Wikisource:Copyright discussions

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. You may join any current discussion or start a new one.

Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted.

When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions.

If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, Stanford Copyright Renewal Database as well as University of Pennsylvania's information about the Catalog of Copyright Entries may be helpful in determining the copyright status of the work. A search through or Google Books may also be useful to determine if the complete texts are available due to expired copyright. Help:Public domain can help users determine whether a given work is in the public domain.

Quick reference to copyright term

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'


Tolstoy on Pascal[edit]

The work seems to be part of the Complete Works of Tolstoy/Tolstoi/Tolstoï (see work talk page), though the volume is not metioned. I have been unable to determine which vol. though it states that it was published after 1923, though not whether it is a first or later edition. It would be great if someone caould work out which vol the work came. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference for the text "Pascal" is: "The complete works of Lyof N. Tolstoï : Patriotism, Slavery of our times, General articles, New York: Carlton House, 1928, pages 382-390, - "copyright 1899, Thomas Y. Crowell & Co; copyright 1927, Nathan Haskell Dole; published 1928, Thomas Y Crowell; "Printed in the United States of America". There is no mention of any "volume" although indicated as "The complete works...". It is written on the cover of the blue book "Tolstoi's essays on life" (with the golden image of a man like the thinker by Rodin on a red background) and "World's great thinkers". AB, Qc unsigned comment by (talk) .
The copyright of 1927 is the relevant component for Dole's translations who died 1935. We need to know whether the work's copyright was renewed or not, as being copyright after 1923 makes it a different beast. The translations of Crowell that were published prior to 1923 with the 1899 works are in the public domain, it is the post 1899 works in the edition that have the other date. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see
  • the work here though cannot see a full text from here
  • search for renewals of Dole for Tolsto~ which doesn't show any particular result, though shows other works by Dole of Tolstoi's
billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I can also see a copy of the work at Hathi Trust. If we think that it is not copyright, a copy would be useful so that the this chapter of the work can be moved in situ. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If this remark from the preface (p. viii) may help; "The translations in the present volume are due to several hands, but a large number of them have been made by Mr. Aylmer Maude of England who was a personal friend of Count Tostoï's and has been for years in immediate touch with his industrial, religious, and social activities. Many of the articles thus furnished have been from sources otherwise unattainable. N.D.H." - Thus Alymer Maude could be the translator of "Pascal" (1906). AB, Qc

Qc huh. Aylmer Maude doesnt appear to have any renewals in his name either, but wouldnt his post-1923 copyrights in the UK have been extended in the US due to URAA. Brain hurts. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; based on the above there is no sign of renewal for this work. There's a scan of it available here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Raised a concern here back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, in the case of foreign government edicts:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

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

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

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov[edit]

The license {{PD-IndonesianGov}} (not to be confused with {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) is explicitly nonderivative and therefore unacceptable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How many of these works have the correct license? Are there any of the works that ought to have a different license? Otherwise, I agree that we cannot / should not host works under the stated tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are listed with multiple license tags and can be kept. Some of them I'm not sure. Maybe we should discuss each individually. I'd delete the license tag though, or at least make a note on it that works cannot be hosted under the license unless they are PD in the US for some other reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Chapter 8 of Traffic Signs Manual.[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing the same issue as with the TSGRD 2016 arose, namely the inclusion of non OGL content, in this instance the former Highways Agency logo, It's also been over 6 months since attempts were made to contact the relevant contact within "Highways England" with no response. Therefore as the majority contributor on this, I am requesting deletion on the following grounds :-

  • It's not been possible to confirm with the documents authors (nominally Highways England) what is and is not OGL in the relevant document.
  • As the relevant document contact never responded, it has not been possible to obtain reasonably high quality version of vector artwork used in these volumes rendering them incomplete.
  • Whilst the text of these works is largely complete, said text is useless without the accompanying diagrams, so it could not be described as a 'faithful' reproduction, even though it has been made in good faith.
  • These chapters do not seem to have been transcluded yet.
  • The information in these volumes are now considerably outdated, (It's appreciated that of itself isn't grounds for deletion given that Wikisource's primary function is to hold historical "source" documents.)

The underlying PDF's, along with a subsequent update covering the changes in TSGRD 2016 is still on the relevant page so it's removal here will not result in a loss of resource.

A courtesy DR will be filed at Commons for the underlying PDF. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe sligtly OT, but if the documents are OGL-licensed do they fit m:ToU 7. c) CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requirement for texts uploaded to Wikimedia projects? If no, maybe the OGL-licensed content should be deleted as ToU infridgement? Ankry (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
OGL is fine, see meta:Open Government Licence. BethNaught (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@BethNaught: could you be more precise, please?
  • Is m:Open Government Licence an official WMF position that overrides m:ToU, or
  • Is OGL fully compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0, so OGL-licensed content can be treated as CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed, or
  • I misread the ToU 7.c and it does not apply for Wikisource content for some reason that you know and I do not?
BTW, if you say that CC-BY-SA-3.0 license limitation is stupid, I fully agree. But it is an existent rule. Ankry (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
m:OGL asserts that OGL is compatible with CC BY. CC BY is compatible with CC BY-SA. However, digging deeper:
  • OGLv1 says "These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights." So we can go with CC BY-SA 3, fine.
  • OGLv2 and OGLv3 state "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0". I believe, although I am definitely not a lawyer, the CC BY 4 is compatible with CC BY-SA 3. But in any case, the WMF legal team are planning to convert Wikimedia wikis to CC 4 licenses, which would resolve the issue. BethNaught (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Per a DfT response obtained this morning, the Commons DR was withdrawn.. I will now wait for OTRS to provide confirmation of that response.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A Tryst With Destiny[edit]

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

Unless it was published in the U.S. within 30 days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobel speeches/lectures[edit]

According to

Can I use or translate a Nobel Lecture, speech or a biography?

Nobel Media administrates the publishing rights of the Nobel Lectures, speeches and biographies on on behalf of the Nobel Foundation who hold copyright. For information on how to license these, please contact

This is further confirmed on

Nobel Lectures, Speeches and Biographies

To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a presentation speech, a banquet speech or a biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.

If granted, "© The Nobel Foundation" and relevant year must be stated, the text correctly quoted and the author identified as the sole author of the text.

All Nobel Lectures, presentation speeches, banquet speeches and biographies are also published in the book series "Les Prix Nobel" and "Nobel Lectures."

This brings into question the following works:

-Einstein95 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Roosevelt's speech is out of copyright because it was published before 1923. I don't see any reason why Al Gore's speech would be out of copyright, given he wasn't in a federal office in 2007. Barack Obama was President at the time of his speech, and we've generally read the copyright law to put pretty much everything the President creates into the public domain. (And it's possible it was written for him by a White House official.) But accepting the Noble Prize is generally not a Presidential duty, so...? I'm leaning towards it being a work of the US government. Faulkner's speech in 1950 may not have been copyrighted and renewed, and the URAA didn't restore copyrights of Americans like Faulkner, so that's probably in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Gore Symbol delete vote.svg Delete contributor is also known to be open-minded with their interpretation of copyright; Obama Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, we have called USGov; Roosevelt Symbol keep vote.svg Keep pre-1923; Faulkner, ??? was it published in the US, and within 30 days?. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The URAA doesn't restore works that are solely by Americans. There has to be at least one author who is from an eligible nation, which explicitly excludes the US. I can't find a renewal, but I don't know when it was first published. If it hit the New York Times via telegraph, it could have been published within 30 days in a renewed work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the URAA would restore works by Americans if they were actually residing overseas at the time. But Faulkner would not qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, domiciled. Which I supposed mitigates against the undeletion of Three Stories and Ten Poems based on my proposal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Exilarch's Letter[edit]

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

Onceinawhile wrote on my talk page that "The Aramaic comes from Mann in 1922:[1]. Published in the UK, and confirmed as being out of copyright by IA / Cornell. The English translation is from the same time period but I can’t find the source online (I think I took it from a library); this was five years ago." I wasn't truly worried about the Aramaic, but given that one year later is still in copyright, "from the same time period" isn't much help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

On Succession to the Crown[edit]

Is there any reason to consider this out of copyright? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It really depends on Australian law regarding speeches by elected officials in the course of their debate in the national government. I'm not familiar with Australian law, but this is a speech in the Australian lower house (national) by an elected official to that representative body. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Typically work of the parliament belongs to the parliament[2], though Jill Hennessy may be able to release a copy of the work to the public domain. I have pinged the contributor to ask them to contact the author whether they are able to release a copy under a suitable creative commons license. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Unknown soldiers (song)[edit]

Earliest version of the English I can find is here, posted 2011 with no free license or release. I assume the poster is the translator. There is no indication otherwise. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete there is so much unknown about the work with regard to WS:WWIbillinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards[edit]

Translation from Middle English is from , but appears to be originally from . The copyright notice at is explicitly non-commercial only. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On the evidence presented it would see to be a modern translation of a 1907 reproduced work, which makes it Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. One wonders whether contact with the translators would be of value to see if they would release it under a modern license, though even that may still be NC. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Eye of Argon[edit]

Index:The Eye of Argon.djvu was first published in the fanzine Osfan #10, 1970, and the author is still alive. I have a later published copy, and this copy bears a copyright claim. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Our scan is sadly deficient in all the surrounding material. There's basically three questions: was Osfan #10 published (it looks like yes), did it have a copyright notice (the scan is too deficient to tell), and did it have permission of the author (again, the scan is too deficient to tell, and it's possible the printing is not clear on the matter.) What does the copyright notice on the published copy say?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Having read , apparently the author is not still alive; he died in 2002. I get the impression that Osfan #10 was a legit publication, and thus the main question was whether it had a proper copyright notice or not. Given that it's very rare, and what we have of it is likely what we'll be able to get, it's hard to tell.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This transcript from a later Osfan issue says there was no copyright notice in the later issue; this work has more info about the publication. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all I get for the latter is "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book."--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The author went to the David Paskow collection at Temple University in Philadelphia to see a copy of the zine. There is no year indicated on the volume (which may also be another indication of no copyright notice). There are illustrations interspersed but not by Theis. The last two pages of the original were missing. Thais did deliberately submit the work as a sincere effort, and was a good sport afterwards about the so-bad-it's-good opinion that people had of it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
We've got a partial copy of the zine on Commons, linked from the top, and I'm comfortable saying that it's {{PD-US-no notice}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Works by Author:Suman Pokhrel[edit]

After two years on WS, there is no assertion or evidence provided that these works, written by a living author in Nepali and translated by another person (Abhi Subedi), are freely licensed or in the public domain.

If these works are deleted, the author page should also be considered for deletion as Pokhrel has no other works hosted here. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete both the original works and the translation prevent us holding the works. Agree author page would go as part of clean-up. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Set of translated works by Marc that have been held by us for a long period. They are noted as the translations being published in 1926, and confirmed as first published, and the author having died 1971 (FreeBMD date). Author is British, and the linked reprint was during the life of the author, so not a sign that the reprint was able due to no copyright. has numbers of Stenning's works[3], though they would all appear to be in copyright.

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

On Terrorism and the State[edit]

Originally published in Italian in 1979, published in French translation in 1980, itself published in English translation in 1982, and this version of the work is a 2004 edit of that. The only permission for which there is any evidence or assertion is on the talk page, from somebody related to the 2004 version, and that a Wikisource-specific permission, not a free licence. Even if the 1979, 1980 and 1982 versions were all PD because of US rules on foreign works, I believe the 2004 version we have must be in copyright (c:COM:HIRTLE). BethNaught (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The URAA restored practically everything published after 1925 published in life+70 nations that isn't American in some sense. So, yeah, definitely copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Long Life Prayer for His Holiness the Dalai Lama[edit]

According to the linked PDF booklet, this was translated by Freda Bedi (Gelongma Khechog Palmo) who died in 1977. Also gives apparent translation location as Rumtek, Sikkim, making it PD in 2037. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In the US, it will be PD 95 years from publication if it was published while Bedi was alive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


Page mentions "From: Ancient History Sourcebook" and matches (minus a sentence removed in WS copy) the translation on That page has a copyright notice of

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No representation is made about texts which are linked off-site, although in most cases these are also public domain. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

which I believe goes against Wikisource's copyright policy. It also appears that the text was modernised by Jerome Arkenberg, who is still alive. I do not know if this extends copyright due to modification of a PD translation.

Ideally we should transcribe the source text (Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, p. 265–271) instead. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The translation we have is a tiny excerpt (which also makes it out of scope) from Xenophon in Seven Volumes, volume L168 of the Loeb Classical Library published by Harvard in 1979 and subsequently digitized at Perseus. Almost certainly copyright despite any licenses claimed by other sites that host it.
The translation you linked in Readings in Ancient History is hostable, but the one we have we should Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Tears of the Fatherland[edit]

Matches translation by Ivo Mosley on; published 1996 according to WorldCat -Einstein95 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)