rah-rah and PR.
Looking at w:Copyright of official texts, for Russia "official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character, official documents of international organizations, as well as their official translations" are exempted from copyright. I don't know how different it was back then, but this speech doesn't fit any of that, IMO.
I'm completely convinced that this was copyrighted in the Soviet Union, they don't have an equivalent to "works of the US Goverment", and it's not an edict. Jarnsax (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek Much later...
I'd actually become very curious about this, a long time ago.
The Soviet Union was, constitutionally, a democracy, not 'incredibly' different from others. The source of power was the People, who voted in whichever candidate they wanted, through a secret ballot.
This "problem" was, it was a single-party state. To run for office, you had to be a member in "good standing" of the Communist Party, and they could kick out whoever they wanted, under their own rules, and they made their own rules. You had to have "their permission". Everyone on the ballot was a Communist.
The People had, constitutionally, created a government under which it literally made absolutely no difference who they voted for, that had zero reason to even remotely care about their opinion, and had actually done it on purpose (the whole idea behind it was nuts). So it was effectively a dictatorship by "boss Commie". Jarnsax (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding w:Carroll v. Trump nonsense: that is a w:Westfall Act case. The Westfall Act is in a completely different title of US Code (it's about civil torts), and uses a definition of employee that is completely and utterly unrelated to anything encompassed by 17 U.S.C, the Copyright Compendium, or the "governmental edict" doctrine. As a separate Title of the US Code (28 U.S.C.), it is completely independent from copyright law. This is how 'law' works, if the 'particular law itself' doesn't define something, you look at the common law, or then a law dictionary, or then a normal dictionary, to define it. You don't hunt down some definition of a term that isn't even used in the Title you are looking at from somewhere in a completely different Title on a different subject. Discussing it in this context is about as relevant as the tax code. Jarnsax (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Jarnsax: Regarding pinging, two items. First, you should not mark your responses as minor edits. Second, I ping editors in discussion, especially when they misrepresent my arguments. As for my reference to Carroll, it was not an attempt to incorporate the Westfall Act’s definition of “employee” (which is not remotely relevant), but the discussion (in that case) of whether certain statements made by the chief executive, while chief executive, in the function of the chief executive, can be considered to have been made by him in his official capacity (as opposed to being made in his personal capacity). The work in question for this discussion is a speech, made by the chief executive of a state; and, as Carroll discussed whether such works qualify as works made pursuant to the official duty of said chief executive, it is a case highly relevant to the point currently in question. The questions you were asking were related to a different question, one to which Carroll is not applicable. The question you seek to litigate—whether Stalin could even be subject to the government edicts doctrine—is an entirely different question to the question in relation to which I referenced Carroll—whether this speech can be considered to be a work made by Stalin in his official capacity. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    You are also completely and deliberately ignoring my third or fourth request that you stop pinging me, which you have now done twice, since I last asked you to stop. It's called harassing someone. Stop. Jarnsax (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    A speech such as this, given by Trump, live on the air, to rally the people against a massive armed invasion, with tanks and artillery and bombers and explosions and lots of dead people, would obviously be within the scope of his duties, and the case would have never gone to appeal, the judge in the lower court would have made the obvious decision, and granted the motion to substitute.
    If Carroll v. Trump was about circumstances that were even remotely similar (he was not giving a live on air speech), it is still about the Westfall Act, about if he was acting within the scope of his duties as one of the following: officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty or officers and employees of a federal public defender organization.
    It actually explicitly says so in the Westfall Act, in the definition of "employee" used there, who are the only people it applies to.[12] The only "lessons" you can take, from Carroll v. Trump, that have anything to do with copyright are about "possibly outside the scope of their duties" and thus copyrightable works by the classes of people that the Wesfall Act actually applies to, since that is who the Court was talking about in the decision, and only those categories of people.
    The works created by those people are either "works for hire" of the US government, or works of the US government itself.
    It would ideally have gone without saying that Stalin was not an w:Officer of the United States, or any of the other categories of people explicitly mentioned by the Westfall Act, or at least only need to have been pointed out once.
    It would be far easier to just avoid all this irrelevant arguing by listening to what the USCO explicitly tells us in the Compendium, that I've quoted, which is works by foreign officials are copyrightable unless they are edicts, regardless of if they are within the scope of their duties or not.
    The entire idea is not even wrong. Jarnsax (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    There are two things that are completely lacking, before any 'principle' related to Carroll and "scope of duties" could become relevant here.
    1. anything like a "works of government" provision in Russia. They only exempt edicts.
    2. anything in US law that creates or extends a "works of government" exemption to anything other than, explicitly, the "works of the US Government" clause, which rather obviously only applies to the US.
    Ignoring that, and imagining that some kind of works of government exemption did exist in Russia, you would be faced with trying to establish if giving this speech was within the duties of Stalin, under 1940s Soviet law, not the duties of Trump, under US law nearly a century later. Jarnsax (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    The only question which such a 'Carroll-type' analysis could possibly answer is who owns the copyright, and to raise it as an issue presupposes that "a copyright existed", which renders the entire point moot to us. If a copyright existed, the only reason we have to care who owned it is to figure out if it still subsists in the US.
    The reason the Compendium, written by experts who actually know what the hell they are talking about, can make the flat statement about "foreign officials" and "scope of duties", that explicitly tells it "can be registered" unless it's an edict, is because the United States is the only country on the planet that does not copyright it's "own works" other than edicts, and it does not impose the "works of government" exemption on other countries, since to do so would be both "unlawful" (it's not in the Copyright Act), and would violate international copyright treaties. Jarnsax (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    In a discussion about US copyright, when you are told that your "theory" is flatly contradicted by an explicit statement by the USCO in the latest edition of the Compendium, which is released as a new edition any time a federal court decision actually changes anything, again by experts who actually know what the hell they are talking about, and is the authoritative reference on US copyright law, and the Compendium really does say that, you need to drop the damn stick. You are wrong, and the horse is not only dead, it was never alive to begin with.
    The only routes for this speech to be in the public domain in the United States are if it was an edict, or if it did not receive a "restored copyright" under the URAA. Jarnsax (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I am writing this to 'summarize' what I've said about this, for the sanity of a closing admin.
Rude comments hidden. @Jarnsax: may wish to express themselves civilly next time, similar impoliteness will not be tollerated. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
It is not a invitation to start fucking pinging me every five minutes again, to continue an argument between two people that is obviously going nowhere (we disagree, arguing is fucking pointless, get over it) so that you can insist that I see your comment right fucking now across every wiki and you can get your immediate endorphin rush from "proving some guy wrong on the internet". I obviously have this page watchlisted, do not start harassing me about this again. Since pings are visible across all wikis (and this is not my 'home') abuse of that system to harass someone can result in a report the stewards on Meta, and a possible global ban, if local admins don't take action first.
  • Jan Kameníček: Does this mean that I can respond and not get banned? I stopped responding to this discussion only because this user said he was going to get me banned if I kept responding to him. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: I haven't had the spare cycles to actually read through this mammoth discussion, so I may be missing context here, but… Nobody gets somebody banned just on their say-so. At a cursory glance I see nothing here that would make that a relevant factor. That being said… 1) if someone asks you to not ping them (using {{re}} or linking their user page) then you should generally try to honour that request, and 2) in a mammoth thread like this it is likely that the real arguments have been amply covered and further comments only amount to beating a dead horse (that is, additional responses are no longer productive). --Xover (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Donald Trump was the President of the United States. Stalin lived in Russia. Even if the Carroll case was related to copyright, it's analysis of what where his official duties would only be relevant to the "works of the United States Government" rule, which would have applied to Trump, and actually 'cares' whether or not something was an official duty.
As I have said way too many times here, there is no route to PD for a work from Russia through the "Works of the United States Government" doctrine. That US doesn't not apply that doctrine to anything but the US federal government (see Georgia), and Russia has no 'similar' rule that would have allowed this to escape into the PD 'at home' and evade the URAA. Russia only exempts governmental edicts, using essentially the same 'definition' as the United States. (see w:Copyright of official texts) It's 'the same' is because it's actually in one of (don't remember which) the international copyright conventions, in almost the same words.
The only path for this to be PD (since it was still within 50 pma on the URAA date) is if it was an edict, which Russia would have not copyrighted, and which the US would not honor the copyright in even if it existed. Since it's not an edict, it's not PD by that route. The "edicts" rule gives not the slightest crap about "the scope of someone's official duties"... to again quote the Copyright Compendium, Chapter 3, about edicts: "Other than works of the United States Government, a work that does not constitute a government edict may be registered, even if it was prepared by an officer or employee of a state, local, territorial, or foreign government while acting within the course of his or her official duties."
All of the rambling about "Carroll" here is completely off topic and grossly misguided. Any copyright issue that could possibly be tangentially related to it (scope of official duties of a federal official) is completely irrelevant to a copyright from 1940s Russia, and would only matter if some kind of works of the government rule existed in Russia, which it does not. The Carroll case is also about the w:Westfall Act, and actually hangs on if Trump was acting 'within the scope of his employment' using the radically different definition of employee of the government given in 28 U.S.C. You don't even need to be paid to fall within the scope of that definition. It's a civil tort case, and grossly irrelevant here.
What matters is if the speech is an edict. It's obviously not, if you read and compare it to an 'actual edict by Stalin, w:Order No. 227.
The work was in copyright in Russia well past 1996 (16 October 1952, plus 50 pma, gives 2003), and was in the public domain in the United States from creation until the URAA date, because Russia lacked "national eligibility" until gaining a bilateral copyright relationship with the US in the 1970s. It's copyright was restored by the URAA.
This is actually a very clear URAA case, if you don't try to stretch a rule that only applies to the US federal government to 1940s Soviet Russia. Jarnsax (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Amazing Stories v15n10 and v16n11

The following discussion is closed:

Pages deleted / revdel'ed as suggested by Yodin (and thanks for both catching this and doing the legwork to fix it!).

Amazing Stories volume 15 issue 10 and volume 16 issue 11 didn't have their copyrights renewed, but they have a few stories (one in the first, "Invisible Men of Mars"; two in the second, "After an Age" and "Murder From the Moon") that were renewed. I've uploaded new versions of the djvu files removing the copyrighted sections (assuming 95 years after publication per the Hirtle chart), and carefully checked all other issues of this (and some other pulp mags) that are on Wikisource. These two issues are the only ones that are affected. Unsure what's the best way to deal with the pages that have already been proofread (about ten pages in total, volume 15 issue 10 only, including one page that has some text from another story at the start). --YodinT 21:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've checked them again, and these are the only affected pages containing copyrighted text (all in volume 15 issue 10; none from volume 16 issue 11 were created before the scans had the copyrighted stories removed): pp. 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 21, 27, 29, 36, 37 (and p. 58, which is the one that also contains another story). I've replaced the copyrighted text on the pages with {{text removed}}, and guess the previous revisions of these pages should be revdel'd (or maybe full deletion of all these except p. 58), along with the previous versions of the djvu files? --YodinT 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The Social Importance of the Modern School

The following discussion is closed:

First published in 1972 with copyright notice.

Article, or possibly a speech, by Emma Goldman. The text here gives English version published by Vintage Books, 1972, originally published ~1935. Online text source from RevoltLib, which in turn is from Anarchy Archives.. RevoltLib gives no further info, but marxists.org claims it was published in Mother Earth in 1916. Mother Earth being a monthly published by Goldman herself (with contributions from many luminaries). However, I dug up the 1916 issues on HathiTrust (they have multiple copies) and can find no trace of it there. The 1935 original publication is entirely unattested. So the first actual publication I find is the 1972 Vintage Books publication. Unless the claimed 1916 publication, or a 1935 publication without a copyright notice, is located this would seem to be a copyvio.
Incidentally, if anyone is at all interested in this area, systematically proofreading Mother Earth from the first issue looks like it would be a worthwhile project. Let me know if you would like help making DjVus out of the HathiTrust scans. Xover (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The “c. 1935” is not a publication date, but an authorship date. Red Emma Speaks gives the following as the source:
    “The Social Importance of the Modern School” (and fragment on sex education), unpublished typescripts, Emma Goldman Papers, New York Public Library, Manuscript Division (n.d.).
This would seem to indicate that the first publication was in Red Emma Speaks, meaning that the copyright for this essay dates to that publication. However, if that publication did not give a copyright notice specific to this previously unpublished work (instead giving a copyright notice for editorial work), then the work is in the public domain for failure to state a specific copyright claim. The new work would also have needed permission from the holders of the copyright in the unpublished work. The case is not perfectly clear; I want to do a little more research first. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Higglety Pigglety, My Black Hen

The following discussion is closed:

Research by MarkLSteadman and Einstein95 suggests this is sufficiently well attested as 19th-century or older to just call it {{PD-old}}. Several possible sources for scan-backing it have been provided, but nobody has taken it on as yet (*hint* *hint* :)).

Anybody up for doing some research on this one? It was transwikied here from enWP in 2007. The few (very unreliable) references I found in a dumb google search suggested this is 16th/17th-century, so if we can find some reasonably reliable source to back that up we can maybe slap a {{PD-old}} on it and be done. But wise from Happy Birthday and similar situations, we can't really assume that's so without checking. And if it's really 16th/17th-century there has to be a pre-1927 printed collection of nursery rhymes somewhere that includes (so we could even scan-back it). Xover (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe 801 on pg. 217 here [13] ? MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Google won't let me see the contents of that, but Edward Williams Byron Nicholson would seem to be a pretty good source, yes. Does IA have a decent scan of it? Xover (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The scan is here [14] of good quality. I see a bunch under Higglepy piggleby or Hickety pickety (e.g. [15])as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
So from some searching, we have numerous versions to choose from. There are:
- ei (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Free and Open Software: Paradigm for a New Intellectual Commons

The following discussion is closed:

No evidence of compatible licensing.

2009 speech by Eben Moglen, transcribed by an IP from a YouTube recording of the conference. The speech is obviously prepared (i.e. not off the cuff), and there are no traces of any compatible licensing. Moglen has not himself published the speech that I have found. Xover (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Fangs of Gold

The following discussion is closed:

According to the research provided here the text was first published with a copyright notice, but the copyright was not renewed in a timely fashion.

Story by Robert E. Howard, first published as "The People of the Serpent" in Strange Detective Stories in the February 1934 issue. Apparently there was a mixup of the titles of two stories in that issue ("The Tomb's Secret"), and subsequent attempts to remedy by switching titles in later collections (and to make the chaos perfect, there's a Howard collection including related stories titled Strange Detective Stories, but which does not contain "Fangs of Gold"/"The People of the Serpent"). In any case, the 1934 first publication was with a copyright notice.
So… In order to determine the copyright status for this one we'll have to search the copyright renewals, and given the mess of classification, that means both renewals for books and serials (Stanford only has books), and under all the possible titles and/or all the possible registrants (Howard himself, Otis Adelbert Kline, Glenn Lord, Nickel Publications, Ralph Daigh , etc.). Renewal would have had to happen in 1962 give or take a year (so 1961–1963). Anybody up for trawling through it? Xover (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Searching manually though all serial and (books/)contributions publications, there is no renewal of either the magazine or a story under Howard’s name. As renewals are made under the name of the author, not the claimant, there is no need to search through other names. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Georgia v. Public Resources.org and {{PD-EdictGov}}

The following discussion is closed:

"Edicts of government are basically the same thing as monkey selfies."

`nuff said. :-)

The {{PD-EdictGov}} template, while not wrong, and used across multiple wikis in the exact same form... is bad. It doesn't actually explain anything, or tell you "why": it only refers to the Compendium. Old conversations, linked from the talk pages of this template across multiple wikis, make it clear that questions about "why", since it's not stated in 17 USC, and "what does this actually mean", since it's buried in the depths of history, and "why are we listening to the Compendium about something that isn't in 17 USC", abounded, and were never really answered.

The decision in Georgia did not change this rule. What the Supreme Court did, in Georgia, is to validate a argument that actually places the "government edicts principle" on a basis that isn't buried in the depths of 200+ year old legal trivia...it instead divorces the "government edicts principle" from the vague "for reasons of public policy" justification, and places it on the grounds of fundamental copyright principles; giving us, in a way, a test that is actually usable, instead of just having to know "what is or is not an edict" and requiring a knowledge of the incredibly obscure history to actually get it.

Edicts of government are basically the same thing as monkey selfies.

To actually understand this.... unfortunately, the Compendium, and the Georgia decision, and even the English Wikipedia article on "edicts of government" don't give the needed context, which gets into obscure facts of history and the way copyrights actually came into being in the US: the history of "common law" in the US, and the exact intention of Congress when passing the Copyright Act of 1790.

I have started a discussion, on the English Wikipedia, at w:Talk:Edict of government#Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and the public policy argument, with what is essentially a long screed, explaining what the Court was telling us in Georgia, what they were actually telling us about this in Wheaton v. Peters, back in 1834, when actually first validating the "government edicts principle" as law in the US, and giving the "common law in the US" context to understand why it's not written down.

I'm mentioning this here, and intend to post this message across multiple wikis, to attract interested editors.... not to canvass for a discussion there, to change the article, but to achieve a consensus there, about rewriting that article so that it is based on something other than "the Compendium says so", that it can be used (the article, and the consensus) to rewrite this template on every wiki so that it actually says something useful, instead of the just "because the USCO says so" that seems to have been the conclusion of most discussions about this subject.

As a footnote, this doesn't apply to most edicts of the US federal government... since the definition of "works of the US Government" specifically says "prepared by", and doesn't require authorship, it includes such edicts. They are denied protection separately. Jarnsax (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jarnsax: Changing our template is not necessarily that hard. But I am not quite seeing what change it is you are wanting. Could you sketch out the concrete change to wording you think is needed? I haven't read Georgia v. PRO since it came out, so I am a little hazy on the details. But as I recall the biggest takeaway at the time was that it in effect expanded the test from a narrow force-of-law to a much wider and additional authored by or under instruction of a competent legislative assembly. I.e. that things that are not actually laws qua laws, so long as they would otherwise be authored by (and copyrighted by) a competent legislative body, also fall under the government edicts doctrine. Xover (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Xover They go into detail about how the "creators" of edicts are not their authors, that the "we the people" are.. i.e. no "human" authorship.
Edicts, when "made", actually define what the law is. Moving a punctuation mark, or omitting a "the", etc. changes the meaning. So they are not "original expressions of creativity". If they were, they wouldn't be the edict "we" made, they would be a derivative work of it, and misstate what the edict "is".
Edicts do not have to have the force of law. They are "methods of operation" of the legal system, and "methods of operation" are specifically uncopyrightable.
This is basically 17 U.S. Code § 102. The Court said edicts fail all on all three... that's why I called them "monkey selfies". They are not "valid subject matter".
So we can basically just say that, probably much better, and then the Compendium list like we do now, leave the UN stuff alone, and tell people use the other template for US government edicts.
The actual 'applicability' didn't change, and the Court didn't 'overturn' anything to expand it. The existing template was just always vague, because nobody knew why the Compendium said that. It's the same everywhere else, there are long old discussions full of people asking the question. Jarnsax (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The whole thing goes back beyond when enwiki was the only one. Jarnsax (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The actual "why" was what the first sentence of Wharton was actually saying, in the context of the obscure 200 year old legal trivia I went into over at the article. Jarnsax (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
"Edict-adjacent" stuff, that's far enough away that it's not even a "method of operation", just isn't an edict, and all this doesn't apply... that why they eventually wrote the "works of the US Goverment" rule, to exclude such "stuff" since it is valid subject matter. Some of the later court rulings had also validated that since it was an "obligation" to publish stuff without copyright, anything "not an edict" that was published with it, in it's official version (I think it was headnotes, specifically, without looking it up) also entered the PD... any copyright in it was invalidated, even if it belonged to someone else. They could sue, but just for damages. Jarnsax (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Wheaton never went into didn't validate that, since the lawsuit was about someone (the old court reporter) trying to claim a copyright in the Court's actual decisions themselves... the new reporter had removed everything but the actual decisions to publish a cheaper copy. It was just never asked Jarnsax (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As far as "what is an edict", in general... let's put it this way.
The actual preprinted form, that a policer officer uses, when he writes out a traffic ticket, is an edict...it's telling him how to write out a ticket. So is the ticket itself, since it's basically an order to "respond" with the force of law. Jarnsax (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
All the "legislative sausage" stuff, that goes into writing the statute, but doesn't actually have the force of law (like committee reports)... the "legislative history". One point of "annotations" is when the actual language of the statute isn't clear, courts have to look at that stuff it points at to figure out what the legislature meant to say, the actual "law", so it is actually part of the "edict" as a "thing". Jarnsax (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. Is what you're saying that edicts, as articulated in Georgia v. PRO, is much wider even than what I sketched above (force-of-law + created by competent legislative assembly)?
The UN stuff in the template is just saying that the UN isn't a government of any kind, so edicts doesn't apply. We could as well have mentioned "all non-government organisations" (and most IGOs), but the UN is an obvious case. Xover (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd actually been rereading it, basically to dig this out, lol.
The really specific language is where the Court was describing what had been held in the Eleventh Circuit (and upholding it)... I'm going to yank all the repeated citations out of this so it's readable. The bolding is mine.
  • The Court began by reviewing the three 19th-century cases in which we articulated the government edicts doctrine. See Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888); Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888). The Court understood those cases to establish a “rule” based on an interpretation of the statutory term “author” that “works created by courts in the performance of their official duties did not belong to the judges” but instead fell “in the public domain.” In the Court’s view, that rule “derive[s] from first principles about the nature of law in our democracy.” In a democracy, the Court reasoned, “the People” are “the constructive authors” of the law, and judges and legislators are merely “draftsmen . . . exercising delegated authority.” The Court therefore deemed the “ultimate inquiry” to be whether a work is “attributable to the constructive authorship of the People.” The Court identified three factors to guide that inquiry: “the identity of the public official who created the work; the nature of the work; and the process by which the work was produced.” The Court found that each of those factors cut in favor of treating the OCGA annotations as government edicts authored by the People. It therefore rejected the Commission’s assertion of copyright, vacated the injunction against PRO, and directed that judgment be entered for PRO.
(inserted later) This is what the 11th Circuit actually said "Because our ultimate inquiry is whether a work is authored by the People, meaning whether it represents an articulation of the sovereign will, our analysis is guided by a consideration of those characteristics that are the hallmarks of law. In particular, we rely on the identity of the public officials who created the work, the authoritativeness of the work, and the process by which the work was created. These are critical markers. Where all three point in the direction that a work was made in the exercise of sovereign power -- which is to say where the official who created the work is entrusted with delegated sovereign authority, where the work carries authoritative weight, and where the work was created through the procedural channels in which sovereign power ordinarily flows -- it follows that the work would be attributable to the constructive authorship of the People, and therefore uncopyrightable."
So, not just fail, but epic fail. :)
A couple of bits from later on:
  • "Pursuant to “a judicial consensus” dating back to Wheaton, judges could not assert copyright in “whatever work they perform in their capacity as judges.” Rather, “[t]he whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all.”"
  • "Moreover, just as the doctrine applies to “whatever work [judges] perform in their capacity as judges,” it applies to whatever work legislators perform in their capacity as legislators. That of course includes final legislation, but it also includes explanatory and procedural materials legislators create in the discharge of their legislative duties. In the same way that judges cannot be the authors of their headnotes and syllabi, legislators cannot be the authors of (for example) their floor statements, committee reports, and proposed bills. These materials are part of the “whole work done by [legislators],” so they must be “free for publication to all.”
That such things "must be free for publication to all" is the old common law "government edicts doctrine"... the first sentence of Wheaton says "the law appears to be well settled in England that since the statute of 3 Anne, the literary property of an author in his works..." when first validating it in US law.
They also apply the "public policy reasons" thing to the case at hand towards the end as an illustration:
  • Imagine a Georgia citizen interested in learning his legal rights and duties. If he reads the economy-class version of the Georgia Code available online, he will see laws (list of crazy old stuff snipped) with no hint that important aspects of those laws have been held unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court. See OCGA ... (available at www.legis.ga.gov). Meanwhile, first-class readers with access to the annotations will be assured that these laws are, in crucial respects, unenforceable relics that the legislature has not bothered to narrow or repeal. See ... (available at (long url) for $412.00).
If you read the whole thing, they really make the point that none of this is 'new', and that it should have been 'obvious by now' to their audience. They tell the State of Georgia: "A century of cases have rooted the government edicts doctrine in the word “author,” and Congress has repeatedly reused that term without abrogating the doctrine. The term now carries this settled meaning, and “critics of our ruling can take their objections across the street, [where] Congress can correct any mistake it sees.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 456 (2015)." They make similar comments a couple of times.
This is why "the Compendium says so, and always did", as I put it. They just never explained why, and it's really obscure, even to me, lol, and I know all kinds of esoteric trivia.
Regarding the UN stuff, what 104(b)(5) actually says is if "the work is first published by the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or by the Organization of American States" then it gets a copyright. We should probably just say exactly that (this does not apply if...) and link https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/104. Simple is easy. :)
Jarnsax (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The State of Georgia just wanted to continue charging $412 a pop for people to find out that stuff like consensual sex between adults who aren't married isn't a serious crime. Jarnsax (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I should probably point out, specifically, that in what they actually "held", they specifically said public official. They had applied this to judges, and in this case they applied it to legislators, but they told us it's not about a "job title" at all. Jarnsax (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As a incredibly obscure point of trivia, about the UN, they actually have their own rules about what parts of their stuff they will actually assert a copyright claim in. Things like UN Security Council Resolutions are in the public domain. It's commons:Template:PD-UN-doc and friends at commons:Category:PD United Nations license tags. Jarnsax (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Or, more technically, the UN itself, which can probably be trusted, has disavowed that they will every assert a copyright claim in certain "stuff", even if someone says they can. It's their version of US government works. Jarnsax (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
In England, the "constructive author" of all edicts, period, was "the Crown", the monarchy, not the person, and edicts didn't get a copyright under the statute of 3 Anne. Wheaton told us so, the "sovereign", now "us", the People, wasn't an author under the copyright law. It changed later 'over there' when they made Crown Copyright a thing. Jarnsax (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
That they are "methods of operation of government/the legal system" isn't really about authorship, it's in next provision of that same Code section:
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
So even if they were, somehow, original works of authorship of someone other than "the People"... still no. And it's explanatory. That you can't copyright "how" the government and legal system actually works, it's "method of operation", and the law specifically says you can't. Jarnsax (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
You can, as a person, who "has" authority, but is clearly not "using" it, write your own, unofficial, description of "how" stuff works, and claim authorship in the original bits of that. It's actually called an "official proclamation" in ye olde law dictionary when talking about edicts. Jarnsax (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
How a Bill becomes a Law, lol, since it's "author" is the House of Representatives, still isn't an edict. It just doesn't matter because of "US government works", unless you are wondering if these are the rules they actually follow, and this document is what made it that way (if it actually is an edict). Jarnsax (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The "entire" pile of dead trees that is effectively "us", the People, muttering to ourselves as we make up "our" mind, and then "saying what we decided" as a statute/decision/ruling, whatever you call it; or telling all the little fiddly bits of "our" government what their job is and how to carry it out..... that's basically what edicts are. The stuff you have to read to actually know "the law" in the very general sense. Jarnsax (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I keep talking about "the People", like the court did, just because this is all about stuff in a democracy. In a more general sense, it's about the "sovereign authority" of the particular country, whatever person, legislative body, or whatever else it is called. The w:College of Cardinals chooses new Popes, and the Pope is a head of government....so the "College of Cardinals" has the authority to make edicts: it's what they are doing when they choose the new Pope.
If the Vatican wasn't actually a "government" this would not apply. They would still be "edicts" but not governmental ones. That's why they specifically point at UN stuff, to rule out arguments based on "treaties give UN stuff binding force" trying to drag them into the scope of the rule. Jarnsax (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The US government has always made it extremely clear (and this come up) that "we" are emphatically not delegating authority to the UN, or to the bodies that write international treaties that we join.
Even if the Senate "accedes to" a treaty, and that treaty actually says "upon acceptance of this treaty by a State, all of it's provisions shall immediately enter into force, as law, in that State"... in the US, it does not happen unless "we" actually say so ourselves, explicitly.
For it to be otherwise would be unconstitutional. The Senate can't make law by itself. Jarnsax (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
This is 'why' 'how' the US doesn't accept the authority of things like the "International Court of Justice", even though the UN "says" it has global authority jurisdiction over stuff like war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. "We" never said so. Jarnsax (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The actual "requirement" that we write all that stuff down.... it's part of that abstract concept that is "the law" in it's entirely, even if not actually "the statute" or "the decision", and (public policy reasons) "secret laws" are vastly worse than "ex post facto laws", since there is no "proof" that they actually exist.
Actually "writing that stuff down", and looking at it later, is part of the "mode of operation" of the government and legal system... the entire "mass" of "governmental edicts" is actually defining that mode of operation. Jarnsax (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the best I can get to as a 'definition', at this point is:
Edicts of governments are works of the "constructive authorship of the sovereign power", created by those public officials who have been delegated the authority to make them. Public officials are not the "author" of such works that they create. Edicts include all constitutional and statutory laws, and other such works that "constitute the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law", in it's general sense, by public officials. Such works define and create the "mode of operation" of government and the legal system, and need not carry the "force of law". All edicts of government are not valid "subject matter of copyright" under 17 U.S. Code §102(a), as held by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., and are specifically denied copyright protection as "modes of operation" by 17 U.S. Code §102(b).
Jarnsax (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Still giving the Compendium list as 'illustration'. Jarnsax (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
And something like, "Though assertions of copyright protection made by foreign governments, in their own edicts and under their own laws, are not enforceable under US law per 17 U.S. Code § 104(c), longstanding Wikimedia Foundation policy requests that the English Wikisource respect such claims. This does not apply to such unenforceable claims made by sub-national governments of the United States. Most foreign governments do not make such claims." Jarnsax (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
People linked the source of that back in the old conversations, it predates the meta page and the stuff that cause it to be written. It's something Jimbo decided while in "God mode", all the way back in 2005 or so. Jarnsax (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
All of this is kinda related to the "primacy", as it was put ^up there somewhere^ of the Compendium, since it doesn't have the force of law, and it's come up more than once.
Courts don't have to listen to the Compendium, and actually only consider it as an 'argument with persuasive force.' What actually matters is that the records of the Copyright Office are considered prima facie evidence for what they say... what those records say is "presumed" to be correct, and it's on you to prove otherwise to attack the validity of that copyright in court; that the records actually say otherwise (an ad. int. registration was never perfected, for example), that the USCO actually made an obvious mistake shown in the record (such as, author didn't actually sign the card), that someone actually lied to the USCO (they really didn't comply with the manufacturing clause, the author wasn't a citizen or domiciliary, etc.), or something similar (Feist v. Rural, you can't copyright a phone book).
Otherwise, you have to show the court that this "presumably valid" copyright (in the work as actually deposited, as a "whole", which includes any copyrightable design elements) didn't actually apply to what you copied... the "work as deposited" was really a "compilation" to begin with, and what you copied wasn't "new and original" and wasn't of the authorship of the claimant (or otherwise not "valid subject matter" - see Feist etc.).
Since the Compendium actually details what the USCO thinks the law is, and describes how they apply it... we should listen to them about that because the courts do, and they listen to the Supreme Court and Congress because it's their job.
If you think the Compendium is actually wrong on some point, you are probably in error, or raising something that is actually an "open question" where their 'practice' is to act conservatively (they err on the side of registering stuff, deliberately, and leave it to the courts). When they say "No, we won't register that"... it's not a 'conservative' statement, and we are probably on very firm ground listening to them.
There's usually explicit law or a Court decision behind their opinion, or 'widely held' scholarly opinion that hasn't actually been addressed by Congress or a lawsuit (usually because everyone agrees it's obvious, or the whole history behind Georgia, the Blue Book, etc. - when people just assert copyright claims regardless and say "sue us", which wasn't an issue under mandatory registration). The Compendium reflects hundreds, if not thousands, of "man-years" of accumulated 'corporate' experience, and they actually read the "legislative history". Jarnsax (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment: @Jarnsax: You seem pretty knowledgable. In all of this, I'm trying to determine if any of the following things can be legally considered public domain in the US as "authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties":
  • Contracts between city governments and private companies
  • City resolutions (as opposed to ordinances which are edicts)
  • City council meeting minutes and agendas
Do you have an answer to whether the specific things listed above could, per Georgia v. Public Resources.org, be considered in the public domain? And if so, do we need a template explaining their legal situation? I'm about ready to get to work on archiving some legislative documents of small towns on Commons, which is why I ask. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull The best statement of the principle is straight from Georgia (cited in 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium)...
Legislators and judges “empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties.”
Regarding a contract, I believe it would be generally be copyrightable, as not actually written by the "legislative body" itself... I would expect normally it would be negotiated between lawyers of the two parties.
Resolutions, and minutes/agendas, though, are authored by the body "itself"... even if not having the force of law, they are created by the body "in the course of it's official duties", so would be PD per Georgia's statement of the rule. Jarnsax (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial

The following discussion is closed:

Prepared statements given by private individuals.

Minutes of 1973 Congressional hearing. Contains prepared testimony of private individuals (researchers, leaders of think tanks, etc.). Public record but not public domain. Xover (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The Third International After Lenin

The following discussion is closed:

Closed as keep. The original has just entered the public domain, and the text claims the translation was published in 1929. Given the lack of clarity (and, frankly, the topic-matter) I am disinclined to now (after over a year open) delete a text just to undelete it in 12 months. I am profoundly uncomfortable hosting a secondary transcription from marxists.org, but that is a discussion for WS:PD.

Programme of the Third International (1928), first published in English (it says) in 1929, which lacks a license. It is also not a previously published edition (marxists.org calls it their own edition). The translation is claimed to be no-notice, but not the original. Xover (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: At least the first part of chapter 1 is identical to the version translated by John C. Wright, first published in 1936 (1957 version: https://archive.org/details/thirdinternation00trit/). Definitely doesn't match the version serialised in The Militant from 1928-1929 by James P. Cannon. -ei (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 Comment. The original has just slipped into the PD in the US. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Works by Richard Bedford Bennett

The following discussion is closed:

Both works (a telegram and a speech) were written by Bennett while he was prime minister of Canada. There is nothing that suggests that these were in any way separate from his role as prime minister (i.e. that they were written in his private capacity). They were therefore subject to Canadian Crown copyright (pub. +50).

The radio address was not a publication, but rather a performance of the speech, so the clock on the copyright term didn't start until it was first published. For the speech that occurred in 1935, so with a 50 year term that would have expired in 1935 + 50 + 1 = 1986. There is no indication that these were published in the US, and since their copyright in Canada had expired in 1996 they were not restored by the URAA. Absent indications that they were published with a valid copyright notice and renewed, they are therefore {{PD-US-no notice}} / {{PD-US-no renewal}}.

For the telegram, however, we lack information about publication, and it seems unlikely that it was published contemporaneously as the speeches were. It seems more likely that this was first published at a much later date based on archival research, or indeed was first published on Wikisource (I have only ever found it in the archive from which our scan was taken). As such it is as of today unpublished. Works created before 1978 and unpublished until 2003 or later get a pma. 70 copyright term in the US, meaning that since Bennett died in 1947 its US term expired in 1947 + 70 + 1 = 2018. Absent evidence of pre-2003 publication it is therefore {{PD-US-unpublished}}.

As such both texts (as well as the four other speeches broadcast the same day and published in the same manner) are compatibly licensed for enWS.

There are two works by Bennett on Wikisource: Telegram to David Webster and First Bennett Radio Address. They're tagged as {{PD-1996}}, but Bennett died in 1947, meaning that his works only because PD in Canada with pma. 50 in 1998. Is there some other, more obscure provision by which these works were PD in Canada in 1996? Do either of these works qualify for {{PD-CAGov}}? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, the first issue is that the uploaders appear to have confused date of creation with date of publication. The telegram was not published at the time it was sent and is more likely to have been first published relatively recently from archival research (it's sourced to the actual telegram form, which is unlikely to have been published at the time). The radio address was a performance of the underlying work, not a publication, but here it is much more plausible that publication happened somewhat contemporaneously with the broadcast. In any case, we need to know when and where these were first published in order to determine copyright status. Xover (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Meh. I started to delete this and then thought better of it. We need to dig into whether Bennett was a sitting PM (i.e. whether CAGov applies), where and when published, US status in addition to CA status, and any effects of the CA copyright term extension that happened at the turn of the year. I still don't see an obvious path to PD for these two texts, but we do need to have all the relevant factors on the table before concluding. Xover (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Bennett was Prime minister when he delivered the January 1935 speeches, but that probably doesn't affect the ordinary copyright if the speeches were not published by the Crown. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding First Bennett Radio Address, it was kept in a 2011 discussion on the assumption of it having been under Crown Copyright, which explains why the closing admin then tagged it the same day as PD-1996 [16]. But that assumption seems wrong. The fives speeches of January 1935, The Premier speaks to the people, were published in five booklets by the "Dominion Conservative Headquarters" [17]. Not by the government. The applicable Canadian copyright would probably be the ordinary copyright, which was 50 years p.m.a. when it expired in 1998. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC) On the other hand, the Act speaks of "prepared or published" and I suppose that the question might be asked if a political speech of the Prime minister, or of another minister, could be considered to have been "prepared [...] by or under the direction or control of" the government. Maybe or maybe not. The fact that the speeches were published by the political party and not by the government may be an indication that they are not considered prepared by the government either. I don't know really. Scholars may have written something about that. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Avon_Fantasy_Reader/Issue_11/Uncommon_Castaway

The following discussion is closed:

Handled in separate discussion on WS:PD. See the link in a comment below.

Per Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Avon_Fantasy_Reader/Issue_11/Uncommon_Castaway ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Delete as copyvio.

Not by US personell. I appreciate the creator was acting in good faith, but some degree of checking of the Commons details against those actually in the file is needed. Also nominated for DR at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is by someone who is an employee of the government of the Philippines which also doesn't have copyright. So we can just tag it {{PD-PhilGovDoc}} no? "No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of … dissertations …" MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Depends if wiriting a thesis at a US college is considered "official" I think..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I would think that if you the government is sending you there then yes, writing a dissertation is a regular part of your duties. Presumably if the government sends you to attend a school program and you spend all your time partying and don't attend classes / do the dissertation etc. you are not doing your job. (Philippines includes all work done by government employees as part of their duties as government works).
I could understand saying that {{PD-PhilGovDoc}} is only relevant as far as determining what works are eligible for URAA restoration as otherwise Philippine copyright status is irrelevant to US copyright law as only Edicts would be noncopyrightable in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I see echoes of {{PD-USGov}} in your reasoning here. Philippine copyright law doesn't talk about "officers" of the government or their duties. It specifically deals with "works of the Government". I am not at all sure we can derive a general copyright exemption for Philippine army officers, even if they go to Naval School in the US on the government's dime.
I am also not immediately certain whether this thesis would count as a US work or a Philippine work under Berne (and therefore under US copyright). Peni may be a Philippine citizen, but they are also a "domiciliary" of the US at the time of publication (and writing).
But I think, perhaps, the most decisive point is your latter one: Philippine government works that are not edicts must have some independent path to compatible licensing in the US: either due to expiry, ineligibility, free licensing, or similar. Otherwise this work would be just like a novel that's PD abroad due to expiry of a pma. 70 term, but still in copyright in the US due to a pub. +95 term (with or without URAA restoration). Xover (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
From IPOPHL MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 2020 024, 4.1 [[18]]:
No copyright on works of the Government. - No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government created by an officer or employee thereof as a part of his or her regularly prescribed official duties, as defined above. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
My head hurts. @MarkLSteadman: Awesome find Mark! I had completely ignored that link thinking it was essentially irrelevant in light of the text of the copyright act itself, but I see now that is like the US Copyright Circular and maybe a bit more too: it essentially changes the law (within some constraints).
But I am now even more confused about how to deal with a work first published in the US in 2007 (so pma. 70 US copyright), authored by the (extended) Philippine government and exempted from copyright in the Philippines (but possibly requiring permission before commercial use in the Philippine jurisdiction). I think maybe we'll have to sift through Berne looking for guidance on the "country of origin" to crack this nut.
Incidentally, note that the definition of "regular duties" is quite narrow in this circular: it refers specifically to a form for describing a person's duties, rather than a general "anything that could be considered to be …". I am not at all convinced we can assume this to fall within the scope of their "regular duties". Xover (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Berne, it turns out, isn't all that concerned with the nationality of the author, only where the work was first published. So this would be a US work, and US copyright laws apply. For a work published in 2007 this means pma. 70 (so presumably a good long way in the future). There are no obvious exceptions in US law or copyright office practice that would exempt this work from copyright in the US.
The Berne rules apply to all signatories, including the Philippines, but they are free to apply other rules, such as government work exceptions. So this may be PD in the Philippines as a government work (but note my hesitation above); just not in the US which is the relevant bit for our purposes. Xover (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Well US copyright could have been transferred to the Naval Postgraduate School and hence the US Government who could then have released it. That is a possibility given of https://libguides.nps.edu/copyright/students/international (the student chooses how to use their copyright via a distribution agreement as part of the signed thesis release."These documents are approved for publication by signature via the NPS Thesis Release form on file with the Thesis Processing Office.") and https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/3393?show=full with it's distribution statement ("Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited."). MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that that's so… Where does that get us? The US government can hold copyrights it acquires through transfer of title (deed etc.), it just can't be an author for copyright purposes. If we assume Peni transferred their copyright to the US government by way of NPS, that just means we now need the US government to release it under a compatible license. "Public release" is just "access to information" and independent of copyright. "Distribution unlimited" just means "not classified", but even if it was taken as an implied license to distribute copies under copyright law, it would still be equivalent to a -ND license which isn't permitted here.
Bottom line is that if there's a path to us keeping this then I am not seeing it. As https://libguides.nps.edu/copyright/students/international says: NPS students … sign … agreements that permit [it] to be distributed to NPS and DOD websites [note: only NPS/DOD websites] …. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner. … Reuse generally requires permission of the copyright holder, fair use exemptions, or must be in accordance with a Creative Commons license selected by the rights-holder.. Xover (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I was hoping to see if there was a release my thesis under a CC license box in the agreement but if so there is no record on it so that path is also closed. As an aside, it would have been helpful if the NPS when uploading it to the Internet Archive to have used a CC ND license. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm continually amazed at the sloppy licensing practices of big institutions and government entities. Most of the time, this stuff ain't that difficult; and by being more careful about documenting this stuff it generally becomes a lot easier for everyone. Oh well. Xover (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and let me also correct my own sloppy phrasing up above, so as to not confuse future readers. It's not that the US Federal government can't be authors for copyright purposes, it's rather that the copyright act explicitly exempts works authored by the government from copyright protection. The distinction is rarely relevant, and I found the issue confused in a number of sources early on, so I tend to be sloppy here. But in some on-going unrelated discussions the distinction is material and so I want to be pedantically clear. PD-USGov is for works authored by the government, which are not protected by the copyright act, but works authored by others can have their copyright end up in the government's hands and the government can enforce those copyrights. Xover (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with  Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2022&oldid=13783258"