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 Archive.org 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

Contents

Discussions[edit]

PD-EdictGov New Start[edit]

See Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-EdictGov Jeepday (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Bump. See [1]. CopyVio? --Elvey (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Bumpety bump. Sentencing_Statement_of_Tarek_Mehanna:CopyVio?--Elvey (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Karl Marx translations[edit]

In light of [2], I did a quick check of his works here, and it's not looking very good. See Author_talk:Karl_Marx#Copyrighted_translations. I'll leave it to regulars here to contact the authors and do more digging. --Piotrus (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You added this list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw[edit]

There is a permission for this text to publish it under GFDL-1.3 license in OTRS that was rejected by an OTRS agent as incompatible with current WMF licensing policy. When the text was uploaded and the permission sent, CC-BY-SA was already the required license for any text contribution. So I think, this text should be deleted. Ankry (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikisource not allow GFDL-only works? It is still "free", and while I can understand the restriction about importing portions of GFDL works in editing mode, Wikisource is more about simply storing the entire source document without change. I believe Commons still allows GFDL-only images (though highly discourages them). If an external work happens to be GFDL though, I'm not sure why we would not be allowed to host it. Obviously, we can't take the text and use it in a Wikipedia article, but we should be able to reference it. It is different than an original contribution. Now... I'm not sure about scope here. It looks like the source is a comment on a message board originally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Terms of use and earlier Terms of Use (2009) point out that no text contribution that is GFDL-only should be made to any Wikimedia project on or after June 15th, 2009. I am seriously interested in any policy interpretation that allows Wikisource GFDL-licensed uploads after that date (if anybody can point it out).
Also it is curious that this text has "OTRS pending" status for over five years... The OTRS ticket concerning this text is ticket:2010010610000422.
Ankry (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Those are the terms of use for active users of the site. It makes perfect sense for any amount of text on most any Wikimedia site, as it gets edited etc by multiple editors and the GFDL derivative work provisions make it an impossible license to work with. Same with comments like this one. But, stand-alone works are very different. Commons still allows individual images to be GFDL (as those do not create derivative work problems with text). For something like Wikisource, for works which are naturally GFDL with external sources, I don't see how those are bound by the terms of use. We are not into creating derivative works here; we just want to host the unaltered original text. It's still free. Granted, you can't copy/paste from those works into Wikipedia articles or Wikiversity texts, but ... they can certainly be referenced and there is probably a good amount of material out there which is very relevant. Say, Free as in Freedom. I do have scope concerns on this work, and if the OTRS is not valid then of course even the GFDL license is not true (I don't have OTRS access so I have no idea). But I don't see the point in banning individual GFDL works from Wikisource; we are hosting external works, not doing any collaborative editing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
OTRS ticket might be valid if GFDL was still accepted after 15.06.2009. But as I noted above, the permission was rejected basing on the WMF licensing rules. Maybe an OTRS agent with better knowledge about enwikisource licensing could look into the ticket? @Billinghurst:?
@Clindberg: I 100% agree that accepting GFDL would not be here such a problem as it would be for Wikipedia (maybe except potential problem with translating GFDL-licensed texts by wikisourcians). But such exception for Wikisource is not reflected in the official WMF policy. IMO, the current policy is clear here: we can upload GFDL-licensed scans, but we are not allowed to upload any GFDL-licensed text after 15.06.2009. I see no differentiation between stand-alone uploaded works and on-wiki created works in the policy. Policy just says about texts. Or am I missing something?
Ankry (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
OTRS permissions is one for @Jeepday, @JeepdaySock:billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we can email back and see if the work can be relicensed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess those are the terms of use -- the text may be validly licensed that way, and the author is not subject to the terms of use, but technically a user here cannot import that under those terms. It is nonsensical to me though that we would allow scans like that but not be able to transcribe them -- the copyright on the scan is the exact same as the copyright of the text. Can such scanned PDFs not have a text layer in them? Projects are allowed to have an EDP (an exemption to the regular licensing rules which makes more sense for their project). Those are normally used to allow non-free works, which Wikisource could never do, but maybe this situation is one area which may make more sense. To me, the terms of use was written for the collaborative text situation (which is true just about everywhere else on Wikimedia projects), but Wikisource is a bit unique in that aspect. I do guess that earlier uploaded GFDL works were allowed to be cross-licensed with CC-BY-SA (did we ever go around and change the licenses?) which could make a difference in that the text could be copied over as part of other projects. But I'm not sure it makes any sense to restrict Wikisource to only PD, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence of wmf:Terms of Use (2009) that is relevant is "Furthermore, please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL." So 27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw is a clear Terms of Use violation by Justmeherenow (talkcontribs) ;-) I say that tongue in cheek, as clearly there is no intent to harm, and the usual Wikimedia content licensing situation doesnt apply to Wikisource as the original content being reproduced is not user-generated, and the original text is not amended on Wikisource, and there isnt much else to copyright here. However we do have a problem also with all content in Category:GFDL, especially anything imported after November 1, 2008 and extremely especially after the relicensing clause expired on August 1, 2009. (see https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Interoperability_between_Creative_Commons_licenses_and_GFDL ). This was never properly resolved on Wikimedia Commons either, as many photographers refused to accept automatic dual licensing migration of their GFDL-only high resolution photos. See c:Category:GFDL. Because Commons is large and those photographers very vocal, they have pretty pictures, and they had very good arguments too (like preferring to trust FSF than WMF), this resulted in a text vs images distinction in the ToU, licensing upgrade tricks, etc. The WMF simply didnt want to tackle more than they could chew, so they allowed GFDL photos, but not text, even thought the GFDL is almost ridiculous when used for stand-alone photos, but it is certainly designed for primarily textual works with only media supporting the text.
In short, the terminology distinction between images and text in the Terms of Use is silly, especially on Wikisource, and needs to be revisited. Editing images is the same as editing text, it is only the ease and volume of edits that differs. We should treat our faithful reproductions (facsimile) as 'Non-text media' in the ToU - they are not creative works intended to be gradually improved over time by the community.
If anyone feels particularly strongly about the problem with GFDL texts wrt the ToU, we could call GFDL textual works 'non-free' (irony alert) and create an Exemption Doctrine Policy (see especially meta:Non-free_content#Wikisource) to bypass the Wikimedia licensing policy. I'd be happy to lead that effort, rather than accepting the sheer stupidity of having GFDL scans permitted on Commons that we are legally not allowed to transcribe. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

PD-Russia[edit]

I can't believe {{PD-Russia}} has been outdated for like 7 years, as the rules specified there were retroactively rescinded by Part 4 of the Civil Code, in effect from 2007, which specifies a 70 year protection term.

The current year however is a critical point for the Russian copyright term, since the implementation law 231-FZ specifies that new 70-year term only applies to works that were not in the public domain by January 1, 1993 using a shorter copyright term of 50 years (yes, a different term). And both the current 70-year term and the shorter 50-year term are extended by 4 years if the author fought in the war of 1941-1945 or worked during this period (which in practice applies to any adult that wasn't a convicted criminal).

The combined effect of these provisions means that as of 2014 publiic domain rules amount to the following:

  1. Works published before January 1, 1943 (i.e. 71 years ago) - if published anonymously/pseudonymously, or specicific compilation works such as movies, periodicals and complilations published by a state corporation
  2. Most importantly, works authored by a person who died before June 22, 1941 - otherwise, the 50-year protection wouldn't expire by January 1, 1993, because everyone who was fighting or working during the Eastern Front war of 1941-1945 is granted an extension of 4 years and so their works were NOT in public domain by 1993 and their copyright will only expire starting on January 1, 2015 (Life + 74 years).
  3. The exception is posthumous rehabilitation of those purged during the Great Terror or otherwise unlawfully prosecuted, in which case the protection term is counted from year of rehabilitation + 70 years.

I suggest that someone fluent with US public domain rules should look into combined effects of these regulations.

The important borderline case seems to be Leon Trotsky, who is served under a bizarre set of public domain rules:

  1. His works published before October Revolution are in public domain, since Russia does not recognize the laws of the Russian Empire and so it does not offer protection for works published there;
  2. English translations of his Russian Empire-era works are in public domain if published by 1923;
  3. His works published after November 7, 1917 are protected until 2072, because he was legally rehabilitated in 2001 for being exiled from the Soviet Union in 1928;
  4. English translations of his later Russian works are therefore not in the public domain anymore;
  5. The above list is probably not complete, as for example it is open to question whether his works published after 1928 should be protected under Russian laws or US laws (though I would submit to opinion that they are protected, because by rehabilitation he regained his Russian citizenship).

Though incomplete, W:Copyright law of Russia, W:Copyright law of the Soviet Union#Transition to post-Soviet legislation in Russia and W:Copyright law of the Russian Federation could be a good start. --DmitryKo (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The English Wikisource holds works that are in the public domain in the US. I can't see where the changes would affect us at all; the US only cares about the law in effect in 1996 for the rule of the shorter term type stuff.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Being retro-active, these laws affect US status of a work. Works PD in 1993 (for authors who died before June 22, 1941) were obviously PD in 1996; Trotsky's post-1917 works, except those published pre-1923, are non-PD retroactively, so were not PD in 1996 retroactively, so not PD-US now, retro-actively. These laws need to be discussed here because the matter is relevant for this site. Hrishikes (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No, they don't affect the US status of a work. The copyright might be resurrected in Russia, but that doesn't change anything in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I think that the discussion was about the template, not any specific works, though there was a suggestion about a review. If the template is wrong, we fix the template, if it is not needed then we delete it. If there any works that are affected by a change of the template, then we should review them. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe these changes affect the copyright status of any work in the US. If it's about the template, copyright violations is not the right place to go; personally I don't think it worth our time to try and keep country-specific templates around, at least for non-English speaking countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: So you are in favour of deletion of the template? And you are suggesting that all foreign language templates should be deleted and we should rely on US framework only? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm in favor of deletion of the template. I think we should have life+n templates, but I don't believe it's productive for us to try and chase every law in the world. We should speak in specifics on the bibliographic details, but not the legal ones where we don't have to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO currently the main point regarding this template and those changes of Russian copyright laws, is (keeping in mind that this is about URAA restorations):
  • do US copyright laws recognize the retroactivity of those changes made in Russian laws after URAA date 1/1/1996,
  • or the US ignores that retroactivity and regards Russian copyright legislatory as of URAA date 1/1/1996 only?
The text of Uruguay Round Agreements Act/Title V does not give any clues for assumption that the US takes in account possible retroactivity of all the changes made in the laws of the other country. IMO it is more likely that the US simply ignores this retroactivity - i.e. as Prosfilaes said above: "The copyright might be resurrected in Russia, but that doesn't change anything in the US."
@Hrishikes: do you have some evidences to prove your point in your statement "Being retro-active, these laws affect US status of a work."? What is that your opinion based on? --Nigmont (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Subsequent changes in foreign law do not affect the U.S. copyright status. The URAA was a one-time event, and the only question is whether the works were actually PD on that date per the law in effect at the time. The U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term nor the rule of the longer term; for countries which do, then foreign law changes can affect the domestic copyright status. The U.S. however uses its own copyright terms regardless if it is a foreign or domestic work; this might be shorter or longer than the term in the country of origin since (for works published before 1978) the term is based on date of publication, not date of death. The URAA was a one-time requirement due to joining the Berne Convention, which forbids loss of copyright due to lack of formalities (such as notice and registration); thus the U.S. was required to restore any such works of foreign Berne signatories. The Berne Convention allows the use of the rule of the shorter term though, so works PD in the country of origin on that date were not required to be restored, and the U.S. took advantage of that to not restore those works -- thus the impact of foreign law into this process. But once the URAA date passes, the U.S. copyright status does not change regardless of what happens to the law in the foreign country -- either shortening or lengthening terms will not affect the U.S. terms. I guess the big reason for the country-specific templates on Wikisource would be to identify the URAA source country and document that works were in fact PD on the URAA date; some countries can have special interactions. For Russia, they had a 50pma term in 1996, though they had a four-year extension for participants in the Great Patriotic War, which could come into play. Russia's non-retroactive change to 70pma in 2003 and retroactive change in 2008 has no effect here, and I'm not sure we should be documenting more recent changes other than as a courtesy, since nationals of that country might have more of an interest. But the law as of the URAA date is more directly relevant to Wikisource and PD status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Carl — thank you very, very, very much for your detailed explanation! The fact that URAA restoration does not recognize the changes of Russian laws made after the URAA date, is excellent for me, really. Just I am engaged in searching some literature written in languages of minor nations of Russia, for publishing that literature on the multilingual Wikisource which does obey US laws only and does not obey the Russian Federation laws. And the facts, that you so kindly explained above, broadens the scope of works free of copyright restrictions according to US laws and so far allowed to be published there.
About what to do with template PD-Russia. Of course this question is up to the discretion of community of the English Wikisource, but I would propose to keep this template and continue using it, with some updates having been done to it. I think, the template should be updated in such way that it would reflect those Russian copyright laws only, which were in action on the URAA date 1/1/1996; and all other laws which started their existence later, should be dropped from the template text, including: the laws about extension of term from 50 to 70 years; and the law about use of rehabilitation date for repressed authors. The reasons to do such cut off in the template text are (partly were explained in comments above by other users):
  1. The Russian laws which were enacted later than URAA date, are not in use for evaluating the copyright status in Russia as of URAA date, but only this status is taken in account to detect US copyright status;
  2. To keep track on any changes of copyright laws of all countries (including Russia) is not an easy task, such job is not productive to be carried on by en-wikisource users; if considering to watch Russian laws only, or laws of some selected countries including Russia, and to ignore all others coutries — there are not any reasons to do so because there are no countries being so privileged to get special care for their copyright laws;
  3. Even if any volunteers (e.g. of Russia's nationals) might be found, which would watch all changes being made in Russian laws and update the template timely — even in that case I think that the content of the template should be cut to contain the laws enacted on URAA date only. Because the set of Russian laws on URAA date is more simple, and the succeeding Russian laws have made the things to be more complicated; also a user would be ought to somehow distinguish which laws were applicable on the URAA date and which were not (in the case when all the current Russian laws were included in the template and the user were in need to evaluate real copyright status according to template text). Keeping URAA-date enacted laws only would make much more easy for any en-wikisource user to evaluate, whether some particular work of Russian descent is not falsely tagged by PD-Russia template when it is used on the page of that work.
Also, I think, a special note could be added at the end of PD-Russia — a note alike indicating (to a reader of the template text) that real Russian copyright status of the work might be changed from PD, because it is known that some changes have passed to Russian copyright laws after URAA date; and also special proposal may be added — for users of specific interest to Russia's copyright status — to refer to the Russian Civil code in order to exactly determine (if they want) whether this work currently is in PD in Russia or not. --Nigmont (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to all the community, because I might bring someone to confusion (though I had get confused myself before): recently I found that the sentences about using rehabilitation date as the basis, were already present in the Russian Federation law 09.07.1993 № 5351-1, article 27; I just missed that phrase when I looked through the text (and the circumstance that the point about rehabilitation was not mentioned in the old version of the template also added to my confusion). So it becomes, that the rehabilitation usage in Russian copyright laws was already in force on URAA date (it was 1/1/1996, and that law was applied since 09.07.1993), and should be accounted in the "restoration of copyright" of USSR-published works in the US. --Nigmont (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What would be the conclusion about the URAA date of 1/1/1996 and how would apply to Leon Trotsky for example - if his works were PD in Russia on that date, does it mean they would remain PD in the US forever and there would be no retroactive changes, as Carl Lindberg assumes? What happens to the works which were still protected on 1/1/1996 but which entered public domain in Russia before July 2004 - would retroactive extension to 70 years or any posthumous restoration of copyright apply to copyright status of these works in the US, as Nigmont assumes? DmitryKo (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Note that the law №5351-1 of 1993 does contain the provision for an extended copyright term for those authors who fought in or worked during the Great Patriotic War (the Eastern Front of June 22, 1941 - May 9, 1945). Any author who complies with the requirement is awarded an extension of 4 years for a total copyright term of 54 years - and that should be just about any author who was born before May 1929, considering legal working age of 16 years.
Which means that most works assumed to enter public domain on January 1, 1993 were actually still protected, because any author who died after June 22, 1941 enjoyed a protection term of 54 years, not 50 years, and such works would be protected until at least January 1, 1996 (January 1 of the year following death + 54 years).
As a side effect, this also means that both the federal law 20.07.2004 №72-FZ (a 2004 revision to the law 5351-1) and the Civil Code Part 4 of 2006 retroactively applied the term of 74 years to works by authors who were born before May 1929 and died on or after June 22, 1941, because the 50 (54) year copyright term for their works did not expire by January 1, 1993, as required by the Article 6 of the Russian Federation law 18.12.2006 №231-FZ (the implementation law for the Civil Code Part 4) for the 70 (74) term to be in effect. Only those authors who were born after May 1929 would be protected for life + 70 years, because they were most likely too young to work or fight in the war, but their life expectancy would mean their copyright would not expire until at least 2020s, and most likely well into 2050s to 2080s.
As a result, we have a uncertainty gap from January 1996 to July 2004, when works by authors who died in 1941-1950 gradually entered public domain, but then their copyright was restored because of the retroactive provisions in the 2004 revision of the 1993 law and the 2006 Civil Code law which effectively increased protection term to 74 years. DmitryKo (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Leon Trotsky is not the best example, as he lived in Mexico at the time of his death and was working on works for American publishers, where the URAA might not apply at all.
Russian works that were PD in the US and Russia on 1/1/1996 are still PD in US, no matter what Russian laws changed. Russian works that were under copyright in Russia on 1/1/1996 are under copyright in the US for the same time as a US work; e.g. 95 years from publication for works published between 1923 and 1978.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone care to create OPL3 and curate[edit]

I see that the UKGov is now up to OPL3 and we are still at OPL1. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/open-parliament-licence/ If someone has the time it would be great if we could do a review of our licensing in that space and see what is the the best means to have our licences. We may wish to disamigbuate our licenses, or just update, or build some redundancy into the existing template for the versions that we need. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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 24.50.79.184 (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)

Papal encyclicals with copyrighted translations[edit]

Many of the papal encyclicals on this site have translations whose translations are almost certainly copyright violation, at least from what I can see. Here's a breakdown:

First, there are a few copied from papalencyclicals.net. This website states that "Most of the encyclicals on this site were scanned by CRNET from the 5 volume set, “The Papal Encyclicals 1740-1981” published by Pierian Press," but does not give direct attribution to the translator for each document.

Second, there are many that are copied from vatican.va. I suppose there could be some argument that these are official documents of a foreign government (the Holy See, but not to be confused with Vatican City), but the website does explicitly state "Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana"

Finally, there are some with no translator attribution at all, but based on their formatting I would hazard a guess that these are also from the website of the Holy See:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Australian author working in Britan (died 1957). So despite not being renewed, this one might possibly have been revieved by URAA. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu[edit]

The license tag at commons is mistaken. It's not PD-70

Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/49- Author is Jean Maurice Eugène Clément Cocteau (1889–1963)

Also - Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/107- Margaret Louisa Woods (1856 - 1945) (expires next year in UK.)

Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/231- Maurice Polydore Marie Bernard Maeterlinck 1862 – 6 May 1949)

Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/259 - André Suarès, born Isaac Félix Suarès[1] (1868, 1948).

It is PD-US-1923 which means it could be hosted locally if someone wants to move it from commons with an updated tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The work is PD because it was published in the US in 1916, which is before 1923. It does not need to be moved to local hosting. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the Commons rules, but it looks like the text cited was not first published in the US. The standard of ever published in the US before 1923 is not the rule generally used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The early pages of the book state that the material is original. In reading, it sounds like Edith Wharton asked various authors for contributions, so it would seem that all the material had not been previously published. If so, that would make the U.S. the country of origin regardless of the nationality of the author. I do see an edition published in London also in 1916 on Google Books though even there the copyright is claimed by Charles Scribner & Sons, the U.S. publisher. I think PD-US-1923 is the correct license for all of it. PD-Old-70 would apply to lots of the individual works (and the arrangement and translations which sounds like they were done by Wharton), thought not all of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
commons:Commons:Licensing normally requires free licensing in at least the United States and in the source country of the work, so in case something is freely licensed in the USA but not the source country, just post here as needed, then wait for free licensing in the source country to move to Commons.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Being first published in the U.S makes that the country of origin as well. That appears to be the case with all portions of that work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Per Commons notice and note in work - "(C) World Health Organization 1981 Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. For rights of reproduction or translation of WHO publications, in part or in toto, application should be made to the Office of Publications, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. The World Health Organization welcomes such applications."

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

@ShakespeareFan00:, Given this is a widely used media file across Wikimedia projects, and doesnt have a high impact on English Wikisource, and we have ignored it for over a year!, Commons would be a better spot for a centralised discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Science 1st year Secondary School 1st Term[edit]

I brought this here as a courtesy, but the discussion might better be held on Commons. File:Science.Tr1.pdf has a license saying "This work is not an object of copyright in Egypt because it is an official document. Regardless of their source or target language, all official documents are ineligible for protection in Egypt, including laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence. (Article 141 of Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002)" All of those examples are akin to {{PD-EdictGov}}; I note particularly it's not just "decisions of administrative committees", but instead those "having judicial competence". Nothing in that list of examples is remotely akin to a textbook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, @ShakespeareFan00:, this looks quite similar to another of their uploads, c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mathematics.pdf, which ended in keep/inconclusive ? I am happy either way on this one. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Resignation letter of Jogendra Nath Mandal[edit]

This work is neither PD-US nor PD-Pakistan, as claimed in the license. Author died in 1968 as per Wikipedia article on him, 50 years not yet over. The work is of 1950. Hrishikes (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to be PD-Pakistan as a governmental work more than 50 years from publication. That would probably mean it technically qualified for the URAA, and thus was restored in the US. I'm not sure what the attitude is on wikisource towards governmental works which have a special term in their own country which has expired -- in a way, that is basically PD-author (the author placing their works in the public domain). We have gotten confirmation from the UK and Canada I think that they consider Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide, but I don't think we have gotten any explicit confirmation from Pakistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The author was a government minister no doubt, but does a resignation qualify as government work or is it purely personal? After all, people resign from the government, not on behalf of it. Hrishikes (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It was written in his capacity as an employee, not personal to me. He would still be an employee until the resignation was accepted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg, @John Vandenberg: A work authored/published by the government is not necessarily copyright-free. Copyright laws of both India and Pakistan were derived from that in vogue in British India (Index:Indian Copyright Act 1914.djvu), so the principles are nearly same. In case of India, certain types of govt papers (court papers, acts/papers presented before the parliament, items published in the Gazette of India etc.) have a release under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act (more or less equivalent to a CC license). Therefore, under the same principle, if the minister's resignation was presented before the Pakistani legislature, then it can be considered copyright-free, otherwise not. Then copyright would expire after due term as defined under the law. Hrishikes (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Tabling in parliament / publishing in The Gazette, does not change its copyright status. It does make it a 'public record', which isnt the same as public domain in regards to copyright. Copyright exists from the moment ink hits the paper, if it was creative as is definitely the case here. i.e. long before it is tabled/published. If this was a formal letter regarding his governmental activities, or brief note tendering his resignation, it could be covered by his role. But it isnt his duty as minister to write this letter as he has done it here. He clearly wrote this whilst candles burnt late at night, as a personal act of creative writing, perhaps in the interests of his country, but not in his job description, and unlikely solely whilst on the clock. I'd be very keen to know more about the circumstances of the letter, its first public appearance, etc., as it might sway me. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg: I think I was not able to explain my point properly. The letter is definitely not copyright-free IMO, that's why I had proposed this discussion. My point above is that, if it was tabled before the legislature, then its presence in Wikisource would not be deemed as an "infringement of copyright" as per principle similar to Section 52 of Indian Copyright Act. PD-EdictGov-India template of Commons is based on this section, and Pakistan can be supposed to have a similar provision. (although that should be looked into). For background of the resignation, see here and here. Hrishikes (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Section 52 of the Indian Copyright law does give some rights to still-under-copyright government works, yes. However the definition of "government work" in the current Indian Copyright Law is in section 2, which is similar to the wording in the older law. For any of those works, copyright now lasts 60 years from publication per section 28 (India extended from 50 to 60 in the 1990s; Pakistan did not.) The 1914 Indian copyright law was basically an application of the UK Copyright Act 1911 to India, with only minor changes. In that law, Crown Copyright was defined as any work prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work. So yes, simply by being published by the government, even if privately authored, it would turn into Crown Copyright, and as such has a different copyright term. Crown Copyright was very aggressive in that manner -- and it got even more aggressive in the UK Copyright Act 1955; it was not until the Copyright Act 1988 that the scope was reduced to employees in the course of their duties (closer to the U.S. definition). So, prior to that, many works became Crown Copyright. I expect the same would be true for Pakistan and government works, as it kept the same wording in its law. India still has it too, in section 2. Section 52 is only about rights you have for works still under government copyright; it has no relevance for works where the government copyright has expired. I am assuming the copyright of this expired 50 years after it was published, not that Pakistani government works are inherently free. In 1950, I think the 1911 UK act would have basically been in force in both countries, so those definitions would have ruled at the time, even if later laws softened them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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

The following file are at Commons and have been nominated for deletion. They had been labelled PD-UN here though it seems that Commons is of the opinion that {{PD-UN}} is not an acceptable licence for works published after 1984. We can let the deletions progress and this will affect the transcluded works, which we would need to either recover the underlying works back here, or we can delete these works too. Works effected are

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

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

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

1896 (Cry Freedom)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted per discussion, no clear evidence that not in copyright — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks suspicious. The author's dates are 1913-1958, translation is not attributed. Captain Nemo (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
Is it translated? It is in Moon Shadows on the Water, 1934, by Alvero, in English. The 1964 edition gives a copyright notice of 1934 and 1950. I suspect that if it were translated then it's the author's own translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the original was in English. It was the author's first publication, in 1934. However... it was published in the Philippines. I think that means it was restored by the URAA, unless there was some aspect of Philippine copyright laws which made it PD there by 1996 and was never retroactively restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Exec8, @Aries Eroles:, I see it is mentioned briefly at w:tl:Aurelio Alvero. Can you confirm Carl Lindberg's summary above, and that there is no strange copyright exception that might apply to this poem..? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Garassyz, Bitarap, Türkmenistanyn Döwlet Gimni[edit]

This ancient page has no license, either for the original work or the translation. The translation may have come from Wikipedia, but that doesn't absolve us from correctly attributing its source, and Turkmenistan is a new nation, so the original might well still be under copyright. (There's also some questionable recent changes which should be checked if this is kept.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the original lyrics were by w:Saparmurat Niyazov, who had references to himself in there, which were changed by the government after he died (along with deleting a couple verses and reordering others it looks like).[4] If the lyrics are part of national law, then {{PD-EdictGov}} might cover the original. Not sure where the translation came from though. I do find hits in this 2005 book... apparently published by the "State Pub. Service Turkmenistan". If that was an official translation of a "law".... PD-EdictGov might cover that too ;-) It's just snippet view, but the translation appears to be almost identical to the translation of the original we have on Wikipedia (though with a couple of differences... Turkmenistan, light and song of soul, Long live and prosper for ever and ever instead of Forever, the light and song of the soul, Long live and prosper, Turkmenistan!. That last one seems to point to a slightly different translation, though the rest seems there word for word. Also appear to have some hits in this 2001 book (snippet view which doesn't even show the snippets), and those also seem to be the same as in this 2005 book (preview mode). The translation would not appear to be directly from Wikipedia though -- seems like they are all slight modifications of some common source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nationalanthems.info/faq.html#copy says "Please note that permission has been granted for all the anthems on this site to be used by anyone for any purpose (except the handful marked © to various individuals, noted above) for either educational non profit or commercial for profit." and they have a little more about CC at http://www.nationalanthems.info/faq.html#use . On http://www.nationalanthems.info/tm.htm they have the same Turkmen lyrics and English translation, and has "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." in the footer. Personally I feel that is (barely) enough evidence, at least for the translations, if we do list them and their licensing information. If it isnt correct, we have someone to blame. ;-) However we can go one better, and open a line of communication with them (contact names, and form available also from the faq), to find out the finer copyright details of the various anthems they have. Could be a good joint project -- they have lots of scans, which we can import (not necessarily to English Wikisource) and validate the transcriptions that they have on their site (not that I expect they have any errors), but it seems like they would actually be appreciative of another set of eyes, and we can also build short descriptions for them to add to their website. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Any thoughts on the status of this? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Not sure they are even copyrightable in the US (extemporaneous speech not previously written down), but even if they are they would be PD -- expired in Italy before the URAA date. (Italy switched from 50pma -- in reality an effective 55pma when counting wartime extensions -- to 70pma only after the URAA date.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Italy is irrelevant here; Sacco and Vanzetti were American murderers. But I think it's pretty safe to say that however we cut it, they weren't copyrighted in the US. (Their letters were renewed, however.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. But yes, probably not copyrightable in the first place then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Sacco and Vanzetti were murdered Americans", fixed that for you. unsigned comment by 78.146.137.254 (talk) .
While I cant be certain yet, I believe these were included in The letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, edited by Marion Denman Frankfurter and Gardner Jackson Renewal R161508. I have no idea about registration/renewal of speeches from that era, but the default position in the modern era is that a speech is copyrighted once it becomes fixed, so either by the orator if they worked from prepared notes, or when the speech was transcribed. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Again The Ringer[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Again The Ringer but some templates are missing there--Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Akme: says that he has been told that the work was published in 1929, though a scan is hosted at archive.org, and they ask that it be deleted. We should confirm that the work was of that date, and that it had the requisite components to be kept copyright to this day. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia and PG Australia (http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html), the date is 1929: though the book does not mention the date anywhere. The Gaunt Stranger was published in 1925, edited and re-published as The Ringer in 1926. Ironically, the book is out of copyright in UK (1932 + 70 yrs) – Akme (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That it was published in 1929 neither rules it in or out of copyright, it will be the circumstances of its publishing that are pertinent for its US copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
A 1929 publication date for a British work by an author who died after 1925 is pretty much a guarantee of being in copyright. Unless someone has some specific knowledge otherwise, it's not a question to spend too much time over IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
For a popular (trans-Atlantic) author within a series of books, it is quite possible that there was simultaneous publishing on both sides of the Atlantic, and the book displayed has no compliance with copyright. I would agree that it is less likely to be salvaged, however, a simple check of NYT for publishing details, and a check of the renewal db would be worthwhile in these circumstances, especially as it is still up at these other sites. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The Gutenberg-Australia link says the US title is The Ringer Returns; there is a renewal record on that -- registration number A34563 on January 16, 1931, and a renewal R208024 on January 22, 1958 done by one of his children. If that was the initial US publication then it was not simultaneously published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia (on Edgar Wallace) and Gutenberg Australia (http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html) both give the date as 1929. The Gaunt Stranger was published in 1925, edited and re-published in 1926 as The Ringer. Ironically, unless I am wrong, it’s no longer copyright in UK (Life (1932) + 70 yrs) -Akme (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Renewal R208024 may not be the only one relevant. Strange that The Ringer doesnt have its own Wikipedia article. It appears] some of these stories were first published in US magazines, like w:Detective Story Magazine, which also have renewals. Anyway, looks like it is suitable for Wikilivres, and not here. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request in examining copyright status[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Nothing to do here. John Vandenberg (chat)
(moved from user talk page)

Hi,

There is a Tri-lingual Sanskrit-Marathi-Graman book Sukabahattari (शुक बहात्तरी) on this archive.org link German Author seems to be w:de:Richard Schmidt (Indologe) (* 29. Januar 1866 in Aschersleben; † 15. November 1939 in Münster/Westfalen).

Undersigned kindly requests you to exmine copyright aspects to upload on wikimedia commons. If we get any Marathi language transcriptor volunters for the book then we will exmine if the book can be used for Wikibooks Marathi to German learning lessons.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: It can be uploaded to Commons with PD-old-70-1923 license. Hrishikes (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Thicket of the Forest at Artois[edit]

This poem by Adolf Hitler is probably in the public domain in the US. However, the translation has been published before; Google Books comes up with The Kentucky Review - Volumes 5-6 - Page 117 (1983) and Hitler: The Path to Power - Page 22 (1989), neither showing enough to establish place of first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

For such a widely available work, and that could have been translated at any point in time. If we can find no mention of translator, maybe we put "not mentioned" for the translator field and move on. Put a note on the talk page about the research undertaken to find publication source, and translator. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's exceedingly unlikely it was translated before 1923, and entirely possible it was translated and first published outside the US or first published inside the US in a post-1963 work with a copyright notice, or possibly an earlier work that was renewed. We don't usually keep works that are probably in copyright in the US because we can't prove they aren't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I suspect this wasnt published until much later than 1916. If it is PD, we can create our own translation. btw, text here : w:tr:Adolf Hitler'in şiirleri, and elsewhere. I didnt find scans. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Versions of "Men of Harlech"[edit]

The following versions of "Men of Harlech" have no license information, and I could not discover their copyright status:

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

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

Lord Lister and Sir Alexander Fleming[edit]

Is this PD? Year 1944, author died in 1974— Mpaa (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the listed CC-BY license didn't exist in 1944 :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, CC-BY-4.0 certainly did not exist in 1944. But the image hosted at Wellcome Libraries is under CC-BY-4.0: [5]

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

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

Running security mechanisms for acceptable Generalized safety[edit]

This may be a vanity work; but the editor has provided no evidence that the work is in the public domain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Running_security_mechanisms_for_acceptable_Generalized_safety, so further discussion should probably go there. As I point out there, the volume it was published in is available from the web and has a very clear copyright notice making it nonfree.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Index:Lovers Legends - The Gay Greek Myths.pdf[edit]

I'd like a second opinion, The "text" of this was clearly donated, (and the uploader has sent a notification to the commons permission queue.). However, the book includes 1 poem and a number of musuem collection images where a clear copyright notification is included.

Given that the intention of the "text's" author was to donate this, and given some recent un-helpfulness from Commons, I am not sure if this particular file (suitably redacted) would be better hosted locally, so as to avoid a situation.

The DR I put up at Commons has been withdrawn, because the Uploader clearly intended the text to be donated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The poem and the copyrighted images should be redacted. Not sure why Commons would delete at that point... Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's been over a month, and no sign of an up-dated or redacted version. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Being resolved with uploader, and Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf[edit]

On Page talk:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf/4 @86.179.172.159: claims copyright on this file. Similar statements were made on Page:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf/4, however they were blanked within 10 minutes by @Dougie3211:, who uploaded the file on 29 May 2015. Certainly the license tag on the Index: is not accurate, however there is no copyright statement on the 8 pages in the file to give guidance as to the real date of the original text. The annotations are clearly modern. My inclination is to delete as a copyvio. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - it's pretty clear that the annotations are copyvio. On the other hand, if the annotations are removed, the rest of the transcription is presumably public domain, and could be added as an unsourced work with a link to wherever the source was pulled from. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Removal of the file is required as it is not within scope with its annotations, which would be copyright, though not the original record at PRONI. As Beleg Tâl indicates, the transcription, without annotations, is a historical record and could be kept as the historical record if it is deemed notable against other criteria of historical record. If is retained and we can attribute the transcription to a person then we should do so using {{textinfo}} on the talk page with a link to this discussion, and a note to the source of the transcription that we made. I have not checed the notability component, and am comfortable with one person's making an assessment on the matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I even queried the annotations a while back - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Index:Typescript_copy_of_the_reminiscences_of_John_Caldwell._PRONI.2C_T3541.5.3.pdf to be precise. As it's clear the annotations are in copyright, It has to go. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Transcribed pages now marked as copyvio per process. They should probably be speedied. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

The rest of the text is not 'presumably public domain' this text is CROWN Copyright. unsigned comment by 86.179.172.159 (talk) .

Thusly, Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom - if unpublished it won't expire until 2040 at the earliest, Thanks for alerting us to this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so remove the annotations and mark the rest {{PD-nonUK}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
That would need new scans, as the current scans are in good faith assumed to possibly be those of the IP address that has severe concerns about the inclusion of the work here. AS it's unpublished CROWN work, you'd also need the permission of the originating body, which at present isn't document, the Public Record Office of Northenr Ireland is an archive, and not necessarily the true source. All told it's better to delete and start again with KNOWN and comprehensively sourced scans. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Transcriptions of PD works are themselves PD, whether the transcriber likes it or no. In the absence of proper scans of the original document, a {{textinfo}} template is sufficient as per billinghurst's comment above. Since the work is PD in the USA (whether or not it is in the UK or Ireland or wherever this was written), we can host it and we don't need the permission of the author who, if I understand correctly, died ~three hundred years ago. The scans, of course, must be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The IP who complained seems to think otherwise, and it was their research that uncovered the (unpublished) work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sweat of the brow is not copyrightable. Copyright is an intellectual property right, and that right belongs with the writer (exemptions apply). The IP address complained in general about his work, and that is the transcription with annotations, anything else is a presumption. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course if the IP, is amenable to Open Acesss (CC-BY-SA) , with proper academic attributions, they can contact the OTRS queue with an official version. I doubt they would be favourable to that though, given concerns about tue original works status. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
(Aside) It would of course be really useful to historical researchers, if unpublished crown works, older than some fixed period (analgous to those considered unpublished, but created after the 1988 Act). were regarded as OGL equivalent, whilst still technically copyright in perpetuity, it would at the least allow use of them in line with best academic practice. Maybe something to ask the WMUK chapter to ask about? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
That does sound reasonable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Despite the amount of work put into the matter, IP can't claim any copyright, even to release it under CC-BY-SA, on text which they only copied from a work which is already out of any copyright in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
They can in respect of the 'transformative' portions, namely the annotations. Although their inclusion may place the work out of scope of what Wikisource typically includes, as another contributor said at the start of the thread. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
To note that just because the UK government holds the work, that does not make it Crown copyright as it is not the work of the Crown, and the Crown does not cancel property rights on death, and can only inherit property rights where they are prescribed in a personal estate (a will). The work is either unpublished and any publication is a breach of copyright without permission from the author or their heirs of their intellectual property, or it is in the public domain due the period of time since the person's death. I haven't read the copyright laws applicable during the person's life, nor the 1911 legislation that followed. You can read the pertinent successor application at Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 1 and Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 6billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I found that we have some commentary of the law prior to 1911 and the proposal after 1911 at Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/20 (not proofread). If we work on the premise that unpublished works are copyright forever, that means ANY unpublished work/letter/... where the writer or their heir does not give right, then there are many records of history that are going to disappear from our pages and other places. We need to be reasonable and practical in our presentation of records and historical works where the author is long deceased. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
For someone who died in 1639, I tend to agree. Applying principals of publication to the 1600s can be murky -- how did the government gain possession of the works, and did that amount to publication, etc. I don't think there is any way the original can be considered Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Technically, the annotations are not "transformative" -- they are a separate work with their own copyright. The UK's perpetual copyright on unpublished works was eliminated with the 1988 Act, though given 50 years of protection from 1989 (i.e. until 2040) if not published by that point. Not every type of work had a term based on publication -- I think paintings were based on year of death only, and photographs were based on year of creation -- but I think literary works did. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If you remove the annotations your left with a 2 page document that has a copyright that's owned by the CROWN or Crown Copyright - same difference. The documents were transcribed by Edward Thomas Langford and his transcriptions were gifted to James B. Hamilton in 1934, who then gifted the work to the Crown following his death and that's why the document is in PRONI. The original documents are archived in the New York Public Library. The New York Public Library were gifted these documents by the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society in 2007, who were gifted the documents by Edward Thomas Langford's daughter following her death during the twentieth-century. The copyright for the original document is now owned by the New York Public Library and the copyright for the transcribed document is now owned by the CROWN. The original document was written in 1850 not the 1600's and Edward Thomas Langford's book on this subject was published in 1937. unsigned comment by 86.179.172.159 (talk) .

I've put the text itself, with all original text by User:86.179.172.159 removed, at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Caldwell Particulars of history of a North County Irish family. You can see how much there is and what would be kept depending on what the US laws on crown copyright and unpublished materials are. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"owned by the crown" is different than "crown copyright". For the former, the term of copyright is still determined per normal rules; the latter by Crown Copyright terms. If the Crown is gifted a copyright, it does not change into Crown Copyright. I don't think, in the U.S., that transcriptions would get a separate copyright though. The status would solely depend on the copyright of the original text. It sounds like it was by John Caldwell (1769 - 1850) who was born in Ireland but emigrated (actually exiled) to the U.S. around 1800 or so, and lived in the U.S. after that. For the U.S. then... it would depend on the date of publication. How did Langford obtain the documents? If that was by permission of the original heirs, that may have been publication right then. Langford was also American; I see no renewals for any works authored by him in the Stanford book copyright database, so if it was published in 1937, then even if had a copyright notice it would have become PD in 1966 (if it was a book -- or was it an article in another periodical?). It's also a very muddled question as to whether the transfer of the original document would also transfer the copyright -- today that would absolutely not be the case, but it was fuzzier in that era. If it has never been published with explicit permission of the original heirs or copyright holders, then it would be PD as 70pma in the U.S. today. As a U.S. work then, it seems quite doubtful the original is still under copyright. UK laws would not enter into it at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not exactly correct, the US rule is not PD 70pma for works created prior to 1933, rather it's 45 years after the abrogation of common law rights in fixed unpublished works, or 1 January 2003, per the 1976 Act.
If US law applies, mere permission from the heirs would not likely have been publication. The intellectual property inherent in fixed but unpublished works was protected at common law as a fully transferrable property interest until 1978 (for unfixed works it still is). Making the mere transfer a publication would have been contrary to the common law right to assign property. Furthermore, common law cases do not support a private transaction as being "publication" at all, publication generally had to be to the "public" (sometimes an unlimited number of the public).
At the same time, I don't see any basis for deeming publication as 1937. The IP only notes that "Edward Thomas Langford's book on this subject was published in 1937". There is no assertion that the "book on this subject" actually contained the creative work under discussion in any meaningful way under copyright law.--Doug.(talk contribs) 05:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Doug: The US rule for unpublished works is 70pma if they were created before 1978 and not published until 2003 or later. That is why I said if they are still considered unpublished today, they are PD in the US under that rule. (It was 25 years from 1978.) If they were printed without permission, that does not count as publication -- so if no permission from heirs was obtained, they are still "unpublished" and copyright has likely expired. As for publication, it is thornier for sure -- a private transaction would not necessarily do it. "Limited publication" though has often been defined as distribution to a limited number of people, for a limited purpose, and no further rights of distribution. If any of those three tests failed, it was "general publication", which was the type which started the federal copyright clock (and required a copyright notice). I find it rather unlikely they were legally unpublished in the U.S., then legally published in Ireland -- to me it seems most likely they were either 1) legally published a long time ago in the U.S., or 2) (and more likely) never published at all. In either case they would be PD. Lastly, the literary copyright would seem to have been owned by a man who died in 1850. Transcribing it would not create a new copyright, so I don't see what copyright Langford could have owned, and certainly do not see what the Irish government could own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Another argument for deletion: regardless of copyright, this appears to be an excerpt of a larger work (Particulars of history of a North County Irish family), and therefore outside scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be an original source document used (and perhaps reproduced) as part of that work -- it is not simply an excerpt by the author of the 1937 work. So it would have a status separate from that 1937 book (which sounds like itself is PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It is an excerpt of a larger work - Particulars of history of a North County Irish family by Edward T. Langford and published in 1937. unsigned comment by ‪86.179.172.159‬ (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI think it is most likely that the work was created in the United States and first published in Northern Ireland by the government. See my response to Carl Lindberg above for background.

  • Assuming that the transcription by Langford came with authorization to publish, it may have been published after 1934 when the mentioned Hamilton gifted it to some public entity by which it apparently became a public record and made its way into PRONI.
  • Alternatively, Langford may not have gifted the right to publish and PRONI's publication may be unauthorized and therefore not a publication at all under the common law of some as yet undetermined US state, in which case either NYG&BS published it or the copyright protection of the 1976 Act on unpublished works expired on 1 January 2003.
  • There are of course possibilities for intervening publications by Langford or Hamilton but we have no evidence of any.
  • It's also possible that Langford had no authorization to publish, in which case only the heirs of John Caldwell held the common law rights in the work, which would have expired 1 January 2003.

Of these, the last is the least likely and the first (transcriptions gifted with right to publish) seems the most likely. If we assume that Hamilton lived in the UK, then the question arises, what was the status of that work in 1934? It appears that both UK law and common law in the United States would have protected the unpublished work until publication by Northern Ireland as a public record at some date. US protection would have ended on 1 January 2003 if the work was as yet still unpublished. I think it is most likely that the unannotated work was published between 1934 and 2003 and was thus subject to copyright protection in the UK. When did/will that copyright protection expire?--Doug.(talk contribs) 05:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No time soon, the best option is to remove and start again with KNOWN sources, as I've said previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016

All this fuss over what? 1 or 2 pages of a 217 page manuscript. I've transcribed the entire document and annotated it as well. Thank goodness it wasn't put up here or wiki would have tried to take it as well. Clearly wiki is very desperate for material. unsigned comment by 81.132.205.197 (talk) .

Bump - At some point a version of this text+plus the annotations was on Wikisouce (unattributed) here -

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Caldwellb&oldid=5440058 being the earliest I can find, Originally uploaded by User:Caldwellb (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caldwellb) , later extensively edited by an IP, https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.179.168.225&offset=&limit=500&target=86.179.168.225. (who may be the same person), and was present until at least June 2015 when it was put up for deletion seemingly by User:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:William_McDougall (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_McDougall) (https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Caldwellb&direction=next&oldid=5458283) but there's no evidence in that users contribution history of them opening a Proposed Deletions discussion.

The same content was later uploaded in PDF format by a another user, and it's from the PDF that the disputed transcription was made in good faith.

I am still of the view that as this has a very convoluted history, that the original userspace version (which I strongly suspect is where the contested PDF was generated from at some point) is unattributed, and on the basis of the later concerns raised, that this should be deleted, and any future attempt on this made from a KNOWN (and thusly attributed version.). (This is despite the disclaimer that says contributors agree that contributions are made irrevocably under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, which BOTH the inital uploader User:Caldwellb and the IP editor should have had a chance to read when saving their edits.)

Does Wikisource have checkusers? I ask because it would be nice to rule out the possibility that certain users (and the IP) are editing from similar IP's and locations. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194949[edit]

Not necessarily US GOV work as claimed at Commons, Churchill died in the Mid 1950's so.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194950 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194947 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194947 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194966 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194969 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The NARA project uploads were all marked PD-USGov, even though that may not have been the accurate tag. However they were all marked by NARA as "unrestricted", which means they think there are no copyright issues in the U.S. (which is what Wikisource would follow). For Commons... they would be Crown Copyright for sure, so the question is when they were published. Churchill died 1965 but that would have any bearing on the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Should they be brought here from Commons?--Jusjih (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn. These are almost certainly Wartime communications (of an official nature), and it can thus be argued they fall under an expired Crown Copyright or under OGL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

Re.: It's a Beautiful Day[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Denied undeletion.--Jusjih (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. I uploaded the story only after consulting with people at IRC. I don't know what's wrong with it, I own its copyright as the author... Warko has some troubles with me, I don't know why sincerely, but this is very disturbing. Gotta contact OTRS or something to have it restored? --191.112.35.152 06:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you please tell me who Warko is? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Warko is the username of the user who tagged it as non-notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this should have been speedily deleted, since the publication information ("9° Interescolar de Cuentos en español (in Spanish). Santiago, Chile: Universidad Andrés Bello y la Sociedad Chilena de Escritores. p. 54–55. ISBN 978-956-7247-69-1.") is a claim of notability. It's a translation of File:Es un lindo día.pdf, which is hosted on Commons. That should get OTRS; I think we should leave that concern to Commons. (With my hat as a Commons editor on, I will ask that you do get OTRS for that, since it was published before.) It does need to go to the Translation: namespace, since it's not a published translation.
Ultimately, I see no reason not to undelete it. It's possible a Spanish speaker could convince me that this doesn't fit WS:WWI, but the requirements are fairly low, and my glances lead me to believe it was published in a peer-reviewed source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I did not nominate this article for copyright problems or for "troubles with [the author]" -in this case User:Diego Grez-Cañete who posted without login as 191.112.35.152-, I nominated it because of self promotion and lack or notability. You can say that source "is a claim of notability", but it seems to me that is a dubious claim, because this is only a two-page work in a 167-pages book. Second, the article is not a original work in the copyright sense, as the original peer-review source was a collection of articles in Spanish. This could be a derivative source, a translation, but I'm not sure, because I have not read the original one. --Warko (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
WS:WWI does not mention notability, and a dubious claim should generally be discussed instead of speedily deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
In fact, Warko, like journals and magazines, each article, each photo, is actually "a original work in the copyright sense" as you put it. The book, by the way, is available here at the Andrés Bello University website: http://repositorio.unab.cl/xmlui/handle/ria/2148. --191.112.123.150 05:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The ISBN number returns zero hits. A Google search for the publication title, for me, returns enWS/Commons and a blog, no other hits. So we have little or no evidence of publication, just a claim. We have a translated work without an author's permission or evidence of release. We have a translation with neither provenance nor attribution nor evidence of release. No OTRS for either. The work has been added by an IP address. So to me it is Symbol delete vote.svg Delete either for copyright issues, or not meeting notability as defined by WS:WWI. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a Wikisource translation of a work in es.Wikisource and Commons. The original Commons file should have OTRS, but I don't think we should double-down.
As for the work itself, http://www.worldcat.org/title/interescolar-de-cuentos-2007/oclc/183260472 makes it part of a series. It's hard to tell, but I hate to pass judgment on a Chilean work. WS:WWI says "These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication."; I think that if it was published, it was published in a medium that included editorial controls.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep—It looks like this is clearly within scope to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Self promotion and non notability. --Warko (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have an obsession... That is not healthy, buddy. --191.112.61.212 02:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The text is not exactly hosted yet on Spanish Wikisource. True, the source file has an Index page there, and the pages have been proofread, but the work is not transcluded or indexed anywhere. Step one would be to ensure that the work exists there (as required for Wikisource translations), and that the Spanish Wikisource deems it within their scope, and do not plan to delete it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

File:SmFig5 1.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: CC release of the journal article doesnt cover this image, and it should be removed from the PDF. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Used here: Page:Sm_all_cc.pdf/100.

I submit that

(a) the author likely didn't get permission to use this Gary Larson cartoon in the work — either they didn't think about it at all, or they rather dubiously regarded it as a fair use;
(b) regardless of permission, the release of the work under a Creative Commons license cannot possibly serve to release the embedded cartoon under that license.

Delete. Ping: @Lbeaumont: Hesperian 05:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have raised this issue with the author of the work, Richard Jarrard and will let you know his response. Thanks for your patience in this. --Lbeaumont (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I received this reply from Richard Jarrard: "It's been many years, and it is possible, but I doubt, that I received permission to publish the Gary Larson cartoons. Most of the publishers from whom I requested permission to use their quotes did not reply (none refused), and this result was a significant factor in my decision to go online rather than with Columbia University Press. Delete them; humor is valuable but not essential to the point of this book."
I recommend I unlink the Gary Larson materials from text (one cartoon begins each chapter) and mark the cartoon images files for deletion. Do I also have to obscure the images in the pdf image of the corresponding page? (I can do this with photoshop if needed)? Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
We should replace it with a missing image label of some sort, with {{user annotation}} in a group ref to explain why no image. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Index:Sm all cc.pdf[edit]

According to the source of this work[6], "The original work was created by Richard D. Jarrard and remains his intellectual property." The document[7] indicates a 2001 copyright by Mr. Jarrard. So I'm noting this for possible copyright violation. Outlier59 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The work (on page 1) states that it is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Neither of the online versions state that it is released from copyright. The uploaded pdf says the author released it. Don't we need a release from "Richard D. Jarrard Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah"? Outlier59 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
On April 1st, this note was posted to the index talk page: --
"I worked with the author, Richard D. Jarrard, to release the version imported to Wikispaces version under Creative Commons. I mirrored the version at [8] for many years (Note my name in the footer of each page of that website) because the server space provided at the University of Utah was sporadic. Again, this was done with explicit permission of the original author Richard D. Jarrard. Based on this, I request that there is no copyright violation and this issue be closed. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)"
I don't know if someone other than the copyright holder can release the copyright, so I'm leaving that to be decided here by those who know more about it. Outlier59 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Richard D. Jarrard Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah is the author, the copyright owner, and the person who released the version under Creative Commons. The Creative Commons notice appears on the first page, please notice the image at: File:Sm_all_cc.pdf. What seems relevant is that there exists a version properly released under creative commons and it is that version that I imported. Lingering versions without that notice may be interesting, but are not relevant, because no copyrighted version has been imported. How else might this proceed to satisfy your concerns? Is there some obligation to purge all previous versions from all points of issue and use? Perhaps it is best to only point to the on-line version at: https://archive.org/details/sm_all_cc and cite this as the original source. Other versions are irrelevant. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
A free license is not releasing something from copyright. The copyright still exists -- in fact, that is the only way to enforce the terms of the license. So, the fact that copyright is still claimed is quite natural and expected. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Lbeaumont: I found this on Commons today—[9]. They do email confirmations with the copyright holder to confirm that it's OK to publish the work on Commons and Wikisource. They can directly contact Richard D. Jarrard, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, via email. It might take a couple of months to confirm that this is OK to publish here, but I think it's worth a wait to make sure there's no misunderstanding about the authorship and copyright. Since you're his friend, I hope you'll understand this concern about making sure he's not misunderstood. Ask Commons OTRS to confirm, and all should be well. :) Outlier59 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I began this process. I have sent an email to the copyright holder with a copy to the Commons. It has been assigned [Ticket#: 2016041210012785]. --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Richard D. Jarrard, the creator and copyright owner, sent the prescribed email on April 15, 2016. It was assigned Ticket#2016041510015348

Index:Syntax for the Digital Object Identifier : An American National Standard developed by the National Information Standards Organization.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted (by separate review)
NISO is seemingly not a US Gov entity, and this document doesn't have any confirmation it's Creative Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps someone got NISO confused with NIST, which is a US gov entity. The document itself declares copyright, and grants permission to copy "for noncommercial purposes only". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Two possible copyvios[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
I present two deletion candidates for consideration, by pointing to the discussion topics where they were last noted:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#PD-EdictGov_New_Start (above)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:Jusjih#File:Handbook_for_Hennepin_County_Grand_Jurors.pdf

--Elvey (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Something of Myself[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, copyright violation — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like this was first registered for US copyright on 16 February 1937 and properly renewed. It was published in the UK in 1937, don't know exactly date. I would think it reasonably likely that it was published in the UK first and in the US within 30 days. Prosody (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If it wasn't published within 30 days, then the URAA should have restored its copyright. I can't see any good arguments for this being out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Index:2015-16 Street Directory 3-16-2016.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted by separate process
No license at Commons, at best this is a State Gov document, Not Federal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A Brief Note on Affeton..[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted as not in the public domain — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
A Brief Note on Affeton - this is a 20th century document, by the looks of it, but no indication given of the US publication date (if lawfully published at all in the US) or the date of death of the author. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that it is out of copyright in the US. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Seems to be from this webpage, and I would agree that there is no evidence of it being published prior to 1923. I haven't searched for dates of life for author. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Author is John Humphrey Albert Stucley, 1916-1988. I doubt he wrote it before his 7th birthday :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton on Emails - 'I Opted for Convenience'[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept; aligning with decision on video itself — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a news report by Voice of America that is a transcript of a voice report. There was an ogv at Commons that was attached, and it has been deleted as copyright violation as reputedly VOA's work was only reproducible between 1998, and 2013, and that this 2015 work is under copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I just updated Template:PD-USGov-VOA to show that works after June 2013 may not use it.--Jusjih (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that 2013 really made any difference in PD-USGov status for VOA. Their website did become more ambiguous though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the video file has been undeleted as per this discussion at Wikikimedia Commons. All other VOA files will be restored as well. Natuur12 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Index:The Aravidu Dynasty Of Vijayanagara Vol. 1.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, handled elsewhere
Wrong license at commons, the author died in 1955 so this is NOT PD-70 as claimed at commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's sort of awkward to have this conversation at two places at once. Issues of correcting a license at Commons need to be dealt with at Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Index:Small Town.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: work deleted for second time
We had a discussion at Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2013-02#Small_Town (result delete) and subsequent the pages have been transcribed. Prior to just deleting, I am waving this back in from t of the community for their opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the discussion therein came to the correct conclusion; TSR would have had the right to renew the copyright on the magazine and its contents as proprietor of copyright in a composite work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Some poems by Ameen Rihani[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedily withdrawn with {{Pd/1923|1940}} after getting evidence of dates and licence.--Jusjih (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone please check the US license of An Anodyne, The Battle Eternal, The Comedy Divine, The Screens of Life, The Three Golden Threads, Waves of My Life, What Wisdom Sows? If unsure, Canadian Wikilivres will likely accept them.--Jusjih (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jusjih: Rihani's published poetry seems to be released in a collection "Chant of Mystics" in 1921 [10] and it seems his poetical bursts were published all prior to 1923. [11]. Do you have any evidence that the works are actual copyright violations, rather than just without dates and licence? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Just without dates and licence readily known would I ask here. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India[edit]

Published in 1925 (see here), so not PD-1923. Author died in 1956, so not yet PD-India (will be so in 2017). Hrishikes (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete there is next to nothing there, and it is without scans. It will not be missed and can return when out of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Letter of the Six[edit]

A letter written by 6 members of the Romanian community to the president in 1989 (fax date). I see nothing that puts the work into the public domain. [12]billinghurst sDrewth 06:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: agree. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Poseidon (short story)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted; translation under copyright until 2043. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Living translator. No license provided. Hrishikes (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: source website gives no indication of free license. per Carl Lindberg's comments below. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What date was the translation published? (aside from the web) I assume that the 1920 date in the story's header is meant to be the date of the original story, and not of the translation? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. I had assumed (as cited on Poseidon (short story)) that Jack Letourneau, the owner of the website, was the translator, and that the website was therefore the original publication. However, looking again without this assumption, I see that it was in fact translated by Tania and James Stern[13] and was published as early as 1947.[14]Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That Tania and James Stern version is a bit different -- so that is not the translation we have. But the 1947 version looks to be exactly the one. I did find another listing on books.google.com here, also published in 1947, which says it was translated by Clement Greenberg (died 1994). It appears that volume was renewed in 1974. Unless it was first published in a previous year (and it sounds like Schocken only started its U.S. business in 1945) and not renewed, it would seem to be under copyright until 2043. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Good researching. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Satyanusaran[edit]

Translation published in India in 1950 by the author's religious order (see here). Was not PD-India on URAA date. Still not PD in source country as the translator was alive in 1975 (see here). Hrishikes (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Just added the CV template to the page. Note that it would be part of best practice to label the wor so that the author is aware, and others who have an interest can see that issues have been raised. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright check: - Revelations of Divine Love.[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, {{PD/1923|1932}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This is the most commonly known modern transaltion of an important theological work:-

https://archive.org/details/revelationsofdiv1907juli

The problem is that I've not been able to find a death date for the author.

The original work is from the 13th century, and there are some earlier translations on archive.org as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's published before 1923 the date of death of the author/translator doesn't matter. For what it's worth, Warrack died in 1932. [15]Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
On that basis - "Work is PD- Index:" now added, proofread ( minus ads) and is in the process of being validated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Would debate responses be protected by copyright in the United States? I imagine the questions themselves are drafted beforehand and meet the requirement that they be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, but the responses are probably a mix of prepared material of unknown fixity and impromptu expression. Weird gray area. Prosody (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is, whether these were published in a "tangible" medium, that can be "touched". Irrespective of any pre-existing (but unpublished) draft, a speech or verbal debate, by definition, is published "verbally", therefore intangible. You cannot touch spoken words. Therefore these are not copyrightable, IMO. If these were later published in a written form, or as a CD, then that would come under copyright. Hrishikes (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
These matters have had airings before, and there is debate that should be referenced in the archived. People may also be better referencing expert opinion pages rather than stating personal opinions, eg. see https://library.osu.edu/blogs/copyright/2015/09/30/copyright-in-campaigns/billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Doubts with a "new" note in a scan[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm transcribing Costumes of the Canary Islands but I have a doubt with a section because it seems a note made by the person that help to scan it, Per Lillieström . The scans that I upload was made by the Library of the Universidad of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Alfred Diston died more than 100 years ago and it book was published before 1923, so the original work is in public domain.

Should we remove the page with the note? I think it because the note is written by Per Lillieström and it isn't on public domain because doesn't meet the requirements to be, but the rest of the work hasn't any problem and it's on public domain.

I have open a topic in the discussion of the page to clarify that. Thanks in advance.

Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 18:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be deleted from the scan of the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks for your answer. If the solution is delete the page from the scan of the work, I can do it without problems. I will delete the page and upload a new version to Commons. If someone think that it isn't the correct solution, I could revert the new version and upload again the. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 20:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
YesY I have uploaded a new version of the djvu file to Commons and I have reorganized all the pages to synch the text and illustration with its respective scan.
Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If we want the pagination to match the original, there there should probably be a blank page between the front cover and the title page. It is very rare for Title pages to be odd-numbered pages, because those are on the left (back) side of the page. The current arrangement would also suggest that the plates were on the backs of the accompanying descriptions, but the norm would be to have plates on the right (odd pages) and description on the preceding (even, left) pages. Again, if a blank page were inserted between the cover and title, this would be corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Interesting observation. Before to make another changes I'm going to wait more comments about it, because it could avoid work on a whim, and it's important to have it correct. Only one thing more, should be add a blank page without scan or do you think that I should re-upload the first djvu version?
Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 22:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Inserting any blank page in the appropriate location would work. The first scan, probably not, since it included a Nota in Spanish. And based on discussion above, I understand that the Nota was not part of the original. and is still under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
All right, I understand and you're right, the Nota was no part of the original and the author is alive, so it isn't in public domain. About the blank page, how would be the correct way to make it? Should I add it to the djvu file or should I add manually adding in the index a link to a page to be created in blank? I would like to know the best way to avoid to reorganize again all the work like I have had to do with the new djvu file. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 22:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It ought to be in the dvju file. Any other way would cause more problems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay... So I understand that I will have to reorganize again the work to the same numeration. I will try to do it tonight. Thank you for your comments EncycloPetey. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 23:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we take a step back here. What evidence do we have that the notes are added by another person? To me a publication of just images would be an unusual issue, especially of the size of the work as it is, and would then be halved in size with no descriptive text. The original scenarios portrayed doesn't ring true for a published work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: my evidence to say that is added by another person is in the last fragment of the note ―you can check here the note―: "Han transcurrido más de 150 años..." ―"More than 150 years have passed..."―. Then I suppose that the name, Per Lillieström ―a swedish artist if I'm not wrong―, is the author of that note. It's also written in third person, because the note refers to "Alfred Diston" and not talk about himself.
About the work and the quantity of text/images, I can say that the works is based mainly in its drawings and descriptions that he wrote. However, the works was discontinued and there is only a "Part 1".
Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 23:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a new djvu file with the blank page, but I have doubts so I would like to confirm one last time if I should upload a new version with a blank page an reorganize all the work to match the scans with the text and illustrations. I await your response.

Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 23:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are just removing the introductory notes for the new facsimile, yes, please do that. I misread/misunderstood some of what was being expressed. We just need to replace that single page. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
All right! I will upload and reorganize the work as soon as possible. When I will have everything do it I will notify you to be sure that is correct. Thank you EncycloPetey and billinghurst. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 23:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @Billinghurst: Everything do it! Index pagelist changed and, text and illustrations reorganized. Could anyone of you check the index to be sure that is everything correct? When you confirm me, I will add the work to Template:New texts. Thanks in advance. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Talk Plume pen w.png 00:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My Struggle[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, as requested by contributor, as CV. Existing translation identified as being copyright until 2039.
Text matches with the translation by w:Ralph Manheim, see second paragraph of My Struggle/In The House Of My Parents quoted here. The work was published in 1992 by Pimlico, London (see here) and republished in 1998 by Houghton Mifflin, Boston (see here). Originally published by Houghton Mifflin in 1943 as per Wikipedia article on the translator. Translator died in 1992. Hrishikes (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's Renewal R509011, so it will be in copyright until 2039.
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only a WS translation should be accepted without clear evidence of translator and public domain status. No earlier translation is known than Manheim version, so it seems unlikely that another version will appear in the public domain prior to 2039. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Protected both the pages "My Struggle" and "Mein Kampf" and added a note that refers users to this page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hours Spent in Prison[edit]

PD in US obviously, but do we know anything about the translator? I've been pressing ahead with the scans (Index:Hours Spent in Prison.djvu) in good faith, but would like to be sure about the translation being un-encumbered outside the US. Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sources turned up little. She published a couple things in 1908-1909, and I'm guessing her last name was actually Galińska. Someone who knew Polish might find something else, but if she was twenty (which seems young), life expectancy for a 20 year old in the UK in 1905[16] would have put her dead on average in 44 years, or 1952. If she was 40, her life expectancy would be another 28 years, or 1936. That's not comfortable for a life+70, but seems fairly safe for a life+50.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I queried as I'd not been able to find her lifespan on Google. I'd checked the UK records at freebmd, but they didn't turn up anything under the unaccented version of the name. (That site didn't like the accented version of the surname.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Cabinet Manual[edit]

So Cabinet Manual appears to be a copy paste out of this PDF: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf. On the last page of the PDF, it states that the work is under crown copyright: "© Crown copyright 2011". I was under the impression that, unless explicitly released, crown copyright covered through year of publication + 50 years.

It's not a scan-backed work so there's no source file on the commons/wikisource servers. But the actual text of the PDF seems to have been copy-pasted into enWS on the page linked. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters; it's a work of government and hence is PD in the USA and therefore hostable here (see {{PD-GovEdict}}). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
... Are you sure? I was under the impression that works of the US Federal Government were explicitly free of copyright as a matter of policy. The same not being true of other countries. Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
So would the PDF be allowed to be uploaded to enWS only or could it be uploaded to commons even though it's not free of copyright in its originating country (the UK)? Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Works of government "local or foreign" are PD in the USA and can be hosted on enWS. I believe that Commons requires it to be free in its originating country in order to host there. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It is licensed under the UK Government's Open Government Licence. See bottom of Cabinet Manual page for details. Kaihsu (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

... So it's under copyright, but then explicitly the copyright is waived? So it could be uploaded to Wikimedia servers? Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is copyright. No, the copyright is not “waived”. The material is licensed using a licence that allows Wikisource to include it here. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

yes, thank you - crown copyright, has a work around with open license. the right license tempate is at the bottom of the work. it is not PD as in the US. please do not say that User:Beleg Tâl it will get us in trouble. see also [17] it is also fair dealing rather than fair use. welcome to international copyright madness. Slowking4RAN's revenge 02:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is public domain in the USA. The relevant legislation says "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." [18]Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Umm, except it unlikely to be an edict of government. An edict is more likely to be legislation through a parliament, subsidiary rule passed contingent upon legislation, or executive orders. This is guidance to government that basically sets out conventions, and processes and it otherwise explanatory of "how it is". All that said, it is released with a licence that allows us to host it. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It is OGL 3.0 according to here as the default and not otherwise licenced. FWIW we should consider updating and versioning our OGL licences. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology (1916).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: moved to enWS from Commons — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
PD-US, obviously, but as Jung died in 1961, meaning this might not be PD outside the US.

The translator given seems to have died in the mid 1920's, but cannot pin down a more specfic date.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done File has been moved locally. We should convert the file to use the {{book}} template, and add {{do not move to Commons|expiry=2032}}billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Irish government copyright[edit]

I'm trying to understand our position relative to some Irish works (namely airplane crash investigation reports because I am a one-trick pony, as they say.) Anyway, I'm interested in this particular report: [19]. (Link is to the Air Accident Investigation Unit website, but not direct to the PDF.) Anyway, the accident happened in 1953, and the report was released 17 June 1953. There is no actual copyright statement within the report itself, but the terms & conditions page says, among other things, "All material on this site is Government copyright unless stated otherwise. Copyright is implied irrespective of whether a copyright symbol or a copyright statement is displayed."

So this seems to imply Government copyright on the report. The Wikipedia page for copyright law of Ireland appears to say in a bit of a convoluted fashion that Government copyright is good for 50 years after the publish date, which means that this report went out of copyright in 2003.

Is this an accurate analysis? I don't want to try uploading the file to Commons without being certain, and I've never worked with this particular government copyright before. (And I'm not sure which copyright tag to use in this case either.) Thanks, Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I would suggest that you look at the law of copyright in Ireland and see whether the 50 year release of government docs is accurate. I would suspect that it would be the case based on UK law that has flowed out through Australian, and New Zealand law that crown copyright (or its kin) gets 50 years, however, the devil is in the detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
On second look, I think that regardless of what the website is claiming, it's in the public domain because it was created "by an officer or employee of the Irish Government or State in the course of his or her duties, created before 1st January 1966" ({{PD-IrishGov}}). I guess I can ask over at Commons like I did with the Australian reports for clarification. Mukkakukaku (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Freedom Charter[edit]

The Freedom Charter is a 1955 South African work, but it seems that it's another publicity piece that was never put under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Index:British Free Corps pamplet.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Based on an examination of the linked Wikipedia article, I'm not convinced that the copyright license at Commons is correct. This item is not necessarily a Crown work as claimed, and seems to be an a private effort by an individual who died in 1981.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been deleted (by me) at Commons as an apparent copyvio. The British Free Corps was a unit of the Waffen SS, so Crown Copyright is a ludicrous claim. German law would consider it in copyright unless we could show the author died before 1946. Since it looks like a modern forgery, that is quite unlikely. Revent (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)